Talk:Parkland high school shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hispanic or Latino

Closed per WP:DENY and WP:DFTT. Come on people, recognize an obvious troll.- MrX 🖋 03:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The shooter was clearly Hispanic/Latino, and this needs to be pointed out in the article. It would be if he were Asian or White. 96.40.114.55 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Until there is a definitive identification by a reliable source, the race of the perpetrator should not be included in the article. Codyorb (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Isn't it clear enough by his two surnames? "Latino shooter" or "hispanic shooter" turn up nothing relevant in Google News. If the reliable sources don't make a deal out of this, we can't follow suit. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Do we know if he is a "dreamer child"? Maybe a Muslim? 96.40.114.55 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Of course a mass-killer's religion or race are relevant only if the suspect is white or christian. All proper journalists know that. How does anyone not know that by now? Cramyourspam (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Except that he is not "white" and may be a professed Mohammedan. It is important to acknowledge this. 96.40.114.55 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Reminder for everyone here to not feed the troll(s). The Verified Cactus 100% 03:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I can't resist, but, in what world is Nikolas De Jesus Cruz going to be anything other than a Mohammaden *cough**cough* sorry I meant Christian? Mr rnddude (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Only because you asked: Jesus in Islam. Regardless, a name he was born with doesn't really change which religion he follows later in life. Murchison-Eye (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC) He's only not white in the US census. In photographs, he almost glows. Trust your eyes, not your government. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I disagree- We certainly CAN and should make obvious observations of fact in Wikipedia articles, especially where the information is plainly evident. Failure to make such observations demonstrates an inappropriate liberal and/or conservative political slant on Wikipedia. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Just give it time. We are not a news organization beholden to breaking news, and it's better to be a bit late then to present wrong or misleading info. Watch the news if you want breaking updates. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia needs to run a campaign to remind people that we're not a frigging news organization. We neither can, nor do, report observations that haven't been confirmed in reliable sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I get all my news form Wikipedia. It is in fact my homepage. 96.40.114.55 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I know, a lot of readers do, but, we make a big deal of not being a news agency. We've even had a discussion about putting a moratorium on breaking events for at least a week (up to three months was suggested) such that we won't have an article on it until the facts are available. That's why I brought it up. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC) He was adopted. He might not be ethnically hispanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battleknight24 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC) He totally looks brown to me! 96.40.114.55 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Until there is a definitive identification by a reliable source, the race of the perpetrator should not be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codyorb (talk • contribs) 21:47, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

spelling error

it's arraignment not arrangement. Rayansb (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Arraignment date

Cruz's arraignment is not scheduled for February 16, as stated on the main page. It took place on February 15, and he was ordered held without bond. The article should be corrected to show the correct date and events. Dreadwyrm (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a Contest

Can you remove the following line? "It is tied with the 1966 University of Texas tower shooting as the third-deadliest school shooting in the United States, behind the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (which killed 27) and the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting (which killed 32)." It makes it seem like there is a contest to get the deadliest.. 4.14.160.224 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2018

Possible to redact this line 'This attack is the deadliest shooting to take place at an U.S. secondary school, surpassing the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in which 15 people died, including both perpetrators.[8] It is tied with the 1966 University of Texas tower shooting as the third-deadliest school shooting in the United States, behind the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (which killed 27) and the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting (which killed 32).'

Is it really pertinent to make a scoreboard out of this in the main description? Rfarmerd (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Mr rnddude (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Typo

fix typo please "attorneys wil seek" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.20.57 (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done - put request on bottom of talk page next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiVirusC (talk • contribs) 06:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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)

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)

Victim Hospitalized

@Gwenhope: On this edit you said the shooter being in hospital was misreported. Sources [5] [6], 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? [7] - 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)

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)

'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, 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)

(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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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. [8] 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, 15 February 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)

Trump's reaction

Trump's response on February 15th

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

Sheriff's reaction

Sheriffs reaction

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:46, 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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)

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)

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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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" [9] 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 [10]. 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.

Suspect's name

Orginaly reported as Nicolas Cruz, sources have updated to use Nikolaus Cruz. [11] [12]. Although some are using Nikolas [13]. 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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. [14] 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2018

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2018

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

 Done, thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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, 15 February 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, 15 February 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, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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 [15]) 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)