Talk:Parkland high school shooting

Sourcing 'second deadliest'

Is the only way to correctly source the statement "second-deadliest high school shooting in U.S. history" to wait and see if the media report it?

Would it be WP:SYNTH to do just compare a list on WP of school shootings? Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep. But they almost surely will, as always, if not yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Google sees the ninth-deadliest mass shooting in (modern) America and the second-deadliest snake in a garden hose. Either of those do anything for you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, while I wasn't the editor who originally added the statement, I have always found this a bit of a confusing area between WP:SYNTH and WP:CALC. Murchison-Eye (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hot off the press is El Paso Proud. Mostly a TV channel, it seems. First-deadliest high school shooting if only topped by Sandy Hook. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Sandy Hook was an elementary school. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Understood. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

I would object to such charatarization- As an encyclopedic tone we should be reporting fact not opinion. Saying that something is "the second deadliest.." anything is an opinion and not a fact, and therefore has no place on wikipedia. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"Deadliest" means most people killed, and would be fact. "Worst" shooting would be an opinion. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not quite- some people might be more prone to dying than others in an equal situation depending upon variables other than the nature of the given situation itself. - therefore, to say that something is more deadly simply because more people died is subjective rather than objective. We need objective facts rather than subjective facts AKA opinion. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK "deadliest" is an after-the-fact assessment of something that already happened, not a statement of the survivability of the incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The Infobox

The Infobox says

Deaths 16

Non-fatal injuries 14 Hospitalized

My problem is with the term Non-fatal injuries which I believe should be changed to Wounded. Who's to say the injuries suffered by those in hospital are not fatal. Heaven forbid, but..... Earlier today it said Deaths 1+ Non-fatal injuries 20+ Sixteen of those so called non fatal injuries were actually fatal injuries. Had the word Wounded been in the infobox then, the report would have been accurate (as it would be now if Wounded was there.Moriori (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)(forgot to sign)

This is just a standard infobox template and is the same on any article on a civillian attack. However, the numbers of Dead and Non-fatal injuries changed as new infomation was released. It's quite possible all those people had already died and it had just not been reported. Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I KNOW it is standard, but my point is that it shouldn't be. It's possible some of the wounded may die too. So let's call them WOUNDED, which they are, and not ascribe to them Non-fatal injuries, which they may not be.Moriori (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Its standard for the template, but the phrasing will be inaccurate during a developing story when we don't have the complete data on injuries like we would on a shooting in the past. When things are all said and done we will get more precise numbers of the course of the next few days/weeks. The best practice imo for active stories would be probably to not use the Non-fatal injuries(injuries) line until we have the detailed facts. I have changed it from Non-fatal injuries to victims for the time being. We can change this later when we can be more precise for non-fatal injuries. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moriori: The word "wounded" is typically used when someone is shot or knifed. There may be injuries resulting from attempts to escape, people falling down, broken glass cuts, etc. There may also be people with asthma or cardiac attacks during or shortly after the assault. Some people get treated on site and others are transported to a hospital for treatment but were not "wounded" by gunfire. They all get classified as "Non-fatal injuries." --Marc Kupper|talk 22:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be my opinion that the text of the standard infobox needs to be changed accordingly. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Fatal wounds only turn fatal at the moment of death. It's the grave, mortal or critical wounds that eventually kill or sometimes heal. The dead, on the other hand, remain wounded forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Since somebody feels the need for me to explain the plainly obvious: the dead are also victims. Using "victims" to cover the injured/hospitalized is stupid. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

17 dead, 14 hospitalized (other) victims. They are all victims, but the hospitalized victims aren't the only non-fatal injuries, people were treated on scene as well, we don't know if all of them went to hospital or if others weren't required too. As discussed above, and in the <! comment I placed, it would be best to not used "non-fatal injuries", until we have the complete facts. The only number we have is deaths and hospitalized. Treating the hospitalized as the only injuries isn't accurate, and the "hospitalized" part isn't even used in that field. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

They are all victims - My point exactly, there is significantly more than 14 victims. There are 14 hospitalizations which we don't have a parameter for and tend to use injuries in its stead. Although your entire argument can be used word for word to say that treating the hospitalized as the only [victims] isn't accurate [either], and the "hospitalized" part isn't even used in that field. In fact the hospitalized part was used in the field and stated exactly the same thing that was written under "victims". Except that I can demonstrate that there were more victims than 14, but I can't demonstrate that there were more non-fatal injuries than 14. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue wasn't really about victims vs injured, it was about addressing the initial concern brought up about using the phrase non-fatal injuries. As I said it probably would be best to not use that line in infobox until full details are released. I guess using either line still brings up same issue. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems more people are bothered by incorrect use of victims, than are concerned that some of the non-fatally injuried may have been fatally injured maybe. Murchison-Eye (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Now we've some offended person subtracting one from the non-fatally injured because she feels hospitalized suspects aren't victims. Maybe someone else thinks hospitalized bullies aren't. Or alcoholic cheerleaders. We didn't have to get morally subjective and nitpicky when we were talking about those plainly hurt but not killed. Math and emotion don't mix, and "victim" is a "strong word". Nevermind that yes, the dead were also rather harshly victimized (some advocates might say worse than the living, I say it's bad all around). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Are you proposing anything? From a crime standpoint here are victims of murder and victims of aggravated assault. There may also be injuries unrelated such twisted ankles from running and other categories I've left off. I can't figure out what you are asking for except you seem to be upset about something (i.e. no math, lots of emotion). --DHeyward (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm proposing changing it back to "non-fatal injuries", so we can avoid having to decide philosophical things like whether dead people are victims if they can't suffer, whether someone can be victimized after victimizing someone else or whether twisting your own ankle makes you the perpetrator's victim or your own. When we were simply counting hospital admittance and moving the ones who die to the Deaths field, the numbers in the box matched the story in the body. Now we're one short in the box, despite that one being the only one whose injury is featured in the lead. He's still included in the official tally we deduced 14 injured from. It doesn't add up, contrasting victims and death. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:43, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

And now I've changed it back, for hopefully clear reasons. If anyone feels like changing it back to the unusual way, please also provide clear reasons or some indication of what "full details" or "complete facts" entail. Can't wait for something if we don't know what to look for. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:39, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

"prayers and condolences"

Should "prayers and condolences" link to Thoughts and prayers? This event is currently mentioned there. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't condole without thinking. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Watch me108.46.142.168 (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna do it, maybe it's too political, but it seems like a perfectly good example of "thoughts and prayers" to me Zaya (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The shooting was linked on the Thoughts and prayers page already, so I'm definitely adding it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iking5 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

And it doesn't belong in that article since this article doesn't even contain that phrase. You can't use bad stuff to justify other bad stuff. Even the indiscriminate linking of "thoughts and prayers" to Thoughts and prayers is under discussion at WP:NPOVN, with no clear consensus yet. This case violates NPOV even more in my opinion, and I'm removing the link until we have a clear local consensus for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel like the phrases needs to be piped/linked to Thoughts and prayers. I definitely don't think it needs to be linked in the See Also section, which it previously was yesterday. I also don't feel like this article needs to be linked from the thoughts and prayers article, per the reasons Mandruss pointed out, but that is a separate issue for a separate talk page. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's an editorially sneaky link, especially in a quote, linking to a concept that may or may not be relevant in the context of the quote. It's basically subtle snarky commentary. MOS:LWQ states: Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. We don't need to link to every damn thing on Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

An editor just tried to add back the link, and their editsum helpfully illustrates exactly why it shouldn't be linked. It is not our job to "show [perceived] hypocrisy of politicians", and that turns content policy on its head. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is just a one sided political issue, if you look at the article there is a defense on the matter so the reader would make up their own mind on a conclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If thoughts and prayers is a phrase notable enough to warrant an article, and the politician's usage of it is notable enough to be reported in this article, then it seems natural to provide a link. All we are showing is a link to a relevant article. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, although to the other side's credit the linked article could use some balancing work. The article issues though can always be fixed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Animalparty has it right calling it "editorially sneaky". If somebody wants to address an issue of "thoughts and prayers" or similar vis-a-vis Trump, there are articles where that can be done with the support of reliable sources, subject to the usual content policy. This is not such an article, and we're damn sure not going to allow the inference by subtle wikilinking without RS support. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If that was ever inside a quotation, it no longer is. So how about we just change "prayers and condolences" to "sympathy" and call it a day. That's acceptable paraphrasing, no? Is somebody going to be tempted to link "sympathy" to Thoughts and prayers? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't really care to be honest, its just a wikilink. My opinion stands though on that the reader should make the decision for themselves on what they believe. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of the Slate article that Trump and others are consciously avoiding "thoughts and prayers"? If anything, that should be the context we mention it in.--Pharos (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

its just a wikilink. WP:NPOV disagrees. Go there and find "wikilinks". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The article should stay on topic and not go into this debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that sums it up quite nicely. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I had some understanding for Mandruss's concerns when I thought that the phrase was just mentioned in passing. I now see that it is given much more prominence, i.e. we mention the reaction of the student survivors to that phrase specifically. It now seems entirely unreasonable not to provide a link. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems silly to omit the wikilink given the discussion of this very topic in that section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Leave Trump's prayers and condolences alone. Change "Some of the student survivors criticized the response, asking politicians to get things done to protect more children from dying in shootings rather than just offer condolences." to: "Some of the student survivors criticized the response, asking politicians to get things done to protect more children from dying in shootings rather than just offer thoughts and prayers." ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think any of the students mentioned "thoughts and prayers" though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's ok, it's not a quotation. Thoughts and prayers is a fair paraphrase of condolences, and it corresponds to the target article title. Condolences would be too MOS:EGGy. And nobody seems to have any problem with the difference between "prayers and condolences" and "thoughts and prayers". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not have a particularly strong opinion on where it should be linked. I do feel strongly that it should be linked, as it is obviously pertinent. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking does advise to "link the term's first occurrence", and that happens to be Trump's comment. I do not understand why exactly we should not link it there, especially now that the article Thoughts and prayers discusses Trump's newly coined variation of the phrase. Then again, linking later on is better than not linking at all. Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Good, then we're close to a hard-fought consensus. The question now is what will constitute a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The appropriate place to mention thoughts and prayers is after the Trump quote in a sentence about politicians' avoidance of the phrase, and before the statement by the students.--Pharos (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Too tangential to an article about a shooting, which has nothing to do with the thoughts and prayers issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Linking is one thing we could do here, but any discussion about the phrase being avoided I think should be in the Thoughts and prayers article itself, not here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: If you'll support my proposal, I'm prepared to call it a consensus and hopefully we can move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Then we shouldn't link it, because he didn't actually use that phrase, and the RS on this topic is all about how remarkable it is that he and others have deliberately avoided it.--Pharos (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: Oh sorry, I didn't see you were objecting to the content where I propose to put the link. That's a whole different matter, and I actually agree with you. But if it were removed, I would still strongly oppose the link of Trump's prayers and condolences. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you please clarify why? I do not quite understand why we should not link to an article which discusses his usage of that particular phrase in the context of this very event. Surtsicna (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm weary but I'll try. I'm simply not comfortable with applying that context, particularly in an article that is not about that issue. People who have worked with me on these articles will tell you that I'm a stickler for staying very close to the subject. I'm for saying that Trump offered his sympathy to the families of the victims, but I'm against delving into the political ramifications of the offer. At that point we're not talking about the shooting anymore, we're talking about U.S. politics. And that includes a simple wikilink. Does that help? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It does, somewhat, but I have to note that the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Aftermath section is already all about the political ramifications. In that context, a wikilink hardly shifts the focus in any direction. If we do not want to delve into politics, it would be more efficient not to mention what appears to be a politically controversial statement by a politician. Once we do mention it, we are already there and the link is just a service to the readers. Besides, we already link to Gun politics in the United States. Surtsicna (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I need sleep. When I return I'll decide whether this is really worth any more of my time and energy. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Back from sleep. Yeah, this discussion now fails my cost-benefit analysis. It's going in 3 or 4 directions at once, which is a recipe for no consensus on anything. I'm out, thanks for the stimulating debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree in I still don't feel the prayers and condolences should be piped. I feel your proposal is better but just seems to be a compromise and just paraphrases the students wording instead of piping Trumps to get the link in. I wouldn't object if it was put into article that way, but can't say I support it. The phrase will end up in the article eventually if there ends up being a subsection on criticism of responses. Sources are discussing the issue (with that exact phrasing)[1] [2] [3], and the Marco Rubio issue that was also brought up here on talk page, it may in the long run warrant an subsection. But for now the responses should be left to the specific responses themselves, and after some time(at least a week) we can insert any lastings criticisms brought up of them. Reason being as a lot of these criticisms are just immediate reaction-ism. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Possibly at some point we could mention "thoughts and prayers-type responses", if the sources support that.--Pharos (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should link to "thoughts and prayers" to show uselessness of these condolences and the inaction of lawmakers. Mikus (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you read it yourself? "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to ... explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue ... you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media" Was not the hollow nature of "thoughts and prayers" reported in mainstream media? How more mainstream than the New York Times you need? You should not care about MY reasons for linking as long as it does not contradict with the WP, and it does not in this case. Mikus (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To bring this discussion back to its original basis: the Manual of Style on linking within quotes states: (emphasis added): "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after." Thus, it is misleading and disingenuous to link to Thoughts and prayers in a direct quote like "sending thoughts and condolences", "sending prayers", or "praying for the people of..." It might however be acceptable (not mandatory) to link to Thoughts and prayers in the context of secondary sources that directly describe perceived lack of sincerity or initiative, but it should be apparent, not sneaky and not in Wikipedia's voice. While readers are free to make their own judgement, we should not assume anything about political figures' intentions or actions that is not explicitly supported by reliable secondary sources. Similarly, if someone says "God is Great", it would be sneaky and misleading to link to God is the Greatest or Attributes of God in Christianity. I implore everyone to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, at least the first section on Principles, for why we link and how to avoid under- or over-linking, and links likely to confuse or to compete with each other for clicks. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Aye, nothing nebulous in the quote. Link outside or don't link. Quotelinks are best for people and places. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

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: [4][5][6], 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. [7] 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.

C v K and middle Jesus confusion

I see no present mention of this misreporting controversy. I believe we should mention this initial misperception and how it was corrected somewhere. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not controversial. A hard C sounds like a K. The "middle Jesus" is also just a mispronunciation gone wrong in people's heads. Confusion is only notable if it's a harmful blunder or meant to deceive. Or if it totally changes the story, like when CNN said a SEAL team killed Obama. This is more like calling Jenn "Jen", briefly. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

The actual middle name of the suspect starts with the same letter as Jesus but I think it's different enough that it wouldn't be confused. I think part of the problem was someone found someone with a similar name who was a registered Democrat and this was used to counteract the MAGA hat-wearing. Will have to see if this shows up in any of the coverage. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's actually his surname and starts with the same letter as "dos Anjos" (a D that isn't alphabetized or capitalized). Day-Hay-Zoose. Calling him plain Hay-Zoose is as wrong as calling the guy the SEALS actually(?) killed "Osama Laden". I'm way less certain of how subtle counteraction against hats in America complicates things to a notable level, but it definitely seems like it might. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't that "Jesus" is correct, just that we have had some sources reporting that name. For example http://www.statesman.com/news/national/who-nicolas-jesus-cruz-accused-gunman-florida-high-school-attack/f4nUMhismcSpZ0wqHi7GLK/ it is clearly visible in the URL, although they seem to have corrected the C>K and Jesus isn't actually used in the body. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"De Jesus". It's not in the URL because it's a mere nobiliary particle, but it's still real. Means "of". InedibleHulk (talk) 07:50, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Here's someone named Lord on behalf of WFTV (double-you-eff-tee-vee) and Cox Media Group (cocks-a-midi-a-grew-puh) attributing the name to the Associated Press (eh-pee). Doesn't get much more vouched for than that. Of course, by the time you read this, someone might have erased it, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Also you can see by visiting this WIBC (FM) article http://www.wibc.com/news/national/florida-police-17-people-dead-many-more-14-injured-high-school-shooting that it links to https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/963894538485075969 which states "BREAKING: Florida School Shooter Identified as Nicolas de Jesus Cruz, a Former Student at The School - Miami Herald" which makes me wonder which Miami Herald article might have said this. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The first one, I'd guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:05, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

The maternal “de Jesus” came in from fake news propagated on social media that claimed voter registration records had been discovered for the shooter and that he was a registered democrat. Turns out, that was a totally different person named Nicolas de Jesus Cruz. There really should be an article written about how quickly people on social media immediately try pinpointing voter registration records in an effort to sway public opinion and politicize national tragedies by villifying their opposition, assuming both sides do this. What would you coin that rush to judgement? ev (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I’d have to say based on what I’ve read, the suspect Nikolas Jacob Cruz wasn’t registered to vote, but seems to be a clear Trump supporter, or at least that genre of public persona. ev (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.[8] ―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)

Infobox person

Resolved

 – for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As this is not a biography of the shooter, I'd be happy with a simple thumbnail of the mugshot in place of {{Infobox person}}. Takers? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

At the moment the infobox just has the picture and birthday, I don't feel like the DOB is necessary, and I'm not sure if that exact date is sourced in article. Even if It is, I think simply the picture and the description is enough. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be modified. I only added it as it is modelled off the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting perp's box. Note: The birthdate comes from Broward County Sherrifs office records at [9]-Kiwipat (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I meant I wasn't sure that any of the sources in article were there to support it. We aren't suppose to used public records for DOBs anyways, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, if that were all we were going to put in the infobox there's no way we could justify it. I just wondered whether we intend to fill it out, and I'm opposed to that since it's not a Cruz bio. Some articles do, such as 2014 Isla Vista killings, others don't, such as Orlando nightclub shooting, so it's apparently a matter of who shows up for the discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume because the Isla Vista killing's killer doesn't have a Wikipedia page, they just used the shooting's article for it. The Pulse shooter has his own article so including it in Orlando shootings page wasn't necessary. Similar with Seung-Hui Cho and the Virginia Tech shooting. I haven't looked at all shooting cases, but those were a few examples. I feel like eventually there will be a article for Cruz as he was arrested and coverage will continue for a while with every court related decision made. Extensive coverage will last even longer if he doesn't plead guilty and there is a trial. That being the case, part of reason why I believe we don't need it here.WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I did it.[10] If and when we decide to use it, and have enough data to fill it out, it's easy enough to put back. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Many people don't want to see images of individuals involved in this kind of article. Use the same rational as in 2017 Las Vegas shooting. For more details about the suspect, create a separate article and link to it. We already had this kind of discussion before! --My-wiki-photos (talk) 21:03, 18 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. [11][12]- 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)

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" [13] — 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)

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" [14]

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)

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)

Removed list of victims

I removed a list of victims present on the page because it was completely unsourced. Wikipedia normally requires citations for this type of content; this standard should be rigorously enforced for lists of victims of recent shootings. Spirit of Eagle ontrast(talk) 23:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Edit: The list has been cited to a CNN article, which is in turn cited to the Sheriff (amongst other sources). My concerns have been addressed, and I see no further reason to exclude the list. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal -- wikipedia is not a memorial. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - We have a list over at Columbine High School massacre, I know there is WP:OSE but these aren't just nobody people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This is public information with multiple new sites and television channels reporting the names TheHoax (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Let's wait for more information before publishing a list of names, and personal details. There shouldn't be a rush.2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• The names and ages are public though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said that all of the families were notified and the names have been released. TheHoax (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I added a CNN source in the other (killed) Victims names section. And now after table was put back in after your removal, I added the citation to main article.
• Alphabetize it I tried, but failed. Considered trying again, but remembered the last time. Didn't go so well. Kids-first isn't the Wikipedia way. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

Do you want first or last name first? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That was quick. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

I would bold the names as it doesn't look right otherwise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't not bold them, if you know what I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

• DELETE LIST As I already said above, We do not add lists of victims' names here on WP just because they are published in news sources. It's a consensus that has existed for years, to avoid shrines being created. WP is not the news either. Those who want to find names of the dead can and do go to relevant news websites. The existence of sources to cite is not relevant, and the list ought to be removed.--Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the deadliest high school massacre the nation with the greatest number of high school massacres has ever known. Do you think we'd be talking/thinking/writing about Nick Cruz if Nick Cruz showed up on Sunday and merely startled (or even killed) the janitor? A lot of people literally gave their lives to make this article, and the least it can do is acknowledge their attendance that day. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, InedibleHulk, but that does not make much or any sense. It is an insult to the victims to suggest that they died in order to create a Wikipedia article. I would hope that would be their loweset priority. MPS1992 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

They didn't willingly do it. But this event and this guy are known for nothing but their deadliness, and deadliness without the dead is absolutely nothing. If I couldn't see how 17/18ths of the actors in this story play a significant enough part in making it what is was to warrant one line each, I'd be sorry, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

I feel the names are notable in the context of the event which they are presented as such. We aren't creating articles about these people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus not to add victims names into the related Wikipedia articles, as it has been done before for several other shootings. It can't be a consensus not to include if it regularly happens. You can oppose having the list but you can't falsely claim there is a multi-year establish consensus. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete the list per Ohconfucius' explanation above. MPS1992 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion The list, now that it is cited, should stay on the grounds that the list of victims is encyclopedic information needed to understand the shooting. This inclusion is a reasonably accepted editing convention, as demonstrated by the articles on the Virginia Tech shooting, Columbine High School massacre, the Bath School disaster, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the University of Texas tower shooting (just to name a few school shootings). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I just want to make it clear that InedibleHulk oppose deletion per his comments above. TheHoax (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh? If Hulk opposes deletion then he can always write his own comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I already did. A few times. If he wants to make it clear with his, I'm fine with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal - Per WP:ONUS, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. I ask myself how much real reader value there is in these names, and myself answers, "Not much". The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. I ask myself whether I would want my name in such a list, or whether I would want my sister's name in such a list, and myself answers with a resounding "F no" to both questions. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. And "well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully those are your opinions on the matter, another reader might find the names useful and we have no way to know how the families feel other than they consented to having their loved ones names released. WP:ONUS mentions consensus on the matter which is being held here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I understand how consensus works, but thanks anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal/delete list - A list of non-notable victims is not only unencyclopedic, it's incredibly insensitive to the survivors and is contrary to WP:BLPPRIVACY. Also, Wikipedia is NOTAMEMORIAL.- MrX 🖋 02:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BLPPRIVACY does not apply per "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". The victim's families released the names to the media so they are widely published. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal - I don't see any real encyclopaedic value in having "victim lists". While WP:NOT refers to article subjects, I am immediately reminded of Wikipedia is not a memorial in these cases. This is the place to record summations of events and leave readers with a better understanding of them. I also think of "not everything". A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. In other words, just because a detail is known, that doesn't automatically qualify it for incorporation into an article. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL is the same as WP:NOT in that it refers to the article subjects. Memorials: Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of this. That's why I said "While WP:NOT refers to article subjects ...". What I meant is that I still think of NOTMEMORIAL even though it refers to article subjects. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This article would not exist but for the deaths of the human beings included in the list. I think that their identities are necessary information needed to contextualize the shooting. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

With specificity, what context do they provide? Mr rnddude (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If we don't include this basic identifying information, the article basically turns the loss of life into a statistical analysis. This focus is inaccurate, and fails to convey the impact and losses caused by the shooting. I'll also add that since Columbine most respectable media sources have attempted to transition away from solely focusing on the killers and their victim count, and to give far more coverage to the actual victims. Even if my specific reasoning is unconvincing, the media's focus on the victims indicates that their identity is relevant information that belongs in coverage of a shooting. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a reason I asked you to explain what context they provide: Names don't explain the event. i.e. the names don't provide context to the circumstances. What you're arguing is entirely different. The media's job is different to the encyclopaedia's. Whereas the media draws on emotion, we don't pay attention to it. From my perspective, the function of an encyclopaedia is summarize. It's not an analysis in itself, it's a summation of existing analyses. The names of victims, even perps, are irrelevant towards analysing the event; e.g. how or why it happened. I don't see how the names of the victims go towards achieving that goal, although I don't see it necessarily detracting from it either. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The entire article is about a shooting that killed and wounded people. The names (along with the age and occupation) of the victims are important qualitative information that are needed to better understand the nature of the deaths. I really do not see this as a ploy to emotions, but as necessary information that should be included along with more statistical information. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want to propose that we summarize ages, genders, etc, in prose, go ahead. I don't think that would violate WP:NOR. ("Chris" is gender-ambiguous and would need some RS research.) But please explain to me how individuals' names are "important qualitative information". Explain to me how a reader's understanding of the shooting would be changed one iota if we substituted completely fictitious names in that list. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, you hit the nail on the head. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This article exists because seventeen people were killed. We cannot accurately describe the event without describing the individuals who lost their lives. A list of names and other information such as age and occupation depicts this information in the most comprehensible format. Changing the names of these people would mean that the article contained inaccurate information, which is bad in and of itself. We could also change the name of the shooter, high school, city, etc. to fictitious names without substantially impacting the readers' understanding of the event, but we don't do this because this would be inaccurate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We cannot accurately describe the event without describing the individuals True, but we can accurately describe the event without naming them. That is the whole point. A name is an arbitrary label, not a description. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's it, you just earned yourself a "Tony". As in, I'm going to call you Tony. From this day forward. People will know who I mean. Sound fine to you, Tony? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

Call me whatever you like, except late for supper. If you have a relevant point, feel free to make it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - Seeing as how the lists are ALSO included on the Orlando nightclub shooting; the Dunblane Massacre; La Mon restaurant bombing; the 2014 Isla Vista killings etc. too. Uniform consensus for articles like this is needed, so it seems. The last time I checked (and it was over a year ago): "NOT refers to the subjects of articles, not lists within articles".--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  Seeing as how the lists are ALSO included... - That reasoning effectively kills WP:CCC and therefore is anti-policy. In contrast, there is no Wikipedia policy—or guideline—about inter-article consistency on things like this. This is a concept invented by some editors without explicit community consensus for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There was a guy. He shot up a school. Some people died

Why does the name of the perpetrator matters? Why does the name of the school matters?

It could just be any guy with guy shooting up any school, and it could have been anyone that died. TheHoax (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove. Tact.

WikiVirus, just for the record, do you support or oppose? ev (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I oppose Support votes meaning to delete, and Oppose votes meaning to keep. Seriously though, I didn't really like how this discussion started based on the list being in article unsourced, then votes started appearing and it became whether it should be in article or not, and then it just kept going after the initial concern was addressed and striked. I'm just gonna abstain from a vote as I don't feel a consensus is going to be reached either way, and any result is just gonna end up the other side calling the discussion invalid with the way it started. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with said morphing. It simply saves us a separate thread, which I guarantee would have been necessary. I also disagree that no consensus will be reached. I for one wouldn't challenge a 50% + 1 consensus against me, as it's not all that earth-shattering an issue to me, and I would hope to see the same from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I would hope to see that as well. I don't feel the list being in or out of the article is that big of an issue either, otherwise I might have made a subsection for the vote after the initial concerned was addressed. Would of been after 2 supports 2 opposes, so wouldn't have thrown anything off balance. But since I was fine with either result, and everyone else seemed fine with voting this way, there was no reason for me to do so. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss. In part, I agree with you. I still oppose, but, when mass-casualty incidents occur, more often than not, this information is listed on Wikipedia. Occasionally not, though. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham: when mass-casualty incidents occur, more often than not, this information is listed on Wikipedia. - See my reply at 03:50 UTC, above. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I did read it. I actually deleted text regarding whether you or I was being more pedantic here from the message before posting. Never mind. Consensus governs.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus governs. At the risk of being pedantic, if consensus as it's defined actually governed, it would be based on policy-based arguments. Sadly, it's based on !vote counts and presumes, quite incorrectly, that a majority of this many editors can't be wrong on the applicable policy. You haven't even attempted to cite policy, but your !vote will be given equal weight as mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of this, in 2 or 3 years, whether you or I wish or not, It will seep through (or at the very least some form of equivalent). Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh and sorry, I should have initially added MEMORIAL to the WP before you rebutted. Again, time will dictate regardless of this argument.--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose removal It's a widely accepted practice in Wikipedia and reliable sources to list victims name and ages as an essential element of the events notability. These are people, not a boxscore. Names are more relevant than the numbers. Remove numbers of dead and injured before silencing their indicidual names. The perpetrator will be charged in the deaths of each person individually as well as the assault of the injured. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal - they're already gone. If the shooter matters, so do the victims. Document them. Plus, the number is not too large such that it would be cumbersome to list all of them. starship.paint ~ KO 09:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The names are absolutely relevant. It's not like the names are so long that they take up an entire page or anything anyway. 72.215.185.243 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

List formatting

If anybody doesn't like the wasted white space after Mr rnddude's edit, we can consider this treatment instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you can just remove the whitespace. I left it in just to keep the list separate from the paragraph. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you're not seeing what I'm seeing. Two-thirds of my screen width to the right of the box is white, for the height of the box and a little more. That's white space that can't be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you mean the whitespace I left in source-editing to the top and bottom. Let me take a look at it. I'm sure there's a better way to present it. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• How does everybody feel about this? you can change col number and even div width till we find a suitable match:

List of dead victims

• Alyssa Alhadeff, aged 14
• Scott Beigel, aged 35
• Martin Duque, aged 14
• Nicholas Dworet, aged 17
• Aaron Feis, aged 37
• Jaime Guttenberg, aged 14
• Chris Hixon, aged 49
• Luke Hoyer, aged 15
• Cara Loughran, aged 14
• Gina Montalto, aged 14
• Joaquin Oliver, aged 17
• Alaina Petty, aged 14
• Meadow Pollack, aged 18
• Helena Ramsay, aged 17
• Alex Schachter, aged 14
• Carmen Schentrup, aged 16
• Peter Wang, aged 15

• Signed, Mr rnddude (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Doesn't respond to changes in window width, requiring horizontal scrolling. Solution linked above preferred. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that. In which case support your proposed revision. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That proposed revision follows. Removed redundant and repetitive "aged" after first entry. While two columns may seem to waste space on large displays, any more would be too wide for many smaller ones. It's a good compromise between 1 and 3.

Seventeen students and staff were killed and many others injured, including at least 15 (including the suspect) who were hospitalized.[11][16] Three people remained in critical condition the next day.[17] Of those killed, twelve died in the school, two just outside the school buildings, one on the street and two at the hospital.[11] The dead were identified as:

2

―Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I like the plain text list @Mandruss: has better, but if we want a box lets not kill the whole page in whitespace - float it to the side like in Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Football match (Death tally rankings)

Something needs to be done about this paragraph in the lede:

This attack is the deadliest shooting to take place at an American high school, surpassing the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in which 15 people died, nearly 19 years prior. It is tied with the 1966 University of Texas tower shooting as the third-deadliest school shooting in the United States, only behind the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (which killed 27) and the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting (which killed 32).

These aren't scores from a football match. There needs to be some reason to include these. I get the Columbine comparison, but why the heck are the University of Texas, Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech being mentioned? How are they remotely relevant? And if we're including them, there has to be a better way to write them into the lede than to present them as match scores. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

There need to be secondary sources making the other (non-Columbine) comparisons or else it's original research. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll support any reduction of that violence-trivia cruft that you can sell. If you want policy, try WP:WEIGHT.
It's almost comical the convoluted qualifications we have to add to say anything factual. If it were not "the deadliest shooting to take place at an American high school", we would be saying it's the deadliest shooting at an American high school by a single shooter who was not currently a student at the school, or some such nonsense. It's minutiae-obsessive, and that's aggravated when we're talking about the mass murders of real people. At some point we lose all encyclopedic value, and we're way past that point.
It was a really bad and really tragic event, and I think readers get that from the body count and the fact that they were mostly high school kids. They can make an adequate comparison to Sandy Hook, for example, since there were a few more dead kids and they were only 5 years old. Readers don't need all this ranking business, and, yes, that's a judgment we can make as Wikipedia editors, just as we routinely make editorial judgments about what readers need.
I suppose I could live with one trivia factoid if I squinted my eyes and tried real hard. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I also believe all this isn't needed in the lead, and just maybe general comparison in the body could be included. Also should include some sourcing, particularly with the University of Texas shooting. ABC News list that as 14 killed. There were two other deaths that happened midnight the night before/that morning. And then 17 to tie this one is either the unborn child, the shooter himself, or someone who died 31 years later from the injury sustained in shooting. So original research seems to went into getting toward the tied with part. I think we should just say deadliest HS shooting, and make the comparison to it surpassing Columbine. If we keep only that sentence, then in closing paragraph in the lead works for me. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've BOLDly removed the material from the lede citing NOR and UNDUE(WEIGHT). If you want to rewrite it somewhere into the body of the article, the material is available in the quote box at the top of this section. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Reddit

People may be coming from Reddit to edit this article. Heads up.

Reddit thread

2603:3003:900:1A00:C560:9445:C850:1B6C (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the link. I'll keep an eye on things here, but I'm not too concerned. That reddit thread has been up for over eight hours now - if a big flood of people were going to come here, it would have happened already... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Confession

Per CBS News, "Later in the day, a Broward County Sheriff's Office report said Cruz confessed to being the shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. He told interrogating officers that he 'began shooting students that he saw in the hallways and on school grounds' on Wednesday afternoon, according to the report."

We also have the confession from the Associated Press.

Given that he has confessed, two questions:

• Isn't it a bit legalistic to insist on calling him the "suspected" shooter? I think we should state in the lead that he has confessed, and then dispense with all the "the shooter" and simply say "Cruz". While he's still innocent until proven guilty, there is no trial after a confession and the conviction is a legal formality. There's a theoretical possibility of not guilty by reason of insanity (if that flies at all in the Sunshine State), but that wouldn't change the fact that he was the shooter.

• Why doesn't the article mention the confession? That's rhetorical, I assume it's because nobody noticed yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've now added the confession.[15][16] ―Mandruss ☎ 11:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a CYA from the media, especially since confessions can be retracted. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the claim that "there is no trial after a confession and the conviction is a legal formality" is just weird since there have been plenty of trials after confessions (I presume we're at least restriction this to confessions to the police). And heck plenty of cases where confessions have been the primary basis for the conviction have been heavily challenged, with some going all the way to the Supreme Court. I have no comment on the likelihood of any of this happening here but we shouldn't base our decisions on flawed assumptions about what a confession means. A confession is not a guilty plea. What any of this means for our wording, I also have no comment. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

In some cases, people freely admit they did the thing at the core of the charge and understood the consequences, but plead not guilty because they think something justifies it, want to get away with murder and/or like the attention. Anders Breivik is probably the most glaring example, maybe Dzokhar Tsarnaev. It's way less likely to avoid prison than claiming insanity, but insanity will still get you locked up in a hospital, so some give that small chance at absolute acquital a shot. Even the wrongest people in democratic society have the right to extra time before the state kills them. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

But yeah, I'm only objecting to prejudging him as the perpetrator of 17 murders. If he claims to be the shooter and police claim he's correct, he can be "the shooter" here, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

I think "shooter" is right, as it doesn't presume legal guilt (he could still go for an insanity defense, etc). He is rather more than a suspect at this point.--Pharos (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Crime and punishment-wise, he's every bit the presumably innocent suspect he was when he got his birth certificate. He's only more believably behind the acts themselves. Subtle difference, but enormously important for what could happen to anyone of us if it didn't exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

Not cool to just change every instance of "suspect" and "alleged" blindly, though, as someone's done. The parts of the story based off the police's account still must be presented as police accounts. If certain parts are covered by both, replace (or append) the police source with Cruz's version before making any allegations in uncontroversial Wikipedian voice. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

Marco Rubio and others

Should a snippet be added to the Aftermath section regarding Marco Rubio's comments, due to the fact he's being widely criticized (for example [17]) on many difference places for the amount of NRA donations he's received and his comments? Gwenhope (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, probably not. That kind of thing tends to be more about politics than this shooting. The shooting is just an excuse to snipe at one's political opposition. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To some degree we need to cover the politics because the shooting was quickly politicized. We can't wish away the political issues. The question is how much. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, but the political issues existed long before this shooting, and we don't need to discuss them, with the same things said again and again for political advantage, in every shooting article. Except for one or two general sentences, discuss the political issues in the related political issues articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean they did exist before the shooting, but the shooting contributed to and exacerbated them. I agree brevity is good here. I strongly disagree with complete exclusion. 1-3 sentences is a good range. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Two opinions on both sides should be enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with the brevity. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

His comments should be here. Donations he has received, and people having issue with(which people always will), if needed should go into his article. Unless it becomes an actual widely focused on issue in relation to this shooting, which I don't see happening, I don't feel it belongs here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

His comments (and other notable participants') should be included. His finances (and other people's interests/disinterests) should not. They would be unsourced insinuations that doesn't belong on this article. -- Veggies (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I would include another opinion (alongside Rubio's) supporting mental health fixes to balance out Rob Runcie, and David Berliner's pro gun control comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

17 counts of capital murder

The infobox "Charges" field was changed yesterday to say "17 counts of capital murder". That means that any one of the 17 murders would have made him eligible for the death penalty. Does anybody know that for a fact? If so, can you source it for WP:V? That doesn't follow from the fact that the totality of the crime makes him eligible, which is the only thing I've seen in sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The charges are for premeditated murder, I originally added that into box with link to murder, but was changed as you said. Yes a single count of murder is a captial crime in Florida and the prosecutor can seek the death penalty if they file with 45 days of arraignment.[18] While yes they are all capital crimes, I feel like we should put the exact charges as they are. According to Capital murder: Only a few states use the term "Capital Murder" (such as Texas, New Hampshire, and Alabama) WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No objection, but we need verifiability and we don't have that now. What we have is original research. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually let me correct what I said, there needs to be an aggravated factor as well with the murder to seek death. Per 921.141. It would apply in this case though.

(h) The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.

(i) The capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm fairly allowing the death penalty for murder without aggravating factors is considered unconstitutional in modern times in the US, see e.g. Godfrey v. Georgia, Tison v. Arizona, Lowenfield v. Phelps, Walton v. Arizona, Kansas v. Marsh, Hurst v. Florida. Constitutionally, the aggravating could potentially be that more than one murder was involved. Nil Einne (talk) 23:49, 18 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)

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)

Videos

Can we please not have video statements from politicians? They are at best primary sources. Wikipedia articles summarise the best secondary sources to make a tertiary resource. So it would be fine for us to mention what the New York Times says about Trump's video, for example. --John (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but would keep the two sections we have on the talk page for them. They're just sitting there, being graphic. It's kind of neat. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

The video of Trump's response has arguable encyclopedic value, as it will likely be referred to in the future. It's a secondary source responding to the shooting, but a primary source of Trump's own words. Comparatively, the video of the Florida Sheriff is a primary source, and adds very little, save to show what he looks and sounds like and that he spoke with politicians. Interested users can still find it through the Commons link, but it is not terribly noteworthy. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump might be a secondary source, but he's not a reliable source as we understand them here. Best to find a "real" source that hosts the video and writes out the newsworthy bits, then attach it to whatever we find encyclopedic. Make a parenthetical note in the citation so people know there's a video inside. Shouldn't just have it sitting there, being graphic. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

While I don't see the need for the Trump video either. We weren't using it as a source, just showing his remarks on the attack, no different then having a picture to supplement the article. The Sheriff video wasn't useful either, I feel like a video of him detailing the events as official police statement would be a lot more useful. This one was just an early statement saying how bad it was for something like that to happen. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I think the Trump video is useful per MOS:PERTINENCE (a style guideline for images, but still relevant): Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. An image merely showing Trump speaking wouldn't be much use, but since Trump's public address is already directly mentioned, adding the video allows a more richer experience than merely linking to the text of his speech. And remember, primary sources are by no means forbidden per WP:PRIMARY, only they should be used sparingly. Or, treating the video as an External link, it violates none of the criteria of WP:LINKSTOAVOID. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about a school shooting. That is a picture of the President. Sure, we note him in the section, but we note a lot of things that don't get prominence. A picture of a triage tent or anti-gun protester would give us a richer experience of those, too. Stick to illustrating the main topic and things that were there, I say. External Link is fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be a disagreement based on opinions. I cannot change yours. You have a narrower view of pertinence than mine. Good day and happy editing. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:38, 17 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)

YouTube comments in lede

The part in the lede about police and Antifa apparently comes from YouTube comments that were in the press early; all of the relevant social media stuff should be in #Suspect (quite a bit more has come out since), with a summary in the lede. We shouldn't have facts in the lede about social media that aren't present in greater depth in the body.--Pharos (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspect section has social media stuff in the last two paras; FBI f'up is at #Investigation. Are there specific details that aren't backed up in the body? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Neither the threats against police or Antifa are in the body, they're just sort of randomly in the lede instead. If anything, his social media comments about being a "professional school shooter" would be best for the lede.--Pharos (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that last sentence. Actually I'm fairly sure I disagree with it. It's just one of a number of red flags. As for the rest, I think you should just fix it as you see fit, you seem competent enough to me (you're an admin with a big edit count). ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure any particular social media comments would be appropriate for lede (probably not), just pointing out the artifact that these two sort of random ones are there, rather than in the body.--Pharos (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A YouTube comment reprinted in a reliable secondary source is no longer just a YouTube comment, but things shouldn't be in the lead if they're not covered more deeply in the body. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

Interview with one of the students

Mumkey Jones interviewed one of the students who was present during the shooting, and she has some additional information about the perpetrator. Check it. --Kryalis (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Mumkey is going to pass the WP:RS test. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Still, it was something note worthy to point out by one of the students who actually knew the perpetrator. --Kryalis (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Let a secondary source talk about it before we consider it. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Instagram group

CNN also reported (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/exclusive-school-shooter-instagram-group/index.html) that the Instagram group in which Cruz railed against black people, gay people, and white women in interracial relationships was also full of antisemitic rants about the usual Jewish conspiracy nonsense. Suggest adding it to that section. 142.157.239.191 (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I took out the bit about some guy on the Internet saying all he knew was Cruz liked guns and hated liberals. Somebody had replaced "all I know" with "..." to make him sound like an expert, I think. But that's all he knows, because he's a guy on the Internet. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2018

Says 15 people were sent to the hospital at the beginning. Should be added that one of those people was the shooter. ASA 717 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - At least, not done by me. We clarify that in the Victims section, but I oppose adding it to the lead (or infobox) per the principle of avoiding unnecessary detail there. The distinction between 15 and "14 and 1" is not essential to a reader's general understanding of the event, which is the purpose of the lead section. Others may disagree and override me. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Emma Gonzalez speech

Here's a transcript of the much-quoted speech by student Emma Gonzalez, in which she specifically calls out politicians for their lack of support for gun control, rebuts their arguments against gun control, and cites their campaign contributions from the NRA. If you wanted to give a sample of the arguments used in the debate, this is a good source. For example: "This was not just a mental health issue. He would not have harmed that many students with a knife."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/17/us/florida-student-emma-gonzalez-speech/index.html
Florida student Emma Gonzalez to lawmakers and gun advocates: 'We call BS'
CNN Staff
February 17, 2018
--Nbauman (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure we can just pick and choose arbitrarily, or if we're limited to the bits already picked by secondary sources. Your example is in this Salon article. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

This is a good source because she makes a coherent argument. And it isn't just her argument, it was an argument that developed in a series of three debates in her AP political science course, under the direction of her teachers. In many Wikipedia articles of this type, editors pick and choose the secondary sources (out of hundreds or thousands of secondary sources, for a major event) based on their own personal selection. I'm suggesting that we follow her coherent argument by using the ideas that have been quoted by secondary sources.

One of the distinctive notable features of this school shooting was that the students themselves responded with advocacy and calls for meaningful gun reform, and condemned politicians, specifically including Trump, who announced "thoughts and prayers" while taking $30 million from the NRA and rejecting gun reform. Many WP:RS reported this. If you want to follow WP:WEIGHT, this deserves a lot more space than it has now.

One of the problems with this entry is that it doesn't mention any specific criticisms of politicians, and doesn't mention the NRA. The students' tough criticisms have been censored.

How could an editor use the BBC account, which starts out "Protesters in Fort Lauderdale chanted "shame on you", referring to US lawmakers and President Donald Trump," and censor out the mention of Trump?

How could an editor write that "Trump offered his prayers and condolences," without following WP:NPOV and including the specific response of victims like Gonzalez to Trump, "if all our government and President can do is send thoughts and prayers, then it's time for victims to be the change that we need to see"?

How can an editor write an account of the Stoneman Douglas school shooting without including, as every WP:RS does, the voices of the students themselves? This entry quotes major politicians like Trump -- but it doesn't quote a single Stoneman Douglas student, even though many of them have been quoted in many WP:RS. Why is that? Why is that acceptable?

Why do you paraphrase the students' responses in your own words, when the students themselves -- who have taken debate courses -- can express themselves much better, in much tougher language?

Why are your quotes meaningless platitudes, like "now is the time to have a real conversation about gun control legislation"?

Why have you ignored all the voices of the students? --Nbauman (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a Washington Post story which quotes some of the main points of Gonzalez' speech ‘No more guns!’: Florida students rally to denounce political inaction after 17 killed in school shooting, by Wesley Lowery, Washington Post, February 17, 2018

“If the president wants to come up to me and tell me to my face that it was a terrible tragedy and how it should have never happened and maintain telling us that nothing is going to be done about it, I’m going to happily ask him how much money he received from the National Rifle Association,” declared Gonzalez, a senior at Douglas. “To every politician who is taking donations from the NRA, shame on you! If you actively do nothing, people will continue to end up dead.”

“This isn’t just a mental health issue!” Gonzalez said, her voice breaking into a scream. “He wouldn’t have harmed that many students with a knife!”

I think this belongs in the section "Gun control advocacy." Does anyone have a reason (supported by WP policies and guidelines) why it doesn't? --Nbauman (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's another news story, from the New York Daily News, that includes significant quotes from the speech, much the same as the Washington Post does. Florida school shooting survivor blames Trump, Congress and NRA for massacre: ‘Shame on you!’ BY Edgar Sandoval and Larry Mcshane, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, February 17, 2018. --Nbauman (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's the New York Times story that quotes the speech. Emma González Leads a Student Outcry on Guns: ‘This Is the Way I Have to Grieve’; Students used Twitter, the news media and a courthouse rally to pressure lawmakers for gun control after a deadly shooting at a Florida high school. By Julie Turkewitz, Matt Stevens and Jason M. Bailey. New York Times. Feb. 18, 2018 --Nbauman (talk) 02:50, 19 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 - [19] - 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)

Cruz of Spanish Descent?

Since he was claimed to be a white supremacist, if his adopted father was Spanish, that should be added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1313:81C2:9CE5:F111:8EDB:E935 (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

We're several steps away from that, starting with the fact that the article doesn't say he was claimed to be a white supremacist. Then we have the fact that the article doesn't say his adoptive father was Spanish. Assuming we have verifiability for all of that, we then have issues with relevance and weight, and so on. I personally have zero interest in pursuing this line. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If he was Spanish, Fox News would have said so repeatedly by now. He's from Long Island, as American as Criss Angel, the Long Island serial killer and thriving casual racism. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

Fun Fact: If I'd have used a serial comma there, Criss Angel could have sued me for libel. And won! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:14, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

Only a matter of time for either way Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing most people named Cruz have some Spanish in their ancestry. O'Reilly->Irish, Muller->German, Mancini->Italian, Saroyan->Armenian, and so on. But people who understand how family trees are constructed know that he could easily be 8% Spanish descent and 92% French descent. And Spanish and French descents come largely from Roman descent anyway. One's surname means very little these days about who the person is, although some ignorant and bigoted people work very hard to make it so. I guess that's why I personally have zero interest in pursuing this line. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Very true. It's the given name that should define a person. Dominick "The Dominator" Cruz could have gone down a much darker path if he were named after his crazy uncle Euron. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:48, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, or his hedonistic Uncle Pleasure. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Those Sea Peoples, I tell ya...InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, February 18, 2018 (UTC)

It's not news that he has a Spanish surname, any more than if he had a French surname. He's made racist comments, but the story about him being part of a white supremacist group was false.--Pharos (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No gas mask or grenades

Cruz did not, in fact, have a gas mask or smoke grenades during the attack on the school (Source, citing one of the sheriff's press conferences). He instead wore a balaclava with eye slits. Dreadwyrm (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Updated based on AP report you linked. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspect image

As this article is going to substitute as a mini bio for the shooter, I don't see any reason not to have the image on the page. Unless another page is created for the shooter(which I don't think needs to be done yet), it is fine here. If the shooter gets split into his own article, then removing it makes sense although not mandatory. Pointing to what happened in other shootings article isn't good rationale per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each time it would of been discussed on talk page, so please discuss here rather than in edit comments. Also easy with the language @My-wiki-photos:. WikiVirusC^(talk)

The photo and the basic biographical information about the shooter should remain in the article. An independent article would not comply with WP:BLP1E.- MrX 🖋 22:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Not suggesting one, but it could happen in future depending on future coverage, which is a different discussion to have. It is too soon to even consider, although didn't stop it from being suggested the day after the shooting above. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have not taken this to AN/EW, I was in the middle of writing a report, but the edit-warring appears to have ceased. As I've stated before, I don't support an article for the shooter per BLP1E. I'm happy to help hold the discussion here. The image isn't vital in any sense, and if there is general support to remove it then by all means I won't stand in your way. That said, while this article hosts the basic bio of the shooter, I think the image should be included here. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with WikiVirusC, word-for-word. I think they may be a sock of me. Side note: I would oppose the use of the "mini-bio" rationale to justify an infobox, per "mini", and also cite WP:OSE as above. The main focus is the shooting, not the perp. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Added single link to NCTSN as per consensus building

Hello all! In light of my previous edit being reverted, and after discussion, I have gone ahead to add a single external link that goes to the resources page of the National Center Trauma Support Network (NCTSN). Many thanks to all for the consensus building, as per discussion here! @Animalparty: pinging you here so that you are in the loop! Ongmianli (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure when a consensus was made as that edit was first I've seen even putting that external link in. Also a discussion on a user talk page is not gonna be a consensus for articles, not that I even see a consensus of doing something in that discussion. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC:Thanks for your input! What do you think about leaving the link on the page, so that interested readers could have access to help resources associated with experiencing traumatic events like this? Ongmianli (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

While it is a helpful resource indeed, I don't see it as adding encyclopedic value to this article. Also could be said for the other external links that are there. But just don't put it in and cite per consensus. Maybe the phrasing was poor and you just want to try and get a consensus, which does seem to be case with creating the alk page discussion. Although the multiple discussions on multiple articles may result in different consensuses for each one WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see any consensus reached at that link, merely a discussion in progress among 3 people. Even if agreement was established there, a user-page talk discussion among 3 is hardly the level of transparency and agreement usually needed to establish consensus. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: @Animalparty: Agreed on all counts! Working to revert edits that I've made on other shooting pages. I appreciate the explanations! Ongmianli (talk) 01:54, 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

"It had a higher death toll than the 1998 Columbine High School massacre." It took place in 1999; obvious typo. 66.86.106.136 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 19 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.[20][21][22][23] 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)

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)

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)