Talk:Parkland high school shooting

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

RFC about the heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz

What should the heading of this section be? I've tried my best to represent all viable options below. If you think I've missed any, feel free to add it. AdA&D ★ 14:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Prior/current Discussions: On the section title "Nikolas Cruz", Improper use of the word SUSPECT in Section header

Heading should be his name:

1: Nikolas Cruz

• 1J: Nikolas Jacob Cruz

Heading should describe his role in the shooting:

2: Perpetrator

• 2A: Alleged perpetrator
• 2P: Presumed perpetrator
• 2S: Suspected perpetrator

3: Shooter

• 3A: Alleged shooter
• 3P: Presumed shooter
• 3S: Suspected shooter

4: Gunman

• 4A: Alleged gunman
• 4P: Presumed gunman
• 4S: Suspected gunman

5: Attacker

• 5A: Alleged attacker
• 5P: Presumed attacker
• 5S: Suspected attacker

6: Suspect

• 6A: Arrested suspect

Survey: Heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz

• 2 or 6A would be my preference, but anything is better than 1. The name "Nikolas Cruz" is unfamiliar to many of our readers. In order to effectively use the table of contents, our section headings ought to be recognizable to those who don't know the fine details of the case. Nikolas Cruz is ambiguous, and could refer to any number of people related to the shooting. We should also not presume that our readers will read through the lead section before using the table of contents. WP:Readers first. AdA&D ★ 14:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

WikivirusC’s point is well taken, adding 6A to my !vote AdA&D ★ 18:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• 1 - Using the name avoids multiple problems with choosing a label for the actor in this unusual case. This is the danger of looking to precedent for guidance, which some of these !votes are sure to do. Other local consensuses should have little bearing on this local consensus, not only for that reason but because it largely kills evolution of thinking on things like this. The downside of using the name—that the topic of the section won't be immediately apparent to some readers upon entering the page—is exceeded by its upside. Nikolas Cruz is ambiguous, and could refer to any number of people related to the shooting. Maybe, but a very reasonable first guess is the perpetrator of the shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 6A - Suspect or Arrested suspect(my preference) until convicted. Then Perpetrator afterwards. Against 3, 4, 5 until conviction after a trial, or a guilty plea per WP:BLPCRIME, which may happen before a 30 day RfC ends. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1 - I think we should leave the shooter's name in the section heading, for two reasons. There is zero doubt that he is the shooter, and his name has been repeated so frequently in news reports that it is immediately recognizable. If we do remove it, it should be for informational reasons, not emotional reasons. His middle name has no encyclopedic value.- MrX 🖋 16:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1 or 6 - 1 and 6 are statements of fact: he is the suspect, and his name is Nikolas Cruz. My preference would be for 6 personally, but status quo is fine as well. 2 through 5 are allegations waiting to be determined in a trial. For this reason I would be opposed to any change to these suggestions. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 6 or 3-5 - There is no question he committed the shooting, and he is currently the suspect in a criminal case, so either 'Suspect' or a descriptor of his actions ('Attacker' or similar) would be appropriate. 'Perpetrator' implies legal guilt, and it is still possible he will be found not guilty, e.g, due to insanity. Using his name as a section header is irregular and confusing to readers not already familiar with the case.--Pharos (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Pharos Are you sure that 'perpetrator' implies legal guilt? Whether he's found to be culpable, nobody doubts that it was a crime that was perpetrated. AdA&D ★ 00:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew If a human is not culpable, then it's a homicide, but not a crime (murder, manslaughter, etc). I'm not sure of the definition of perpetrator under criminal law, I think it's more a police term than a court one, though our article suggests it means guilt. If it doesn't, then that term would be fine. Otherwise, there are terms that presume less about guilt, like 'Assailant'.--Pharos (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pharos: I'd dispute the suggestion that 'Perpetrator' implies legal guilt, based on the fact that the term is widely used in cases where (1) the perpetrators are not known or (2) the person has committed suicide (particularly in the case of school shootings). In neither of these cases it's clear whether the person would be or would have been found fully guilty of the crime in court. --BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 01:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• 1 or 6. Both are factual and can't really be argued against. I prefer his name, but I can understand if people think that would be confusing in the table of contents. Natureium (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 3 or one of the variants of 3. This article is about a shooting and so the reader should easily be able to navigate to the section about the shooter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 2. "Perpetrator" is in line with the wording of various other Wikipedia articles about school shootings, including but not limited to Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Dunblane (Scotland), Winnenden (Germany) and others. No other term is as consistently used in other articles, especially not the perpetrator's name. Thus I'd settle for anything other than 1, but with 2 clearly preferred. --BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 01:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• There is zero reason to use the individual's name. We should look at the overall situation. That involves the table of contents and the specific section. From the perspective of the table of contents, the reader orients themselves to the role, not to the name. Thus "Presumed gunman" or any other terminology has greater clarity than the individual's name. But we can and should also look at this from the perspective of the individual section. That section contains, as its first sentence "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year-old former student", and the bolding has not been added by me—it is actually in the article. There is no possibility the reader can miss the name of the individual. The emphasis at present is uncalled for. A question we have to ask ourselves is why this article receives different treatment from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. What do we feel at this article would warrant a heightened emphasis of the individual's name at the section handling the person responsible for the shooting, as compared to the "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article? You don't hit a nail with a hammer one more time when it is already flush with the wood, to use a strange analogy. All you have to do is accomplish your purpose. If you have built a redundancy into your means of accomplishing your purpose, you should back off in some aspect of the carrying out of your purpose. A reader will find and understand that section of the article best using a descriptive role as a section header, not by using the name of the individual. That is adequately accomplished by the first sentence presently in place at that section. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1 - per Mandruss and Mr. X Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• NOT #1 The fact that there are a majority of novice editors for this article shows, because there is no need to rehash the global consensus about something like this which has been widely debated in the past. The policy on this is clear (WP:NPOV, WP:BLP), and the the perp's name is NEVER used as a section heading where "Perp", "Shooter", "Suspect" is always preferred. Just go to any shooting article, such as 2009_Fort_Hood_shooting or Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting, and you will see what I mean. The perp's details are there, but the name is not used to head up sections. Other than NOT #1, I don't have a preference as to the heading. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• 6A - Suspect or Arrested suspect the volume of evidence is such in this case that the likelihood that the suspect is not the perpetrator is extremely low. Nonetheless, we do not sit as judge, jury or coroner - others do that - and the suspect should not be presumed (by us) to be guilty. Name would be acceptable, but is not clear to those of us in places where the name has not become so familiar. Pincrete (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• 6 or 2-5 - It's not an article about Cruz or Cruz's family; it's about the shooting, and the shooting has a suspect. Cruz is a temporary notable/public figure, so knowledge about him is very high at the moment; however, many future audiences will not know who he is, but instead will scan the article looking for the "Suspect" header — not the killer's name. Fdssdf (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz

Added in a few links to previous or current discussion on the section name to the top of RfC. Don't think any relevant lengthy discussion are in any archives. Part of the reason it was changed to his name, was because some people had issue with it saying just suspect because he confessed to police. We can't use that confession to change it to shooter or attacker per BLPCRIME, and would need a guilty plea or other type of conviction.

Also was an RfC already necessary at this point? Couldn't we have just done a local survey or was the 4-4 (or whatever count) from previous discussion enough to determine we need outside input. I feel like we have enough contributors here where it could have been resolved fine. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So many terms! "Mass murderer" is as good as any. "Suspect" amd variables of that are too soft. Legacypac (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is totally not applicable. He's been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder, he is a public figure as his name has been widely broadcast in connection with the most discussed crime this year. None of that even remotely suggests we need to consider protecting his name. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What Wikivirus is saying is: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. That is regardless of how famous or well known they are. "Mass murderer" would be wholly out of line with our policies. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CRIME is where I guess I should have pointed too. Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. WikiVirusC^(talk) 05:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Legacypac - the policy was written to protect Wiki from legal issues. Does not apply here, whatever it says. There is absolutely no question he is the shooter - he has confessed - every single news service has stated he is a mass murderer. They would be much more in danger of being sued than this hobbyist exercise at an encyclopedia. Time to drop this argument, and move on with the reality of the situation.104.169.18.4 (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

People falsely confess to crimes. Law enforcement falsely claim suspects have confessed. Prison grasses falsely claim people confess. Since when is the media always 100% accurate? WP:CRIME is what should apply here. After a conviction we can call Cruz a mass murderer/perp/gunman. Dougal18 (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What's a prison grass? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Never mind. BritEng. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This is due for auto-archive soon, so this comment will serve to keep it here for at least another 3 days ({{DNAU}} is another option). The only way I know of to fairly and objectively weigh "consensus" with such complex !voting is using arithmetic, dividing !votes for multiples equally among them. If someone !votes for two options, each option gets 0.5. Using this system, and counting Bus stop's !vote as -1 for 1, I get: 1=3, 2=1.5, 6A=1.5, 3=1.25, 6=1.25, 4=0.25, 5=0.25. No majority, but a clear plurality and I think a majority will be unlikely no matter how long we leave this up. A run-off between the top two or three will be an option, if people feel it's worth the effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm, you can't make up a voting system after the fact, especially for a !vote. For example, I supported several similar options to give full information. The only way to make a decision is by consensus, figuring out which option(s) are most acceptable, and not objectionabe, to people generally.--Pharos (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

How do you propose to judge that consensus? If an uninvolved closer closed this today, how do you think they would go about it? I think they would do one of two things: 1. Something very much like what I've done, or 2. Declare "no consensus to change". ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about working out a formulaic way to establish consensus, because consensus is not a vote. Just ping an admin on the admin noticeboard to close the relevant thread after a sufficient time has elapsed (usually abvout a week, if I can recall correctly). -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'll request close at WP:ANRFC (not now), which may or may not get an admin. We'll consume the valuable time of a closer, in the name of avoiding a formulaic way to establish consensus, and the outcome will be the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

One of the main concerns people had with the section header, in this discussion and brought up elsewhere on talk page, was people didn't think using Cruz's name was best option. I wouldn't use that to say majority/consensus doesn't want to use the shooters name as title, seeing as even though I voted for something else it really wasn't my reason for doing it. But there were 4 people who explicitly said they didn't like using the shooters name. So even with giving full votes to people who gave two choices, its 5 for his name and 4 against it. A "Do you think we should use suspects name for section header? If not what would you prefer", might of been easier to deal with. To be honest, shooter/attacker/gunman could be bundled, and suspect/perpetrator could maybe be bundled for results. An RfC was made, so lets see if any of the people legobot notifies decide to participate. Can hopefully see how this looks after some outside input maybe. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot it's an RfC. That's a slightly different picture. And it already has a DNAU March 28. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Victims list introduction sentence

There has been a significant amount of churning around the sentence preceding the list in the Victims section. Let's see if we can settle this and move on. I think the following is a complete list of the var‭ious versions we've seen, in ascending word count sequence.

1 – The dead were:
2 – The victims who died were:
3 – The dead were identified as:
4 – The names of the dead, along with their ages, were:
5 – A list of the names and ages of the dead follows:
Other – [roll your own] and explain why none of the above will do

• 1 - Simply because it conveys what we need to convey, in the most concise way. We don't need to avoid the phrase "the dead" as a noun, and that is very common usage of the phrase. We don't need to say they were "identified" since there is no doubt about their identities. And we don't need to explain the obvious fact that it's a list of names and ages. (I originally had the word "aged" before the first age, just in case, but that was removed. The fact that those are names of people certainly doesn't need stating.) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You are suggesting changing "the victims who died were" to "the dead were", correct? Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing it back, to be precise. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Why would "the dead were" be preferable to "the victims who died were"? Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you read my !vote? I don't think I can answer your question any better than that. If you disagree with my reasoning, !vote something else. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

But you didn't mention possibility number two, which is the wording presently found in the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I "mentioned" it by implication of my first sentence. Are you disputing that 1 is more concise than 2? Are you aware that "don't waste words" is a universal principle of good writing? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Is concision all that matters? The entirety of your argument seems to be that we should reduce the number of words. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Always use the fewest words that convey the desired meaning. There is no reader value in extra words, and they require time to read. If you agree with Anne drew Andrew and Drew that "1 sounds odd", by all means !vote 2. But I'm tired of trying to justify my rationale. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• 2 is fine. 1 sounds odd. AdA&D ★ 14:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1 is the best. I note the "don't waste words" argument as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• 2 The sentence we are discussing has a task of making a transition in that paragraph from those who survived, especially those who were "wounded or injured", to those who did not survive. That is best accomplished by the wording presently in the article. That would be choice number two. I recommend no change. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• Other (technically option 1 as first choice, and option 2 as second choice) - Why is every option written in past tense? The dead were instead of 'the dead are' or The names of the dead, along with their ages, were instead of 'The names of the dead, along with their ages, are'. The dead have not ceased to be, nor will they cease to be, dead. Similarly, the names and ages of the victims will not change. So, why the past tense? If there is a reason for the past tense, then option 1. Otherwise option 1, but written in present tense.
  My alternate selection is option 2. You could switch "who died" with "killed", for brevity I suppose. Ironically, I do actually get the reason for option 2 being in past tense. These people have ceased to be, and thus were, but I only see that working because of the human aspect of victim in that particular form. Additionally died is past tense, so it's consistent. That decision makes little sense with the other options; e.g. option 3 should, I would think, be 'The dead have been identified as' as opposed to were identified. Their identities have been confirmed. Present continuous.
  I'll expressly oppose the other three options. There is no need to state that the victims were identified right before you start identifying them. It's redundant. Similarly, the list of names and ages does not need to be told to the reader before they start reading the names and ages of the victims. It's readily apparent what the information being presented is. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason for choice number two is to distinguish between the victims who lived and the victims who died. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that the word dead does that sufficiently well enough. Victims would be more useful for distinguishing between dead victims and dead perpetrators. It's presented well enough in previous sentences that there were survivors. You don't need to make the distinction every time you mention victims. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

After I die, I will no longer be Mandruss [or substitute my real name]. I will be formerly Mandruss. More precisely, I will no longer be anything, because I will have ceased to be. Further, do you want to state five years from now that those 14-year-olds are still 14? I see nothing wrong with the past tense in 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... fair enough. Makes sense in the case of options 1 and 2 from that perspective. Though I'd still make that argument for options 3 and 4, as the identities and ages will not change. In which case revised !vote to option 1 as first preference and option 2 as is, or option 2 with "killed" replacing "who died", as second preference. Still expressly opposing the remaining choices (refer to paragraph 3 of my first comment for reasoning). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you've identified another reason to use as few words as possible; it can avoid unnecessary complications. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

However you do it, you need to indicate what that number is representing, as it may be non obvious to someone who isn't a native anglophone. GMG^talk 20:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: What number? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The ages of the victims at death. I realize it seems obvious to a native speaker, but we're not just writing for native speakers. GMG^talk 20:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Would it be enough to re-insert "aged" before the first age (only), as "Alyssa Alhadeff, aged 14"? At one point we had that on every entry, and talk about repetitiveness. It was painful to look at. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. I'd probably be fine with many ways of doing it, as long as we do it. Shouldn't be assuming people will just get it because they grew up reading US, UK, or Canadian newspapers. GMG^talk 21:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I did that.[1] If that was the reason for 4 and 5, I think the reason has been removed. If somebody feels this was an edit while under discussion, I'm completely revertable. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• 1 Short and sweet. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

• Those killed were: It remains concise, but is clearer and imparts more info. There is no need to 'introduce' the ages since it will be self-evident. Pincrete (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You say that it imparts more info. How does it impart more info? It imparts more info than what? I agree with your point that there is no need to introduce the ages since it will be self-evident. Bus stop (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

These people did not simply die, they were killed, therefore it is more informative than "The dead were". Using the term 'killed', is clear, neutral and concise. Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There's clarity, and then there's unnecessary, overkill clarity. You would have a point if, after reading the immediately preceding prose, a reader could possibly be uncertain as to the fact that all of the dead died from gunshot. There were no heart attacks or necks broken in falls down stairs. Such things are virtually unheard of in mass shootings, so vanishingly rare that they needn't factor into our thinking here. An editor !voted that "The dead were" "sounds odd"; I assert that "Those killed were" sounds odd—and stilted. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I still think the wording presently in the article is best. It says "the victims who died were". This is an acknowledgement that there are "victims" who did not die. Some were injured. But even among those who were not injured some experienced trauma. Even losing a friend has a negative impact. For every person who died there were friends left behind. The present wording has a dollop of wisdom not found in the other choices before us. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No consensus for victims list

• Comment Why do we need to include a list of victim names? Natureium (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  Because there is a consensus to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a consensus, it looks like a lot of mixed responses. Natureium (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I had recently noticed that it wasn't a clear consensus, but I was loath to look more closely for fear of what I might find. I've now looked more closely, and I found what I feared. I make it an 8–8 tie:
Support list / oppose removal - Knowledgekid87 — TheHoax — Spirit of Eagle — InedibleHulk — Kieronoldham — DHeyward — Starship.paint (starship.paint) — 72.215.185.243
Oppose list / support removal - K.e.coffman — 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D — Ohc_on_the_move (Ohconfucius (on the move)) — MPS1992 — Mandruss — MrX — Mr rnddude — Ajahnbrahm1401 (ev)
It appears this one fell through the cracks. Anybody wanna make an issue of this? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Just keep listing the names. They are more important than the killer and people are looking for the info. Has there been no victims there would be no article. Legacypac (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Just leave it out until consensus is reached. If in doubt, ask for the discussion be closed at WP:ANRFC. - MrX 🖋 02:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Leave the list out? You're aware that it's in? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware.- MrX 🖋 02:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: Any opinion on the process question here? Anybody else? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point it wouldn't be "leaving the list out", it would be removing it. That prior discussion(the issue has been mentioned elsewhere) had no more replies for almost two weeks now, and went to archive. If we started a new discussion, or continued the old one, I think the standard would be to leave article as is until a consensus is formed. We could of left the list out while we were discussing it last time, but the person who removed it and started that discussion, striked his comment pretty early on, as his concern was the lack of sourcing not the inclusion itself. I already had my issues with that voting process anyways, why I abstained. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There really isn't much precedent for how to handle things like this, since they happen so rarely. A case can be made that process errors can and should be corrected retroactively. It's highly disputed content in a highly visible article, and that generally requires at least significant consensus if not clear consensus. My definitions of significant and clear? Roughly 65% and 75%. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If it were "highly disputed" material, by this point it would have been removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would remove it as highly disputed and lacking consensus, but I'm trying to be gentle here. In effect it's being left in because it's highly controversial, which is backwards. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't mean this specific scenario, I mean with content disputes in general. Unless there is a policy being violated, if it's not in the article leave it out until consensus is established, if it's already in article leave it in until a consensus is reached. If it was added in yesterday or today is a different case but it's been in article close to two weeks. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this again? The list is notable in context of the event which is why it is included in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Because it was brought up again, and last discussion died down without anyone closing it. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The "why are we discussing this again" argument applies to cases where there is an existing consensus. This is not such a case. I'm working on the new discussion, be with you in mere minutes at the bottom of the page. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks, don't forget to link to the past discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Victim count

I know we have discussed this number multiple times, but I am seeing in a recent statement from Broward Sheriff's Office, 33 victims (17 murdered, 16 survivors). [2] We have 14 listed as injuries an no mention of the other two, which are described as victims, so not the shooter. Most current news stories only mention the dead, and a lot of the early ones were preliminary reports. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a definative victim count of 16 injured. I support using that ref and updating the page. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'm blind since I don't see victim counts in that letter. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

3rd paragraph lines 1 and 2 Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparently we're seeing different things. My 3rd paragraph begins, "BSO detectives are investigating...". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Click on the image, it opens it up more fully. Parts of the letter aren't visible in just the tweet. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

3rd paragraph lines 1 and 2 "...33 victims (17 murdered and 16 survivors) and their families...". Theee are three paragraphs before the "For the Record" section. This was issued recently by the Broward County Sheriff Office. It has the advantage of being official and long enough after the event to avoid the confusion of breaking news coverage. Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Ok, so now, two questions. 1. Is the primary alone acceptable? I don't know that part of policy well enough to say. 2. There is a difference between injured/wounded and taken to hospital. One can be injured (or even slightly wounded) and treated on scene without being transported. So we would need to decide which is more important, unless we want to state both numbers, even if we could source both accurately. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd add that it says "survivors" not injured, wounded, or hospitalized. Yes I know I'm being a bit obtuse, but that is what it says. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you agree that "survivor" is synonymous with "wounded or injured"? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

In this context, most probably. But generally, absolutely not. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Ok, I propose we limit discussion to this context. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's most probably referring to the wounded. I took the opportunity to revert on a technicality since this is still under discussion, moreso than directly contesting the idea that survivor means wounded. Again, I was being a bit obtuse. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I support any excuse to revert editing while under discussion. The only expression yea or nay was his—I support using that ref and updating the page.—so he acted on his own consensus of 1, which is a pretty remarkable interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Why are you editing while this is under discussion? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Students that were no where near the shooter have been rightly called survivors. Obviously in this official statement the 16 refers to injured. Why are you wasting my time with this foolishness and worse by reverting my sourced edit? That is pretty much vandalism. IPut back my edits. Legacypac (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:AIV is that way. Don't say you "support" something and then implement it without waiting for other support. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

A survivor is someone who was wounded but survived their injuries. Natureium (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Strictly speaking (and I'm often guilty of speaking strictly), "wounded" and "injured" are not exact synonyms. The former implies an injury inflicted by a weapon, the latter does not. So we can assume that the sheriff's 16 is the total of wounded and injured, which is good enough for our purposes (we don't need to try to split them out, and it's unlikely we could anyway). My two questions at 17:10 UTC have not been answered. I'm going to propose that we abandon our current "taken to hospitals" prose, which would leave only the question of whether the primary source from the sheriff is sufficient on its own. If it is, my proposal is to change "taken to hospitals" to "wounded or injured" and use the number 16 in the prose and the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

A wound isn't always caused by a weapon, just any quick torn tissue injury. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

I sit corrected. Does anybody have anything to say about my suggestion? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as no one has any pushback on inferring injuries from the total victims number, I'm fine with your suggestion for the change. It would be nice to find details in a second source, but as I mentioned before newer articles that I've seen are only mentioning the death total. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The "16 survivors" bit is pretty interesting. Here we see survivors used more narrowly to refer to people who were actually injured but survived their injuries. More broadly though, I'm betting we can find any student present at school whatsoever (injured or not) referred to as survivors regardless of whether or not they were injured. For example David Miles Hogg there is "Florida shooting survivor David Hogg calls out NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch and speaks directly to its base" and our article describes him as a survivor. Did he suffer any injuries? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The sheriff's office is clearly using the narrower definition, but that doesn't mean we have to. Assuming we know with some confidence what they mean by it, we can paraphrase to "wounded or injured". Our article appears to consistently use the broader definition of "survivor". I don't know if that's an ambiguity that needs clearing up just because it's inconsistent with the sheriff's office's letter, but I can't think of a practical way to clear it up anyway. What's another word for somebody who was present but may or may not have been wounded or injured? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Witness, bystander, onlooker. Words like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

I have added in [3] as a reference and changed injured count from 14/15/16 in article, to all saying 16. Also changed the lead from 15 taken to hospital, which I believe was still reference the 14 and Cruz temporary visit, to just 16 injured. This reference uses phrase wounded, but I used injured since that is also applicable for wounded anyways. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the count to 17 wounded/injured in all instances after today's indictment. Indictment also said they were all shot, so no more confusion there. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't the title of this article Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting...

Why isn't the title of this article Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting?

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is the school's name, isn't it? Geo Swan (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Because of this clear consensus for the current title. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Obviously the name of the article should be "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting". Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

.::Not per WP:COMMONNAME. Very common to omit the first name of the person a school is named for. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME doesn't support arbitrary shortening of the name of this high school. WP:COMMONNAME applies in circumstances in which two significantly different possibilities exist. We are playing fast and loose in making this change and we shouldn't be doing it. Bus stop (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The difference does not have to be significant, it just needs to be the more common name for subject, which was stated in the previous discussion that a lot places use Stoneman Douglas, including on the school website. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is utterly inapplicable to this question. And it almost does not matter what name we give to this article. That is because redirects serve the purpose of getting a reader to an article that they may be looking for. Redirects and disambiguation pages serve that purpose admirably. What is the name of the school? That's right—it is Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. This article can be titled in ways that do not include the title of the school. But if we are to include the title of the school we should include the complete title. Other titles have been suggested such as "Parkland school shooting". But the name of the school is what it is. We are creating a title for an article that incorporates a proper name into a title that includes an additional element, namely a shooting which took place. WP:COMMONNAME, on the other hand, addresses situations in which there exist dual, ongoing names, one of which is picked. We choose "Bill Clinton" over "William Jefferson Clinton" because both names have an extensive history but the man's more common name is "Bill Clinton". When you are creating a title for this article, which incorporates the name of the school with the element of a shooting which has taken place, you are creating a title that has no history. The shooting took place just two weeks ago. You cannot claim that you know the "common name" for that incident—not if you are incorporating the actual name of the school into a "composite" title. Under such a circumstance you are obliged to use the school's proper name. Bus stop (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Two weeks of history is two weeks of history, and long enough to know that Googling this "proper" name (without quotes) doesn't find it on the first page. Or the second. Just more common names (mostly "florida school shooting", with some Parklands, Stonemans and Browards). That's pretty telling. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

I am not arguing against using titles that do not incorporate the actual name of the school into the title, only against arbitrarily shortening the proper name of the school and combining it with the word "shooting". There is no "common name" for the incident. There may not ever be a "common name" for the incident. There are a variety of reasons that "common names" diverge from other forms of the name. Look at the examples given at WP:COMMONNAME. Whether or not a "common name" will arise for this incident is unknowable at this time. Therefore we should do the obvious. We should just use the complete name of the school in our composite-term title. Nothing emerges from Googling the incident now. This is noise. It takes time, if it happens at all, that a particular "handle" for the incident takes on currency. We can argue now that 9/11 represents acceptable shorthand for September 11 attacks. But there is no similar argument that "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" represents acceptable shorthand for "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting". We are deluding ourselves and misusing WP:COMMONNAME. Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The shortened version pops up more frequently than the full version in search results for the full version. It's not arbitrary now, though perhaps influenced by Wikipedia's originally arbitrary decision. While we may not yet be certain which name is the most common, overall, we know the full version is among the least. That's all we need to not choose it, provisionally or ever. Even when enclosing it in quotes, many results don't actually use the term, just snag on an invisible SEO list of keywords (or something). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

You say "[w]hile we may not yet be certain which name is the most common, overall, we know the full version is among the least" therefore you are still following WP:COMMONNAME which is not applicable to the question we are addressing because we are synthesizing a name for an article. You are misusing the concept of WP:COMMONNAME. "Common names" sometimes arise and sometimes do not arise. If they arise, they arise naturally in a social environment which should be understood to exclude the Wikipedia social environment. We cannot, after discussion on a Talk page, decide that our consensus points to a common name. What we are really doing is cobbling together two components. One component is the name of the school and the other component is what happened at the school: a shooting took place there. We should not be playing fast and loose with the name of the school, if we have chosen this method of creating a title for the article. We are not at liberty to arbitrarily lop off the "Marjory" part of the name because we, in our infinite wisdom, feel the article title would be better without it. Bus stop (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A) It's not arbitrary. Presumably you are familiar with the concept of a first name and a surname. Marjory is a first name, Stoneman Douglas is a surname (dual surname). B) The official website itself calls it Stoneman Douglas as can be seen here. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Similarly the school logo omits "Marjory". If the shorter version is good enough for the school it's good enough for the article. Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned several days ago, having the name of the school in the article's title doesn't fit with WP:COMMONNAME, because most media articles about this shooting don't include the school's name in their titles. It's still the case that most media articles refer to this massacre by its location rather than the name of the school. That's because, despite this highly-publicised event, most people outside Florida still don't know the name of the school. Jim Michael (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If this isn't a common name thing, is it a feminism thing? I wouldn't normally ask, but your last sentence is rife with innuendo, gender studies students recently moved in from Texas and I see patterns where none exist. It's cool if it is and cool if it isn't, just wondering. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

It has been 13 days since that RM was closed with a clear consensus. I strongly oppose the re-litigation of the issue so soon simply because one or two editors didn't get to !vote in the RM and disagree with its outcome, and whose !votes wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway. Have a bit of respect for the consensus process and fellow editors, and let settled issues remain settled for awhile. Consensus can change but it doesn't have to change NOW. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No editor referenced this: "simply because one or two editors didn't get to !vote in the RM". Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

See the remainder of my comment. Don't pick low-hanging fruit and ignore the essential point. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No one complained that they did not get to participate in a previous discussion. Neither Geo Swan nor myself complained that we did not get to participate in a different discussion. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I heard you the first time. See WP:IDHT and my preceding comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to not try to provoke me into an argument. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

To Mandurss' point, everything we'd litigated less than a week ago has come around for a renewed litigation. The article title, the victim list, and section titles. For pete's sake myself and Mandruss opposed inclusion of the list, but it was also down to us to set it up for least disruption. Granted that discussion appears to have been an 8-8 tie in numbers, and probably in arguments. Nobody is interested in provoking you, but frustration mounts after the billionth time repeating the same thing. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Litigate? Aren't you referring to consensus emerging from discussion? Sounds like the Supremes Court. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I was using the archaic definition meaning "to dispute". Mr rnddude (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If it ain't broke... And the current title is fine. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Several people, including me, have said that they don't agree with the current title. As I mentioned before, the discussion was only open for 19 hours, which is much shorter than most. Jim Michael (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Several people always disagree with the result of an RM, so I'm not sure what your point is there. I'm sorry you weren't around to be the lone challenger to the closer's—an admin—judgment that a close in those circumstances was just fine. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Not true - sometimes few or no people disagree. If the RM had been open for a few days at least, there would have been several people disagreeing with the title at the time. Where does it say that it's advisable to close an RM after 19 hours? Jim Michael (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say that this is not within a closer's discretion, particularly that of one who has the experience, and knowledge of policy and common practice, to pass RfA? I think the clear prevailing view on this page is that we should let this result stand for awhile. You may have some people saying they disagree with the current title, but as far as I can see you're the only one insisting that we revisit this after only 2 weeks. I think that puts you squarely in WP:STICK territory. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that everyone who's expressed a disagreement with the current title would like to debate it. If you were starting a conversation with anyone outside Florida about this massacre, there's no way that you'd start by mentioning the school's name. Despite the media coverage of it, the vast majority of people outside Florida don't know the name of the school. That's very different to Columbine and Sandy Hook, which are known by many millions of people across the world because they're the names of the settlements in which the massacres took place. Jim Michael (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be GeoSwan, Bus Stop and you... versus the seventeen editors who supported the move in the first place. Does not seem sufficient to overturn the existing consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, everything looks bleakest before the mystery partner's music hits. Then it's overturned like rover! Delusions of grandeur aside, I am the original WWF (We Want Florida) champion, and haven't even hulked up on the matter yet. A little recognition is all I ask. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

I don't care that much about it. I think the title of the article is of minor importance. If the title were implying something that was in some way objectionable I would argue vehemently that it should be changed to something anodyne. But the title of this article is irrelevant, I think, because redirects and disambiguation pages can be used to bring the reader to this article from any of the possible titles that can be considered. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Victims list revisited

The list of the dead's names and ages was disputed, discussed, and lacks talk page consensus. The previous discussion went to archive with an 8–8 tie. The view at #No consensus for victims list is that the list has acquired de facto consensus, in effect, and now requires a consensus to remove it.

Oppose inclusion of the victims list
Support inclusion of the victims list

• Oppose - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, 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. The criterion for inclusion of any information in the article is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. Genders and ages could be summarized in prose and that would add to reader understanding.
  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 ☎ 14:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:N, the victims are notable in context of the event. As I said in the other discussion we also have names in the Columbine High School massacre article, yes this is a WP:OSE argument but I feel that there should either be a streamline solution or a case by case basis of inclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, there have been multiple failed attempts to get community consensus on this. Victims lists in mass-killing articles isn't something that needs case-by-case evaluations, it either makes sense or it doesn't. The amount of RS coverage of the names is always roughly the same. Unfortunately the community's aversion to "prescriptiveness" is too strong, so we're forced to debate it for every article and there is little consistency across articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think we are going to have a clear answer on this until we get the heart of the question solved. I would respect any consensus on the matter but for now these are my thoughts on the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and being the victim of a crime does not make one a public figure. What value does listing the names of the victims add? Natureium (talk) 15:07, 1 March

• WP:NOTMEMORIAL refers to WP:BIO, we aren't making articles about these people so would it apply? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The policy page does not specify that it only applies to WP:BIO, and even if that is the case, that doesn't mean the policy should be entirely different if contained within another article. Natureium (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where he got that it refers to BIO, but it applies to article subjects specifically. Guidelines for articles creation criteria aren't the same for content of the articles themselves. From WP:LISTBIO "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list".(bolding not done by me) There isn't a policy that says we can't have this list, its going to have to be determined by a consensus. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If the purpose of the policy is to state that Wikipedia is not a memorial, the concept applies here as well. While it may have been written to determine notability for article topics, it still stands that Wikipedia is not a memorial and we shouldn't be memorializing victims. Natureium (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't clear as it says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements" These people are not some editor's deceased friends, relatives, or acquaintances. So the others points to the notability requirements if you are going to make an article about the person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the list is not to memorialize the victims, it is the list them as it relates to this shooting. A list of the victims in a standalone page would make that entire page dedicated to just them, which is what I believe why the memorial policy specifies article subjects. The list we have is contained within a section along with additional information, within a the larger whole article. Voting because you believe that it invades privacy of them is reasonable argument. I don't feel like this list was added in or being used to memorialize the victims, and it just provides information that people may or may not feel is needed. Unlike Peter Wang's AfD, I don't see people here(or prior discussion), saying the names should be included to honor their deaths. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, but regardless, it is necessary? No, it's trivia. Natureium (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been uneasy about publishing the names of the less-prominent students (i.e. non-ROTC). The families' right to privacy and possibly, their safety, should be considered. I would prefer to remove the list and add a statement that "the students ranged in age from 14 to 18" or words to that effect. Regards,Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 15:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 2018 (UTC)I think the age range is valuable to the reader, not the individual names.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 15:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Every print news mag, online news site and tv news has shown their photos and listed them by name - cat's already out of the bag on this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.18.4 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Not even an apt metaphor, nobody had put the cat in the bag. They simply weren't named pending next of kin notification, then were, per the way things go. No secret. Many relatives even willingly shared stories of these people, using their names. Those who didn't have the right to remain silent, but no rights are violated by simply relaying public information like this. Has there ever been a case of someone being less safe due to a named related massacre victim? If so, I'll consider it, but I can't see how that would work. Usually the crooks and cops that catch the heat. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - There is no policy to prevent us from including the list and we have at least one victim who's name is going to be mention with Peter Wang's due to his AfD determining to (delete and) redirect here. While a redirect decision doesn't equate to a merge, there was more than enough coverage on him and his death, along with the medal he and two others received from the army to warrant a mention of him in this event. Are we going to mention him and just leave the other two as "two others"? Are we gonna mention those three names and omit the teacher and coaches? Are we gonna name the 6 of them and have a state with 1/3rd of the victims named and 2/3 unnamed? All of those are options, but I lean more towards include all, over include some. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Mass ping of people who participated in last discussion. @K.e.coffman: @TheHoax: @InedibleHulk: @Ohconfucius: @MPS1992: @Spirit of Eagle: @MrX: @Mr rnddude: @Kieronoldham: @DHeyward: @Starship.paint: WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of the victims list. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, and WP:BLPNAME applies.- MrX 🖋 15:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  WP:BLPNAME does not apply as these people are not living. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  While BLP polices do apply to recently deceased, it won't be applicable forever. WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply though since that policy applies specifically to article subjects. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  That's a very narrow reading of the policy that borders on wikilawyering. The fact is, a list of unknown victims is not encyclopedic. It's trivia. The names are not historically significant. There is also the potential risk of invading the privacy of the surviving friends and relatives of the deceased.- MrX 🖋 18:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  There is no risk as the families released the names of the victims to the public which were distributed in widespread reliable sources. If the names invaded the privacy of the surviving friends and relatives we would be hearing about lawsuits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  I don't feel its a narrow reading, its just a literal reading. It states "4. 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., not "Contents of encyclopedia articles must satisfy...". The list is directly related to this shooting, and it purpose is not to serve as a memorial. And this is from an actual policy, not one of those essays that people cite as policy. WP:SOURCELIST is the policy to use to determine the contents of a list in an article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Include information about who died and otherwise received physical injuries in the incident. That information is the concrete representation of what has happened. Ages are easy to relate to, and names less so, but even the names convey the significance of real people. The dimension of the reality of this incident is conveyed by the inclusion of such information as is found in the Victims section. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support including the names and ages. Real people were murdered, not just a list of ages. We regularly include names of murder victims in other crime articles. The info is well sourced and widely reported. What I have not seen is details on the injured - in fact we've struggled to get a definitive count. We are right to exclude the living injured names but include the dead. I also share the concern it would be wromg to omit the names of those that died protecting others, so the current level of detail strikes the right balance. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose list per User:Mandruss. As I already said in previous discussions, we do not add lists of victims' names here on WP just because they are published in news sources. It is completely fake news to claim there is consensus elsewhere for similar lists of victims here on WP. The existence of sources to cite is not relevant, as these are not content-related policies – Sources and citations exist to permit verification of information included. For those arguing for a "concrete representation of what happened", this can be achieved by simply incorporating a tally of staff/students injured and killed, and this may or may not include the perpetrator (where he/she is injured or killed) as so the editors may decide. The mere existence of news articles containing peoples' names does not go to establishing notability where the mentions are "trivial". The relevant policy for non-inclusion is WP:MEMORIAL. These policies and guidelines have existed more or less in that form for years, to avoid shrines being created. As to details of victims' ages, we don't usually list individual victims' ages because WP is not the news, although there may be an interested in having age bands. Those readers who want to find names of the dead can and do go to relevant news websites. The list therefore ought to be removed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Shrines have pictures, mementos, ornate dressing and reminders of hobbies, interests, stories or other private life stuff. Listing a name and age is nothing like a memorial service, more like a census. Dry, boring and detached facts which are merely remembered, not commemorated, celebrated or anything like that. We say very much more here about (currently) living people; if NOTMEMORIAL applied to content rather than subjects, we'd need to wipe our recollections of Lasky, Scherer, Weekes and Runcie, too. Or only when they die? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

• Support The victims have been extensively covered in the press, and there is no indication the families want the names kept quiet for privacy reasons. We're just giving a list of 17 names, not writing a biography for each of them. Including only ROTC members would give a very distorted view.--Pharos (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support The first time I explained myself, I felt it shouldn't need much explanation. Now I know it doesn't. Per all the reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, March 2, 2018 (UTC)
• Support We have a section in the article about the victims; their names and background information are highly relevant and have been the focus of a great deal of media coverage. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not relevant here because the policy prohibits articles on people that fail WP:GNG (the GNG section is highlighted in the policy to signal the importance of the "not meeting notability" element). Strictly speaking, NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to content within articles. However, even if you do extend the policy's principle to content within articles, the victims have received substantial press coverage and thus meet inclusion standards. Some editors have argued that we do not need to include every detail published by the media. However, the victims are not some inconsequential detail; they have received substantial press coverage and their tragic deaths is why the article exists in the first place. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Partial support – I support the inclusion of semi notable victims who have received a substantial amount of coverage, like Peter Wang and ROTC members. The victims are notable in the context of this event and should be mentioned in an appropriate section of this article. NOTMEMORIAL usually applies to biographies – not individual sections within an article. This is not an uncommon practice to list the names of notable victims. We do the same for the September 11 attacks. CookieMonster755✉ 17:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support keeping the list up, useful info. A 'memorial' might be if a bunch of people simultaneously died in an explosion. People who were progressively gunned down in a specific order are useful to know for understanding how a situation took place. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  But that's not the information provided, and that's not in the article at all. It gives the names in alphabetical order. What purpose would it serve to know who was killed first, who was killed 6th, and who was killed 15th? It doesn't add any useful information. The article doesn't need to provide a second-by-second accounting of the shooting. Natureium (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, our purpose is not paint a vivid picture allowing readers to imagine they were there seeing it play out. That's for the movies. Similarly, we also omit some of the reported details about his movements between specific rooms. Never mind that it would be impossible to establish the precise order. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think knowing the order people were killed in, the rooms they were killed in, would necessarily paint a 'vivid' picture. That's still pretty sparse. I don't think it would be impossible to establish a precise order. Isn't that the type of stuff CSI do? Not sure how much video exists from the time but couldn't they do audio analysis? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  I would strongly oppose that kind of detail as unencyclopedic, even if we got to that, which we won't. Until you show that they have done that kind of analysis, and the results have been reported in RS, this is all off-topic speculation not related to article improvement, in violation of WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  Closer note: User ScratchMarshall received this topic ban on 3 March. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Their deaths are the basis of the article. Legacypac points out that other murderers' victims are left uncensored. These people have already passed, which I believe lessens the privacy concerns. starship.paint ~ KO 01:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mandruss's calm assessment. The individual names have no informational value at all unless the individual had a well-documented and significant role in the event, 'demographic' description of age-range and gender is sufficient to characterise the event. These people's names, and those of their families has become 'public info' without any consent or consideration of their wishes, we should err on the side of caution and exclude them. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

When you say "no informational value at all", clearly you are speaking figuratively. Of course the names of the individuals shot dead by the gunman constitute information, if we were to apply any standard definition of the word "information". I think I am voicing an objection to an unclear argument which you are presenting. If you wish to exclude arguably relevant and obviously well-sourced information from the article, then I think to a degree a burden is on you as well as others to articulate a rationale for the exclusion of the material under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:SATISFY applies. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I was objecting to the figurative use of the term "information". I was hoping the other editor could clear that up. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If a reader never heard of Alyssa Alhadeff before this shooting, her name is not information to that reader. You could substitute any other name previously unknown to the reader and the reader's understanding of the shooting would not change. The information is 14-year-old girl. Pincrete may correct me if I have misstated their position. It's not that the argument is unclear, it's that you disagree with it; i.e. it's unclear to you because you disagree with it. Many of the Support arguments make no sense to me, but I'm not badgering the editors who made them; that is the point of SATISFY. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This enterprise is not about you educating the reader. We compile information and we exclude it if it can be shown to be objectionable. I favor inclusion because that is what we do. In my opinion there has to be an overriding reason for excluding information. Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The overriding reasons to omit have been stated in multiple !votes. I get that you disagree with them, but please stop saying they have not been given. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Somebody should also link whichever policy or guideline it is that says something along the lines of "just because it is verifiable, doesn't mean it needs to be included". Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS, linked in my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This is assuming that the consensus here has determined that the inclusion of the victim names does not improve this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. (emphasis mine to avoid a misread). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, you say "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." Obviously no one would want their name or their sister's name on such a list. Are you really providing a reason for omitting the victim's list? Your reason is obfuscatory. We should exclude information if a clear argument can be made that the inclusion of such information is objectionable. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Obviously no one would want their name or their sister's name on such a list. I think that, to everyone but you, it's crystal clear that I meant I would not want our names on the list if we had been killed in this shooting. To interpret that as meaning that I wouldn't want either of us to be killed in this shooting is pretty blatant strawmanning—you are not interested in actually hearing what people are saying—and I'm not going to engage such tactics. There are no "clear" arguments on either side. The only thing "clear" is that you are unwilling or unable to hear the points made by me and Mr rnddude just above, or much of anything for that matter; so a continuation of this dialogue is not constructive. Good day. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to hear the points. I am objecting to the obfuscation. I think the onus is on you to articulate a case for this material to be considered objectionable. If it is objectionable, it should be omitted. But your argument is merely the weak argument that the inclusion of this information doesn't provide material that is useful to the reader. Many journalistic outlets provide this information. I understand that our purpose may vary from that of a journalistic outlet. But should that translate into our willfully omitting information what quite arguably is relevant to an article on this subject? Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

When I say "no informational value at all", I mean it contains no useful information, ie nothing that would help anyone to understand what happened, nor how or why this event occurred. I've taken part in a number of these discussions and in none one them has anyone come up with any explanation of what knowing the names adds to the article. THAT is, or at least should be, the main criterion for inclusion, that it adds useful info. The list will probably be included, since, in my experience, the more gut-wrenchingly emotive the event, the more likely editors are to want to 'memorialise' the dead, and few events could be more emotive than these young deaths. Despite knowing that mine is probably a lost cause, I would like to hear a stronger case for inclusion than "Columbine has one". Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - For a combination of WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean it needs to be included. An article should summarize details, not include every bit of minutia that can be accrued, even from RS. I don't see this information being valuable or useful to the reader. It won't impart any greater knowledge of the event, which is what it's supposed to do. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  The names are notable in the context of this event, "I don't see this information being valuable or useful to the reader" is a WP:DONTLIKEIT argument. WP:NOTEVERYTHING meanwhile is a blanket statement that has little meaning if not pointed to a policy or guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  No, it's not a DONTLIKEIT argument. It's an editorial judgment argument, which is something we do every day. By your standard, every argument here is a DONTLIKEIT argument because policy does not clearly support either side. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  To your first statement: A name doesn't have notability... a subject has notability. I've heard the "context" argument before, and thoroughly rebuked it by pointing out that names don't provide context because they don't explain anything. Context: noun the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood. I can change the names, or invent them myself, and they will not impact on your understanding of the event. To your second statement: Mandruss covers it well enough. To your third statement: NOTEVERYTHING is a policy in and of itself, moreover I've coupled it with ONUS... quite obviously. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  The names of the victims are relevant to this article. There was a shooting. People died. They had names. Those names are relevant to an article on that shooting. The question is whether the inclusion of the names of the deceased constitutes some kind of impropriety. Is the inclusion of the names objectionable? If so, why? Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  The question is whether the inclusion of the names of the deceased constitutes some kind of impropriety. That may be your question, but that's not the question in front of the community. It also summarily ignores either of the policies I've linked. Impropriety is not the only reason to exclude material. You obviously don't agree with my or Mandruss' points, and your points aren't convincing to either of us. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  Noting that this kind of behavior often gets editors with smaller edit counts blocked per WP:DE and/or WP:NOTHERE. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  Mandruss—the article has an ostensible subject. Its scope is not entirely a mystery to all editors weighing in here. Why shouldn't we use a Talk page to 'talk" about what should or should not be included in this article? I don't maintain the overweening perspective that I know what is best for the reader. I don't think I have an infallible understanding of what makes a good article. But rational discussion on a Talk page is a part of airing out editorial differences of opinion on how an article should be written. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  The questions you keep demanding answers to have been answered multiple times. Whether the answers make sense to you is immaterial. This is not what talk pages are for. Just stop it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  One of the things to take into account when writing an article on an event is whether the information provided improves the readers' understanding of the event. I've read that list countless times and the only name I remember is the first name of the first victim: Alyssa. Doss it help me get to grips with the subject matter? No. Does it fill my head with useless information Ill never need? No, it obviously can't even do that considering I only remember one word of it. It's a block of text that tells me nothing of what happened, how it happened, why it happened, or why its important. I've said this multiple times before, an encyclopaedic article isn't supposed to hit you in the feels. It is supposed to give you an understanding of the subject matter. Unless you're reading about a named subject, e.g. William Shakespeare, you are not going to benefit from the knowledge. That, fundamentally, is why I'm arguing to exclude it. It exists, it is known, but it provides the reader with nothing. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  As has been clearly enough stated multiple times by multiple editors. When do we get off this merry-go-round? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  You say Does it help me get to grips with the subject matter? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that. The subject matter is plainly obvious. There is nothing in the article that modifies the fact that a 19 year old male used a firearm to kill and maim many people in a school. Almost everything in the article is extraneous to those basic facts. Are the names of the victims more extraneous to the basic facts than for instance that it took place in what is called the freshman building? We provide many pieces of information simply because they are relevant facts. Must we? No. We are not required to include all relevant information. You are asking if information is helping you to get to grips with the subject matter. Nothing is going to help us to get to grips with the subject matter. Maybe the shooter will reveal a motive, or psychological analysis will result in a theory. The names of the victims obviously cannot help us to get to grips with the subject matter. You are eminently entitled to argue for keeping the victims names out of the article. But inclusion/exclusion of the names of the victims shouldn't be decided on the basis that they do or do not help us to get to grips with the subject matter. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  Request a closure? Right now there is a 10-7 consensus going by numbers alone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  I think you're counting CookieMonster's "partial support", which is actually supporting only selected names, not the whole list which is the subject of this discussion. That makes it 9–7 Support. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Again WP:OSE but I invite you to look at the articles over at Mass shootings in the United States#Deadliest shootings, we either have these victim lists or we don't. I'm sure the same arguments have been played out many times before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion should remain open since the last comment was made just a few hours ago. At the moment, there is no consensus.- MrX 🖋 17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You should consider taking your issue to WP:PUMP or start a WP:RfC on the matter. If this has to go to WP:ARBCOM then so be it. Personally I feel that there are lots of other things on Wikipedia that need the attention more but this is an issue that has popped up way too many times. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: What "my issue" are you referring to? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue of victim lists in articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

As of this moment, there are six other editors who agree with me. How is this "my issue" exactly? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to go on the defense here, all I am suggesting is that this discussion be continued on another venue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being defensive, I'm asking you not to call things "my issue" when they are clearly not that. First, if you just wanted to suggest another venue, I don't know where ArbCom comes into that as I don't think content decisions are made by ArbCom. As for VP and other community-level venues, I've already said that that has been tried unsuccessfully multiple times. If you feel it might yield a different outcome if tried another time, go ahead and try. I don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay I will get straight to the point... do you take issue with the victim list (yes or no?). By saying it is your issue in no way do I mean to imply that you alone have a problem with said content. If you don't want to take this to another venue that is fine as well, I just threw out an idea to be helpful rather than having this be an endless conversation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

do you take issue with the victim list (yes or no?) - I don't think I have ever used the word "facepalm" in a Wikipedia discussion, but I'm making an exception. Have you read my !vote and the rest of my comments in this thread? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't resolve content disputes, and I doubt that Village Pump would settle on a project-wide guideline for or against victims lists in articles. - MrX 🖋 18:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

They do resolve disputes though when a consensus can not be reached by the community. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No they don't.- MrX 🖋 19:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, an RFC advertised under the centralized discussion would be the best solution to the dispute over victim lists. This is an issue that affects a large number of articles, so it would be appropriate to get input from the wider community. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, we need to have a centralized discussion about the matter. If other editors didn't care about this issue then we wouldn't be having this discussion, in my opinion other things on this article deserves the attention more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mr rnddude and Pincrete have covered it pretty well.--Khajidha (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Survivor classification

This image from this February 24 tweet by BrowardSheriff contains the following:

Understand, that through this entire process our focus is on the 33 victims (17 murdered and 16 survivors) and their families who suffered a devastating loss and whose lives will forever be changed.

Presently the pages on students present on campus during the shooting but AFAIK who were not shot by the gunman are placed in the category Category:American_shooting_survivors and the description for it reads:

These are people of American nationality who survived injury from a shooting.

The description of its parent Category:Shooting survivors reads:

These are people who have survived serious injury from a shooting. For those who did not survive, see Category:Deaths by firearm.

The description of its parent Category:Shooting victims reads:

This category is for victims who sustained gunshot injuries.

While I can see that there sources which refer to Hogg/Gonzalez/Kasky as "survivor" or "survivors", I do not see any mention presently on any of the 3 articles about them sustaining a gunshot injury, so 0/3 appear to fall under our present description of shooting victims / shooting survivors / American shooting survivors simply by being present in a school where a shooting took place.

Nor does the trio appear to full under the Broward Sheriff's definition, where "33 victims" narrowly refers to people who were shot and not more broadly to the larger number of students who evacuated the school without injuries. Where "16 survivors" refers more narrowly to those who survived injuries and not more broadly to those who survived being present on a campus where a shooting took place.

I am proposing we remove all three students from this category, and that we not refer to them as survivors in the article body, out of respect for those who survived gunshot injuries. This defers to our own category descriptions, and to the Broward County Sherrif's Department description which only classifies those who survived injuries as survivors, and not every student on campus that day.

This consideration extend to David Hogg (activist) and Emma González and Cameron Kasky articles, as well as Template:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting which lists all 3 of them as "survivors". ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Here wouldn't be the place to discuss/decide that, probably in the category talk page, or each individuals' articles would be better. We could decide to not or to call them survivors here, that decision wouldn't transfer to those other pages. On this talk page any consensus we established will only take effect here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between category practices and prose. Reliable sources typically describe anyone who was in the building as a survivor for these types of incidents, and certainly the individuals you've mentioned have been described as survivors of this incident in all the major newspapers.--Pharos (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this grounds for us to change the guidelines for the categories? Or possibly to introduce subcategories? Like for example Category:Unshot shooting victims or Category:Unshot shooting survivors? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

”Survivor” is commonly applied by society in general to those in the vicinity of an event who were presumably possible victims, and not just to those who suffered injuries as a direct result of the event. An example is “Pearl Harbor attack survivor” which has been applied to military personnel who were on or within 3 miles offshore during the attack. They did not have to have been on a ship or at a shore facility which was bombed, torpedoed. Edison (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) No, categories are different from articles. The category is for survivors of being shot. The people here are survivors of a massacre.--Pharos (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay well, unless someone wants to move to alter the descriptions in the categories, I have removed the 3 of them from the category (left it commented-out with a note about why to inform anyone thinking to restore it) and placed them under Category:Crime witnesses instead. We should probably pursue fixing this contradiction though between our category definitions and our usage within articles. Would WikiProject Crime be the place to have that discussion? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WP Crime would indeed be a good place for the discussion. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The three with articles were not shot but everyone that was in that school are survivors. For example everyone that was on the Titanic but did did drown survived regardless of injuries or not. The sherriff's release refers to those that survived gunshot wounds vs those that did not. One guy I really feel for is the student who was mistaken for the shooter (same size, look and clothing) and survived being taken down by SWAT. He was held for several hours at gunpoint. Saw him speaking out about gun control with passion only possible after nearly being gunned down by the shooter and then police. Legacypac (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A sinking ship in remote cold water is an entirely different animal. Everyone onboard is directly threatened. Sitting still and waiting quietly for the end means almost certain death. The ship won't stop itself, nor will a saviour. To survive, passengers must take corrective action. Get to the chopper, lifeboat or whatever. In a school, sitting still and waiting quietly for the end is simply what (well-behaved) students do every day.

If you're gazing out the window in math and witness a plane crash, you don't survive it; you weren't quite there. Same as standing by while a boy drowns, overhearing a girl's seizure or looking on as your teacher chokes. Scary shit and a reminder of your own mortality, to be sure, but the actual life in balance is not your own. You only "survive" by virtue of a threat passing you by altogether, as untargeted students did then there and millions do each day at most every school on Earth.

Being detained at gunpoint by cops is also scary, but despite what the news might lead you to believe, it's rarely dangerous if you stay passive, obey basic orders and wait for dismissal. Pay attention, don't make erratic movements and keep your hands where we can see them; this strategy is also effective for surviving driving every day. If we don't hype up people narrowly avoiding (far likelier) highway death by simply doing what they were taught, we shouldn't pretend these kids didn't merely follow the standard drill and have yet another lucky day. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, March 6, 2018 (UTC)

new source to consider re Jewish mom controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

special:diff/827928770 the previous discussion #allegedly Jewish real mom was closed, however I do not believe we evaluated this source published specifically about this, showing that it is being singled out as a notable controversy.

• Jewish Telegraphic Agency (18 February 2018). "Was Florida school shooter's mother Jewish? Nikolas Cruz, who gunned down 17 in Florida high school, claimed his mother was Jewish - yet expressed hatred for Jews, blacks, immigrants". Israel National News. In one post about his biological mother, Cruz said: "My real mom was a Jew. I am glad I never met her," according to CNN. He also said that he hated Jews because he believed they wanted to destroy the world.

The JTA via INN has established a connection here between antsemitism and the mother question, enough to make it the leading line of their article. I believe this is grounds for re-opening the discussion on whether or not to include that based on this new evidence which nobody brought up in the previous discussion and I only just learned of. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't evidence, nor is it new(dated February 18th). Almost every paragraph says according to CNN, or CNN reported. This is same information about the group chat, and same messages that were discussed last time, since the CNN report was the primary reference. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The source is evidence regarding the notability of the connection, the source is the title chosen by INN/JTA. Yes they're still reporting on CNN but they are interpreting that and reporting the maternal data more prominently than others. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The source is reporting what CNN reported, nothing else. How they report it is their business, but as I said this information isn't new and was already discussed. There is no new evidence, it is the exact same as before. Reporting methods don't influence evidence, the actually evidence presented does, and it is the same evidence as even they say reported by CNN. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, INN and/or JTA (whoever made the headline) are taking an unreliable, unverified statement Cruz made about his birth mother (whom I'm not sure he ever met, being adopted at birth), and turning it into a click-bait headline. Cruz's purported comments about his mother are mentioned in passing, not the subject of the article, which itself is primarily a rehashing of various troubling remarks, which are already mentioned in this article. While this doesn't quite follow Betteridge's law of headlines, we certainly shouldn't take Cruz at his word, and would need additional coverage of this issue, otherwise we're lending undue weight to a very small perspective. We don't want to follow the model of right-wing trolls who fanned conspiracies like "Was Cruz a Dreamer?" "Was Cruz a registered democrat in Antifa?" Note that despite his (adoptive) last name, we don't even have credible sources about his ethnicity (not that it matters). --Animalparty! (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source about officer on duty

If this report is wrong, then I'm sorry for having brought it up and I mean no disrespect to the families. Bill O'Reilly said that the 911 calls made by the students from their cell phones were directed to Coral Springs, and that the radio of the school resource officer on duty was connected to the Broward County dispatcher (and not to the Coral Springs dispatcher, apparently two different offices?), with the result that the officer wasn't able to receive information about the shooting in a timely manner. I'm not sure if this is true, but I thought it might be important to add something about the 911 calls made by the students to the article. Here's where O'Reilly makes the report: billoreilly.com Again, if the report is mistaken, then I apologize for having brought it up and I didn't intend to disrespect the school and the community there. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I have close to zero respect for the journalistic standards of Mr. Inside Edition O'Reilly, and I don't find anybody else picking up on that. Until they do, there's little point in discussing it. That said I don't think it would have gone down much different if Peterson had arrived outside the building a minute earlier. It's not like these agencies don't talk to each other about active shooter situations. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Multiple issues

There are numerous issues with this article starting with the statement the FBI received tips bot could not identify Cruz. Shortly after the incident the FBI director admitted that agents failed to follow proper protocol and didn't even forward the information to the Local FBI offices or Local LEO's.

In total LEO's responded to 45 calls dealing with Cruz prior to this incident including numerous felonies for which he could have at anytime been arrested. Had either the local LEO's or FBI done their duty this chooting would have been averted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.212.165 (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I am assuming LEO stands for Law enforcement organization. Can you confirm this? Also can you please sign your comments with four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"LEO" usually means law enforcement officer; see LEO and Law enforcement officer. But I see that Law enforcement organisation also uses the acronym, so I guess LEO can mean either and you have to figure out which from context. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Jewish biological mother?

Since Cruz said himself that he had a jewish biological mother why is that not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.211.19 (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I was going to point out that this has already been discussed, and that it's a common meme among the alt-right to attribute Jewish mothers to mass shooters (despite anti-semitic remarks being quite common among mass shooters), and this time CNN slipped and mentioned it once, resulting in a few other mainstream sources repeating it...

But instead, I'm going to ask: why would his mother supposedly being Jewish have any relevance to the son's actions, unless you're trying to push a narrative that Jews shoot up schools? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a push. We note his supposed beliefs on Mexicans, blacks, gays, immigrants, cops, white women, antifascists, animals and Jews. None of them seem relevant, given the victim demographics. It's all just shit we've read he wrote. Shouldn't hold Judaism to a different standard than anti-Judaism, though I'm fine with excluding everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, March 8, 2018 (UTC)

Cruz expulsion

I missed whenever it was added, but there is a note that says he was never expelled in reference to Cruz. I've read the cited source[4] and it says he wasn't expelled from the Broward Public School system, but explicitly says he was banished from Stoneman Douglas and transferred to an alternative school. Is this not the same thing as saying was expelled from that specific school and forced to transferred to another? Legally they can't prevent him from getting an education, but they can and did kick him out of this one individual school. Even early reports that say he was expelled, said he was placed into alternative schools, so it wasn't really that people were suggesting that he had been kicked completely out of the school system, which the report is debunking. I don't feel the note is needed, and we can just say former student who was banned/banished(even expelled works imho) specifically from Stoneman Douglas. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Good read. We definitely need the banishment, which appears to have occurred in 2017 if I'm doing the math right. The whole area could use some cleanup and clarification; eg where does the backpack ban fit in? I'd remove the existing footnote, but we might clarify the expulsion point in another footnote elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I updated the article, and just mentioned the banishment in the sentence that says he is former student, and removed the note. I personally think we can use the word expelled, but was waiting on others opinions on it so leaving as banished for now. I'm not sure about the backpack ban, because I think we only have the mention of it by the teacher I think. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"Expelled" is definitely the word. Banishment/exile is for fancy folk. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:02, March 8, 2018 (UTC)

Including that well-known bastion of elitists, the Miami Herald. I added the date of banishment.[5]. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Cruz was not expelled from this school, as the source article referenced in the entry clearly states. I went to delete the word but can't edit because I don't have 500 edits yet.EvidenceFairy (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)