Talk:Parkland high school shooting

Fatalities

CNN just reported 16 confirmed dead.Dogru144 (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Any source? 15mins ago they were still reporting at least 2. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see the current reference updated WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Now the deadliest High School shooting, passing Columbine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:A9A2:CCD6:77BD:BBE5 (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sheriff at press conference just reported 17 dead. -CNN Dogru144 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspect's name

Orginaly reported as Nicolas Cruz, sources have updated to use Nikolaus Cruz. [5] [6]. Although some are using Nikolas [7]. Will keep eye on it until we have correct spelling. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Broward Sheriff's tweet stated suspect’s name is spelled Nikolas Cruz. Sokuya (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

According to Broward County Sheriff, the suspect’s name is Nikolas Cruz. The article says Nikolas De Jesus Cruz. No verifiable source for “de Jesus” needs to be corrected to match the official report from the Sheriff’s department ev (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Which report is the official report? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Broward County Sheriff’s Department statement in the form of the tweet referenced above. ev (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a bit restrictive, don't you think? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Restrictive? There is not one single source for this “de Jesus” If you are able to find one please advise, until such time “de Jesus” has been removed from the article ev (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I advise you to Google it. The name "de Jesus" is not one a reporter simply pulls out of her ass. "Gonzalez" or "Rodriguez", maybe, but this was released officially somewhere. Miami Herald says he was identified by "law enforcement sources", whatever that means (but now the story doesn't match the Google blurb). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

The Herald Did initially use Nicolas de Jesus Cruz, and that was why it was what was put into our article first. But as they updated article they changed name, and then cited material was no longer accurate(for middle name). That was name reported to them from law enforcement sources. First and Last should be fine for now, when trial comes out and full details released we can update details as needed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no middle to a Spanish name. It just starts twice and ends twice. But yeah, I'm in no rush to confuse the Internet into thinking Jesus killed the Jews. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:24, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Damn it, I should have thought of that. Quit stealing all the good one-liners. ^–User_Dude 04:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

“Released officially somewhere” is not a source as required. Law enforcement sources have clarified specifically both the name and spelling of the suspect. He has been identified as Nikolas Cruz https://twitter.com/browardsheriff/status/963934007468621824 ev (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Express has it, within this developing hour, as: His full name is Nikolas de Jesus Cruz and was at first identified by the media as Nicolas Cruz and also goes by Nick Cruz. Is that too shady a rag to trust? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Could not possibly supersede official Police statement. I have also read reports his name is Nikolas Cruz Makarov, as we continue this fruitless debate, I would encourage you to google his instagram page and his parents appeal to the public and decide if Makarov, de Jesus, or neither should be included in the article, and as such override the Broward County Sheriff ev (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you might be entirely missing the point of the correction. It was to change a C to a K, and the second surname was omitted for brevity, not because the omission is the correction. It's very common to just pick two, but the other two still exist. It's pronounced Hay-Zoose, if that helps. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Almost seems like you want/need his name to include de Jesus, but why? Rhetorical ev (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Evil plot. We usually use the full name of infamous killers, to not have idiots confuse them with the other Nick Cruz. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

I've seen sources use de Jesus. Fortunatestars (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that the suspect was a known Trump supporter and nationalist. It should be included in a much needed (100s of bodies late) category of "POLITICAL MURDER AND TERRORISM COMMITTED BY TRUMP SUPPORTERS." There have been over a 100 politically motivated murders by Trump supporters in 2017.

Was he old enough for votin' back when it even somewhat mattered? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:21, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

"over 100 politically motivated murders by Trump supporters in 2017". I'm not sure if you're trolling. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I don't think he's old enough to vote now, but one can be a politically motivated murderer without having the franchise. He frequently posted pictures of himself wearing a "Make America Great Again" Trump hats, and used such pictures as his profile pictures for several of his online social media profiles. His gun obsession and violent behavior is clearly correlated with the frequent public and/or politically motivated violence committed by Trump supporters since 2016.

Agreed. He also made publicly available comments on YouTube and various other social media about shooting supporters of the Antifa movement (if there even is such a thing) as well as about shooting anti-Trumpers. Seems an obvious fan of the President. Seems relevant. ev (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To the unsigned, if you think "gun obsession" and political violence is a sign of a Trump supporter, you just like many other people may need to read up on cognitive dissonance. [8] Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Not that simple, but yes. Unfortunate. As you said, “like many other people,” it’s a shared opinion whether cognitive dissonance or intuition or both. Groupthink. ev (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

“There are fine people on oh sides” ev (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Both* ev (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing 'second deadliest'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links

The FBI has set up a website where people can upload images and video of the shooting. Please consider to add it as external link.

• Seeking Information on School Shooting in Parkland, Florida Sokuya (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It just takes information, gives none. Typical FBI. Not very useful for encyclopedia readers. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

True, but it may assist with the law enforcement investigation, by propagating the link further. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

And maybe we should get paid like actual cops, too. But at the end of the day, we're running an entirely different (rather neutral) operation here. We don't even get a water cooler. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

The Infobox

The Infobox says

Deaths 16

Non-fatal injuries 14 Hospitalized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"prayers and condolences"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree in I still don't feel the prayers and condolences should be piped. I feel your proposal is better but just seems to be a compromise and just paraphrases the students wording instead of piping Trumps to get the link in. I wouldn't object if it was put into article that way, but can't say I support it. The phrase will end up in the article eventually if there ends up being a subsection on criticism of responses. Sources are discussing the issue (with that exact phrasing)[9] [10] [11], and the Marco Rubio issue that was also brought up here on talk page, it may in the long run warrant an subsection. But for now the responses should be left to the specific responses themselves, and after some time(at least a week) we can insert any lastings criticisms brought up of them. Reason being as a lot of these criticisms are just immediate reaction-ism. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weapon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [12][13][14], any consensus here is very weak at best. I'll add my support for AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle, per sources, barring unlikely sources for "modern sporting rifle". If there is a significant MOS:EGG case, somebody needs to take the redirect to WP:RFD. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Modern sporting rifle? Take 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@K.e.coffman: It had already been undone. [15] Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

No Refrences

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

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

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

C v K and middle Jesus confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 15 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: because there is a clear consensus in favor of a move, and this is a highly visible page right now, closing this early as consensus to move the page per the discussion below. I will also update the ITN item as suggested. Dekimasuよ! 01:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Douglas High School shooting → Stoneman Douglas High School shooting – there is no precedent here for shortening "Marjory Stoneman Douglas" to just "Douglas", it should at least be "Stoneman Douglas" because it was a dual surname. You can see at Template:Broward County Public Schools that the MSDHS article is abbreviated as "Stoneman Douglas" and not "Douglas". You can also see it abbreviated using 2 words in this source presently in the article:

• Teproff, Carli; Herrera, Chabeli; Smiley, David (February 14, 2018). "17 dead, 15 wounded after expelled student shoots up Stoneman Douglas High in Broward". Miami Herald.

No source is provided establishing we should shorten it to just "Douglas" like this. If we're going to go down an unsourced abbreviation path, might I suggest "Douglas High" and we drop "School" too, as "High" is a common abbreviation for highschool? ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The Sheriff uses "StonemanShooting" for a hashtag. Maybe that's a clue to drop the rest"Marjory" and "Douglas". Maybe it's just the way he personally likes it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

I'm for deferring to the sheriff and moving this to Stoneman shooting if anyone else is. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I am. It's concise, alliterative and reporters are likely to follow the sheriff on Twitter in coming weeks. But it's not used much yet. Half support, mostly just glad if we continue to not start titles with "2018" this year. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

I know that I'm not. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that I'm really really strongly opposed to looking to a Twitter hashtag from the Broward County Sheriff for a school's name. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Less important than what the lady was called is what the school is called. I think the school (or school board, or whoever controls the official website) is an authoritative reliable source for the school's name, or shortened version thereof. Stoneman Douglas High School. The word "School" should remain as it is informal and unencyclopedic tone to omit it. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  browsing that website I found https://www.nbcmiami.com/on-air/as-seen-on/Brag-About-Stoneman-Douglas-High_Miami-461927243.html (it is linked from the homepage via "Bragging About Stoneman Douglas") which says "Brag About Stoneman Douglas High" so perhaps Stoneman Douglas High shooting ? Definitely a precident for shortening High School to High. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  No. That doesn't make it encyclopedic tone. That website is not an encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  I'll point out that the NBC video clip which plays reads "STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH GETS HIGH MARKS" at 25 seconds. Are you saying NBC doesn't take a professional tone? ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  Seriously? A video clip? I'm out of this sub-discussion, see if you can get a consensus from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  Just having "High" on its own is not consistent with policy and it is not consistent with practice. The most famous of all high school incidents is probably Columbine High School massacre. We don't drop the "School." -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Mandruss. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Strangely Stoneman seems to be treated as a middle name. See https://books.google.com/books?id=4xwume8AdOUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false and https://books.google.com/books?id=yymmDQhYmzgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false Perhaps this is just something the library of congress does? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Many women prefer to be known by their maiden and married names after marriage, especially when they are professionally known by their maiden names. See Doris Kearns Goodwin. Again, this is largely irrelevant to this question, as we would use "Douglas High School" if that's what the school called itself. In my view this is not the usual WP:COMMONNAME situation, where a name is effectively a vote among reliable sources (and it hasn't been shown that reliable sources prefer to omit "Stoneman" anyway, over all). ―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to provide this calendar https://www.browardschools1.com/cms/lib/FL01803656/Centricity/Domain/50/Silver%20Burgundy%201718.JPG which reads "Stoneman Douglas H.S." as evidence that while "Marjory" is dispensible, Stoneman is not. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support it was referred to by Broward Sheriff as "Stoneman Shooting" ^–User_Dude 06:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom above. Fortunatestars (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination by Mandruss. Codyorb (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Food for thought As of now, plain and simple Florida school shooting is up for grabs yoinked from us and widely used by reliable sources. You'd think with all the Florida Man stories, there'd have been another, but nope. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I would have never thought about using "Florida school shooting" and it was right in front of us. Fortunatestars (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've boldly claimed that as a disambiguation page. Nathaniel Brazill article is also regarding a school shooting in florida at https://books.google.ca/books?id=84g6V0GXDzcC&pg=PA117 you can see a Reuters article cited titled "Teacher killed in Florida school shooting". ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Do they repeat that "name" in the body, or is that just a headline? Secondly, is that "name" used more often below the headline than the alternatives? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

For this one, the name's all over the place. Headline, body, tagline, metadata, Twitter link. Googling "florida school shooting" with "brazill" gets absolutely nothing in the first two pages at least. Just stuff about this one. Seems nobody on the Internet thought to call it that back then. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

See my comment at 07:59 UTC below. It supersedes a lot of what I've said here (my bad), while not changing my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll see your comment if you see whose side Reuters is on today. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

That fails to respond to my comment below. If you disagree with it, perhaps you could express exactly why, below it. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I can meet you halfway and say I don't disagree right here. We'll wait months or longer, and it'll still be called the Florida school shooting most elsewhere. For today, naming it for the school and squabbling over what the school's called is better than completely untitled. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

• Support. From news coverage it seems that the school is known as Stoneman or Stoneman Douglas. Alternatively, the page could be moved back to the original Marjory Stoneman Douglas page. Paris1127 (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Mandruss. Douglas HS sounds like a rather common name, also; possible confusion could exist... Veryproicelandic (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the evidence given, this appears to be the common name.Bneu2013 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Well, MSDHS is 10 minutes away from my place. As a local of 18 years, I can say that Douglas High School is far too general for a national conversation or the online encyclopedia. Using Florida High School is even worse and hints at why we shouldn't just blindly follow the media on an emerging story. Additionally, unless we're willing to put "Douglas High School in Florida", this article name also currently refers to a "Douglas High School" in Nevada; there's one in Arizona too; or perhaps we meant Alabama? or Massachusetts? Meanwhile, Stoneman Douglas is specific but not "too long" which was the one and only reason why it was shortened in the first place. Lastly, the official site of Broward County Public Schools has the shorthand for the school as Stoneman Douglas High School in the url as well as on the school's title page. I don't want to go into much more detail as to why it makes sense, objectively, to include Stoneman, but I do want to end by adding that when we were talking about it at work (I teach/tutor nearby), everyone referred to it as Stoneman Douglas since neither Stoneman (better) nor Douglas (worse) were specific enough for even us who live here. Steevebpl (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - If anyone cares to claim WP:COMMONNAME for the current title, I invite them to produce as much RS as the following. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I moved it from the original name, which was clearly too long and not the WP:COMMONNAME. The URL of the school is "douglashigh.com" [16] which is why I saw the short name as valid, but will concur with the majority here if "Stoneman Douglas High School" emerges. The web site of the school uses the latter as well. Just "Florida high school shooting" is too vague and general, and will not stand the test of time. In Google News, you'll see Parkland shooting or Parkland, Florida shooting, FWIW. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - WP:COMMONNAME does not intend for editors to go scurrying about 10 hours after the fact, trying to decide which arbitrary words the authors of passing, ephemeral news stories choose most often to refer to the events. It's meant for events like the Boston Massacre, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the September 11 attacks. Few events ever acquire such widely-recognized names, and when they do it takes months or more for the names to take hold. For our purposes today, the clearly established short form of the school's name, per the school district's website, is the best we can do, or should try to do. That has more than ample RS support, and we don't need to show that it's majority support. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Locally the school was refereed to as Douglas High (School). I'm sure it will be refereed to by a more complete name when referring to this shooting nationally. I felt Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS shooting was a bit long, but Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting is probably best for article as no one is going to use the completely shorten name for national reports. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Administrator note I added a short move protection when this went to main page to prevent disruption, etc. No objection to this being moved to anything that is agreed on here. Please update the ITN hook to bypass a redirect if changing. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The school may well be called Douglas High School by students and locals however IMHO the full schools name should remain. –Davey2010^Talk 16:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The WP:COMMONNAME policy does not support this, however. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Primarily due to previous comments - I would support either changing it to Stoneman Douglas ~ or Parkland ~. --HunterM267 ❯ talk 17:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The full school name should be used. I've seen videos of news clips calling the school by the full name. Take that into consideration. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The WP:COMMONNAME policy does not support this, however. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - as per nom. PJM (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support It's clear that the school refers to itself as Stoneman Douglas. See [17]. Not to mention the Stoneman Douglas Eagle Regiment, the Stoneman Douglas Winter Percussion, etc. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - either Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (full name) or Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (per nom and this is used on schools official website). There are multiple news sources which are referring to the school with its full name. For example: 1, 2 and 3. The other names are just shorter common names of the school. People tend to generally prefer a shorter name when referring to a school rather than its full name, especially if it's long like this school. There's a disambiguation page of other schools with the same/similar name too. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support a change to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting per WP:COMMONNAME. PCN02WPS 19:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support as nominated, "Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting" or since it's the only high school in Parkland, "Parkland Florida High School Shooting". There are some mentions of "Douglas High", but they appear to be exceptions rather than the rule. AlanK (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. While not the official full name, it's a widely used name, appearing on the school's website and sign. Whether or not the article eventually gets moved to "Parkland shooting" or "2018 Florida shooting" or whatever, it should not remain at the relatively seldom used "Douglas High". --Animalparty! (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy close?

It seems that the consensus for the move is clear. Would it be fine for someone to close this discussion before the full seven-day period is over? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I second the closure Bkellar (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broward County Sheriff

Should it be noted that the Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel is the first Jewish sheriff in Florida history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.179.128 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Also, before you ask any more questions of what to include, perhaps provide a source? In this case Broward_County_Sheriff's_Office#Composition already mentions "He is also the first Jewish person to serve as Sheriff in Florida history." and I don't see any point in duplicating that info here. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't see any possible reason to include that. On this page, at least... Paris1127 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Second shooter claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior drill

Noticed this:

• "A drill, then hours later the real thing". We thought it was a drill," a student evacuated from the high school tells CBS Miami. "We already had one earlier this morning... and then we heard gunshots; some students thought it was not that serious.

Can anyone find any other information supporting this claim by one of the evacuated students that they'd had an active-shooter drill/school shooting drill that very morning? ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Haven't heard that but he definitely figured out how to defeat a lockdown: pull the fire alarm before shooting. Made lockdowns pointless and provided an escape vector. --DHeyward (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

New York Times says it was a fire drill. Twice. The latter piece says there was an active-shooter drill "a few weeks before". ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Valentine's Day

Re this, I'm interested to know the relevance of Valentine's Day to this shooting. It was not an "observed holiday" in any way that affects school attendance, is there some other relevance? If we're making a point about the irony of such deadly violence on a day meant to be about love, we need to elaborate the point and we need RS to back it up. Otherwise we're editorializing. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It affects it in the same way we include other details like the firearm used, the name of the high school, that he was a former student and expelled, that he previously threatened other students, that he got in a fight with his ex-girlfriends new boyfriend, etc, etc. Whether any of those details are relevant is not known. We include them as part of the overall picture. He chose Valentine's Day, that high school, and an AR-15 for reasons that are not clear but we include them as details as they appear to not be random. Shooting up the school on Valentine's Day after being expelled for fighting with your ex-girlfriends new boyfriend might all be coincidence. --DHeyward (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My guess is coincidence. Until he actually comes out and says "I chose Valentines Day for obvious reasons" then we don't know. If he admits that in court then there you go. Since the shooter is alive, I'm sure the motive will come out sooner or later. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 20:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a coincidence: according to the family the suspect was staying with, he asked off for February 14 because it was Valentine's Day. So, at least, it was an excuse...but it also may have been a motive (someone who feels unloved may choose to kill those who are being loved on Valentine's Day out of jealousy).Ryoung122 22:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I would wait until there's a source for that. I'm not sure of the mechanics of including a motive in the article. I'll leave that to the more veteran editors. Interesting reply though. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 23:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusion and Controversy

Is the misreporting of the name really needed for a controversy and confusion section? Is the mention even needed at all, especially the birthdays and such? I'm not sure if the reporting of the name itself is actually part of the story. From what I've seen most of the reliable sources that used the incorrect name, corrected it without even a correction note. I personally don't think this is needed in the article, especially since the cited source describes it as people on social media arguing it was a registered democrat.

Also if people do believe it should be in article, I don't think it is controversial, and confusion is also a stretch. The police knew who the suspect was, and the spelling and identify someone else done by news and social media, was just incorrect speculation imo. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't known Wikipedia to be a rumor clearing house for breaking news, and I think it would be a bad idea to start being one. If the article doesn't support a rumor, readers can and should infer that the rumor is false—or at least lacking enough evidence to include in the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Relatedly, this edit is off-topic in my opinion. Also, Buzzfeed is usually not a reliable source.- MrX 🖋 14:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This whole section is not needed - and doesn't pass neither the 10 year test nor the 10 day test. A collection of WP:FRINGE + reporting that the suspect was named incorrectly by some news outlets for a few hours? It simply doesn't belong.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There are many other Wikipedia pages that detail conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and rumors associated with various incidents. Also, Buzzfeed is an increasingly-reliable source. This isn't 2015. Regardless, it provides a lot of necessary information to clear up misreporting, which is rife, especially in the Trump era. I think you place way too much faith in people to outright declare rumors, hoaxes, or conspiracy theories false just because Wikipedia lists the "true" information. Gwenhope (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There is WP:OSE to think about here, it is still too early to say that these fringe theories are notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If any of these rumors persist for a week, we can discuss whether they are serious enough to warrant debunking in this article. Barring that, this is an encyclopedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We generally do not write about FRINGE (conspiracy theories included) unless they are covered widely. Likewise, we generally do not write about some outlet(s) reporting the wrong name for a few hours - unless this is highly significant and the misreporting itself is widely covered. Such misreporting is quite common in initial reports - there is little need for us to address such misreporting at all usually. Beyond the BLPNAME/BLP issues for the misreported individual - we are also perpetuating the misreport - e.g. google the misreported name and you'll end up in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC) FWIW - the reporting side of Buzzfeed is regarded as reliable currently at RSN - but that's besides the point here.Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I relied on the now-deleted section earlier today to issue a rebuttal to a "friend" of mine who was spreading a debunked story about the shooter Would Wikipedia:Ignore all rules be appropriate to invoke? --8.41.196.222 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There are many things Wikipedia could be but isn't. Just because something might benefit some of the public in some way is not sufficient reason to do it, and well-intentioned suggestions for expansion of Wikipedia's mission are routinely rejected. There are websites dedicated to the debunking of false rumors. Suggest you use them instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Victim Hospitalized

@Gwenhope: On this edit you said the shooter being in hospital was misreported. Sources [19] [20], are still saying he was treated there, and there was a press conference from doctors who said they treated him. Can you source where it was a stated as a misreport? WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed articles detail that he was arrested without any injury or incident. So why would he be being treated for anything exactly? Gwenhope (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I am now going to revert the edit as you seem to be doing OR to determine he wasn't treated for anything. It was breathing issues he was having after the arrest is what I saw reported as reason why. May or may not have been related to smoke bombs. Either way he went to hospital and it is reported as such. In future don't change things without a source, and don't using WP:Original Research in determining decisions you make to edit. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Separate question for @Emt1299d:. No the suspect isn't currently hospitalized, but we aren't going to decrease that number every time a victim is released from hospital, are we? It should show the total that went to hospital as a result of the attack. And unless they die and are moved to the row for deaths , the number shouldn't be decreasing. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I just restored the number to 15 again, are we going to start lowering the injured count in the info-box each time someone is released from the hospital? [21] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, but if the above comment is correct, should we include "breathing issues" in "non-fatal injuries"? What part of his body was injured? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I would say that if the person was taken to the hospital then they would be on the injured count, but we should go with what the WP:RS consider "injured". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

His lungs if it was related to the smoke grenades. Nothing physically if it was a panic attack or something of the like. We don't know the details at this point. It may have been an actually injury with longs, or it may have been standard procedure with the breathing issues while in custody. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if it was due to smoke grenades, it passed as soon as his lungs were cleared of smoke, or they wouldn't have let him go so soon. If that constitutes injury, so does being out of breath after strenuous exercise. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's still unknown the extent of anything related injury wise. If any of the non-suspects were brought to hospital for a smoke grenade related cause, are we going to question whether it should constitute an injury too? If we are going to be using the "hospitalized" phrasing in the infobox, then I feel the people that went to hospital should be counted, whether they were in critical condition, or temporary state of needing attention. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is typical for many minor injuries - even anxiety attacks - to be brought to hospital in these types of events. Best to go with the number published by sources. If the attacker is included - it should be in parenthesis.Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with including him in the count if sources call him "injured". That's the field label. Hospitalized is not injured. Besides, it's highly unlikely he got past the emergency room, and emergency room is not even "hospitalized". He was taken to the hospital and released shortly thereafter. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

He wasn't admitted to the hospital and he wasn't injured in the shooting nor is he a victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:813:53A7:45D8:DDBA (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox person

Resolved

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

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

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

I'm happy for it to be modified. I only added it as it is modelled off the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting perp's box. Note: The birthdate comes from Broward County Sherrifs office records at [22]-Kiwipat (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

I did it.[23] If and when we decide to use it, and have enough data to fill it out, it's easy enough to put back. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ties to white supremacist group

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

Picked up by other sources as well. [24][25]- MrX 🖋 18:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'one of the world's deadliest school massacres'

You people putting this "making it one of the world's deadliest school massacres and the deadliest high school shooting in modern U.S. history." in the lede should be ashamed of yourself, acting like it's a new "highscore" on a "scoreboard". Treating it like a game is what encourages these mentally ill people to do it and get fame and a new "highscore". This should be removed. 142.160.97.15 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually I hate that stuff too, if for somewhat different reasons. But it doesn't violate Wikipedia content policy, so you and I are stuck with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I see it more as a level indicator. Gives a short, rough picture of how significant or not these events are, in context. I'm not partial to keeping the eighth place world ranking, but deadliest American high school shooting is a major moment in youth and gun culture.

The lousier gimmick is the score table where victims are assigned flags and countries are ranked by deaths alone, no matter how many injuries they rack up. It's tasteless and a broken system; I'm always for deleting that thing. Probably won't show up this time, since school isn't exactly a tourist destination. But general Florida is, so maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Media here could be migrated

https://www.voanews.com/a/miami-reporter-on-school-shooting-suspect-/4256017.html#player-set-time=66.201724 Victor Grigas (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

More media here - a sheriff reaction: https://www.voanews.com/a/florida-sheriff-calls-shooting-catastrophic/4255454.html Victor Grigas (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(killed) Victims names

Working on a list for victims, as information is released, not all the names or details on their ages and grade is available yet, so gonna wait before adding it to article. Whether it is put in as a sidebar or just a list in subsection depends on how much detail we are going to include(age, grade/position at school, city of birth). So far only, I have only seen names from BBC and The Mirror. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

References

I am strongly opposed to including victims names per WP:BLPPRIVACY.- MrX 🖋 20:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Victim's have been listed in previous events, might as well not even include the perpetrator's identity.Drogge (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I meant casualties, not the non-fatal victims btw. I don't feel any need to rush it out, but there typically are multiple stories in reliable sources on the deceased. Yes BLP still applies to recently deceased, but do not plan to make any potential BLP violations either. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You meant fatalities. Casualties are all sorts of losses. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Yes this. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Name, age and hometown are the usual basics. Grade is weird, especially for the adults; readers can take a good guess, given the age. Staff should have job descriptions, I guess. Dead people don't care about privacy, but I wouldn't name the wounded unless they're actively talking to the press and have something encyclopedic to say. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:50, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

grade/position meant grade for students position(job) for staff. Like in the sample I have put here on talk page. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I get it. I just don't like it. For students, that is. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

The dead people's families probably care a lot about their privacy. I'm actually surprised that this has to be said. A list of non-notable victims is not only unencyclopedic, it's incredibly insensitive to the survivors. - MrX 🖋 20:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There's hundreds of articles showing the names and ages of the survivors, don't you think that if the parents were bothered by it, they wouldn't allow them to disclose information about their child?Drogge (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

In some places, it's as easy as telling the cop who tells you your kid is dead to not tell the press. In Florida, there's legitimate public concern to battle. Violent crime victims can apply to be stricken from public record (except for their name and property description), but that's also a hassle, and I think it only works on living people. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about hundreds of other articles. I'm taking a stand on this one. This type of information is trashy and potentially harmful to living persons.- MrX 🖋 21:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, if there was something wrong about it, don't you think the other wikipedia pages that are dedicated to school shootings and other tragic events that contained the victim's names and ages would be changed? If you're going to change one wiki page, you might as well change all of them. Drogge (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should get started on redoing the Columbine article then. It lists the names of all the victims. Miss HollyJ (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm on it!- MrX 🖋 22:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I managed to add a few names and put all the ages I could find. I couldn't find Cara Loughran's age. I think the last victim's family has chosen not to release public information. Although, I may be false.Drogge (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So far there has not been an official list of victims names released by the authorities that I can find. Some of the victims have been identified by friends and relatives on social media, and some media sources have picked that up. WP:BLPPRIVACY strongly suggests that sources for victims identification be "completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic". Until there is an official source for the information, I would suggest waiting. I believe the authorities will be making a preliminary court filing today that will include all of the deceased since the shooter is being charged with 17 homicides. That would be more than sufficient. Information on those who did not die may not be as timely.AlanK (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Aye, wait for the list. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

I just restored the list pending a discussion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• There really are no grounds for restoring the list. The point has been debated and is subject to a long-standing consensus that victims are not notable for being killed or injured per WP:ONEEVENT, and such lists are routinely removed because WP is not a memorial. The victims' or their families' privacy doesn't even come into it. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• WP:ONEEVENT is for an article on the subject or subjects, is there a mention of an imbedded list? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• WP:ONEEVENT apply to articles. For example, there shouldn't be an separate article about Meadow Pollack unless something else is notable about her, but it doesn't say anything about being mentioned in an article. TheHoax (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This still needs some discussion for adding in, but here is "the" list released by Sheriff Israel and published by CNN. [26] WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"Dead and injured in initial incident" is the most confusing thing I've ever read before a list of seventeen names arranged by age instead of the alphabet, hands down. If we're to have it back, let's just call them the dead. And let's never speak implicitly of the second incident again. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

It was added back and when I added the source, I changed it to List of Fatalities. Going to alphabetize it now. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Splitting "Suspect" section to Nikolas Cruz article

Does anyone think the "Suspect" section should be split into an article at Nikolas Cruz? There is plenty of information available about him, so he probably has a lot of potential for his own article. 207.246.94.121 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe it could be eventually, but not needed yet. Almost all information we have is based on, a teacher said or a student said. Would rather have more in depth sources rather than a bunch of information gathered from quotes the day of or day after the shooting. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The guy (and things which may or may not possibly be true about him) is completely taking over the lead. I'd worry more about shoveling that into its rightful section before shoveling the section into a new article. The new article shouldn't begin till he's notable for two events. And yeah, enough with the developing teenage gossip stories. We get it, he's skeevy. Why is (alleged) skeeviness so fascinating? Doesn't anyone care about violence and tragedy anymore? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

He's already notable for one event (the killings), so if he gets the death penalty or sent to jail, then an article about him can be created. What do you think of that? 207.246.94.121 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, trials can be media circuses. If he brings the circus, that's two things. Ringleader and alleged fuckwad. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

No, The Sandy Hook suspect (and most other mass shooters) didn't warrant his own article, even if this guy is jailed it will not necessarily require and article. Murchison-Eye (talk) 9:34 am, Today (UTC+11)

There is more information about Nikolas appearing as we speak. We must create an article about him before it's too late. 207.246.94.121 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No. WP:BLP1E - subjects who are notable only in the context of a single event are not typically suitable candidates for an article. More importantly WP:NODEADLINE - there is no such thing as "too late". Mr rnddude (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Paddock killed a lot people in Las Vegas, including himself. He got an article, so Nikolas needs one too. They're both killers. Murderers like them are automatically notable for an article, just like the incident where they killed random people. Nikolas is clearly a notable person, so he needs an article before this entire event gets old. Therefore, there is such thing as "too late". 207.246.94.121 (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So did the Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza. Note the fact that it redirects to Sandy Hook. Adam Lanza himself was not notable. I don't know why Stephen Paddock has an article, I don't know if he should. I do know that conducting a massacre does not "automatically" make you notable. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not true. Adam Lanza himself was notable. He was insane his whole life and he killed more people than Nikolas. Adam needs an article as well. Massacres and killers are always notable for a Wikipedia article since they're widely reported on TV and the Internet. 207.246.94.121 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop trolling the TP. There is no evidence Lanza was "insane his whole life."104.169.16.173 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Lanza, Mateen and Paddock did nothing to deserve articles except stir up rage-boners with bluster about deadliest this and most heinous that. Now two of them have lost their zazz and titles and just look like mistake articles in hindsight. Paddock's still "historic" for now, but his article does nothing to explain what made him tick when it mattered, just like the shooting article adequately doesn't. Think of baseball or take a cold shower, 207, come back when the trial starts or the next guy commits modern America's deadliest roller disco massacre. You may be useful in creating an article then, but right now, you seem a little too ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

NBC Nightly News just said the FBI conducted database reviews because he posted a comment on YouTube saying he would become a school shooter, which happened. They couldn't track him down. President Trump is also aware of the shooting. If everything about Trump is notable for Wikipedia, then everything about Nikolas is notable too. The time for an article entirely about Nikolas is now. 207.246.94.121 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't. We don't "must" anything. We examine sources, notability, and reach a consensus about such things. 104.169.16.173 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you've all given up. Nothing to continue the discussion. I've won this little fight. Let's all stop what we're doing right now and focus on creating an article on Nikolas Cruz. In the meantime, I'll be watching the news and the Winter Olympics. 207.246.94.121 (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't make the article as it is going to goto WP:AfD anyways. Lets wait like a week or so before creating it so we have accurate info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Note- While I agree the IP might be trying to troll, If we do collapse the conversations again, please no one archive it, since the discussion is going to be brought up again, or article just created with only checking this talk page and not archive. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

white supremacist gang leader's suggested motive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"no known ties" [27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:813:53A7:45D8:DDBA (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Nicholas Dworet

Does anyone think that one of the victims is notable enough as a swimmer, perhaps for a mini-bio? https://www.collegeswimming.com/swimmer/369795/

I think too often we recognize victims of shootings only for their "victim" status...what about remembering their life accomplishments?Ryoung122 22:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There will no doubt be articles celebrating or remembering the victims. But Wikipedia isn't everything, and being in the news doesn't guarantee an article or undue coverage in an existing article, per WP:BIO1E, and WP:ONUS. It is for newspapers to be the journals of record, not encyclopedias. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Claims by Republic of Florida

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

Please see LA Times:

Did he have ties to a white nationalist group?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"no known ties" [28]

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

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

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

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

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

Removed list of victims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove. Tact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List formatting

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

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

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

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

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

List of dead victims

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

2

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

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

Trump's reaction

Trump's response on February 15th

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sheriff's reaction

Sheriffs reaction

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Football match (Death tally rankings)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reddit

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

Reddit thread

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

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

Confession

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

We also have the confession from the Associated Press.

Given that he has confessed, two questions:

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

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

I've now added the confession.[29][30] ―Mandruss ☎ 11:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marco Rubio and others

Should a snippet be added to the Aftermath section regarding Marco Rubio's comments, due to the fact he's being widely criticized (for example [31]) on many difference places for the amount of NRA donations he's received and his comments? Gwenhope (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 counts of capital murder

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

The charges are for premeditated murder, I originally added that into box with link to murder, but was changed as you said. Yes a single count of murder is a captial crime in Florida and the prosecutor can seek the death penalty if they file with 45 days of arraignment.[32] While yes they are all capital crimes, I feel like we should put the exact charges as they are. According to Capital murder: Only a few states use the term "Capital Murder" (such as Texas, New Hampshire, and Alabama) WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Improper use of the word SUSPECT in Section header

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

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

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

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

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

FBI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Videos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This appears to be a disagreement based on opinions. I cannot change yours. You have a narrower view of pertinence than mine. Good day and happy editing. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Extra "that"s

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

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

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

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

YouTube comments in lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with one of the students

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

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

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

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