Talk:Parkland high school shooting/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

new source to consider re Jewish mom controversy

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survivor classification

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

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

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

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

The description of its parent Category:Shooting survivors reads:

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

The description of its parent Category:Shooting victims reads:

This category is for victims who sustained gunshot injuries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victims list introduction sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No consensus for victims list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish biological mother?

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

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

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

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

Multiple issues

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

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

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

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

Victim count

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cruz expulsion

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mentioned the source article in my original comment. It does not say "he wasn't expelled from this school", it says he wasn't expelled from the Broward County School System, there is a difference. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Aye, a difference of 34. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Disinformation Section

I recommend adding Template:See_also to the section, with links to the overarching False flag,Crisis actor,George_Soros#Conspiracy_theories, etc. Whichever the more experienced contributors deem worthy. Gwenhope (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any kind of usefullness of adding these see also's to the section. The wikilinks to the first two options are there and more than enough. Soros was briefly mentioned by fringe groups like he is mentioned for every shift in the wind in this country, which doesn't need a see also here or every other page he is mentioned on wikipedia. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Fred Guttenberg

An article has recently been created on Fred Guttenberg, father of one of the slain students. There will probably be another AFD discussion. That is all. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

External links

I recently removed several documents from External links, as they are now out-of-date, primary sources, directed to Broward County students and largely irrelevant to anyone else. Similarly, the YouTube address from the Principal, is an address primarily to the students of Stoneman Douglas High School. The FBI seeking info link is currently dead link, and likely outdated. Per WP:ELYES, acceptable external links include "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject." and per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, we should generally avoid linking to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." These guidelines aside, I think External links, if any, should prioritize links that have broad rather than narrow audience, and those likely to continue to be relevant for the foreseeable future. I propose the two existing links add very little, and can be omitted without significantly reducing understanding of the subject. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Order of shooting section

Should this paragraph:

School surveillance camera footage revealed Cruz as the suspected perpetrator. He was recognized by a staffer before he entered the building and was also recognized by witnesses during the attack.

be moved above the text describing his arrest? Presumably he was identified as the shooter before he was arrested. AdA&D ★ 20:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Presumably recorded before he was arrested, but police aren't watching the feed live. They usually check during the investigative phase. If it was as usual here (and I'm not saying it was), it seems appropriate last. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

But yeah, they'll ask a human witness way earlier. Maybe split it up. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see the staffer's recognition expanded slightly (to one sentence) and put into the correct chronological position, but I'm feeling too lazy to do it right now. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done after laziness passed.[6][7] ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Victims list introduction sentence update

I almost reverted this edit per Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 5#Victims list introduction sentence. This is what the section looked like when that discussion started. But, due to other copy editing that changed the context, the edit makes sense and is consistent with the "don't waste words" principle that was affirmed in that discussion. I hope we can accept this new edit without reopening the issue of those few words. (I won't hold my breath, however.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Photo rearrangement

I've made these changes. I assume there will be naysayers. I don't see the importance of the flower markings on the pavement. I favor photographs of hospital interiors that relate to these shootings. I think two is not too many. They are harsh. I felt the presidential one was gentler, so I moved it up in the article. I think very highly of the Sheriff Scott Israel photo. Bus stop (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this edit. I accidentally included the name. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I favor variety when space is at a premium. Two hospital visits would not be too many if we had twice as much space. For those who like numbers, 28.5% of the article's images, not counting a map and a placeholder for a video clip, are now hospital visits. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The photos of hospital visits are in my opinion the most powerful of images relating to this story. Therefore I think more than one image of this nature is called for. Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing particularly powerful, harsh, gentle or otherwise special about hospital pictures. Interior or exterior. One is quite enough, no preference on which should go. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

A funeral picture might more comfortably complement a hospital picture, aside from reminding readers of death. I see Israel spoke at Feis' and used to coach with him, but not sure if free photos exist. Unlike Borges and Wilford, we already mention Feis, so wouldn't have to generalize the caption. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You say, in a post about a day ago, in reference to the available photographs for this article, "all completely miss the central point of a shooting (a shooting), yet all closely resemble what we're talking about"[8]. By that I think you mean that there are no photographs of the actual shooting itself, isn't that correct? In my reasoning, perhaps not yours, or Mandruss's, the hospitals represent the most direct, albeit indirect, connection to the shooting. When you say that all possible photographs for inclusion in this article "closely resemble what we're talking about", that is true to varying degrees, because some photos more closely resemble what we're talking about and some photos less closely resemble what we're talking about. If it is decided that one should be removed I think it should be the one containing Trump. The degree of medical intervention is considerably greater in the one containing Sheriff Scott Israel, and that sheriff is I think much more involved in this story, having been a spokesperson for the police for many days since the shooting. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed correct. The part about what I meant, I mean. The rest might be. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, Israel is not the leader of the free world. We can play the circular "Yes, But" game for eternity, and our respective weightings of the various factors is not going to change because they are the products of things like age, life experience, personality, political views, and local culture. You apparently continue to believe that there is one correct answer to these issues, and it can be found by sufficient discussion with sufficiently open minds; that is simply not the case. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We are writing about a shooting. We are not necessarily writing about the leader of the free world. How would you suggest we address editorial differences of opinion—by edit warring? Am I now accused of believing in sufficient discussion with sufficiently open minds? How pollyannish of me. Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not necessarily writing about the leader of the free world. Or about the sheriff of Broward County. I would suggest that each editor take the time to express their position clearly and completely, then perhaps a little back-and-forth, and then move on. I reiterate/elaborate: While your initial argument and that little back-and-forth may influence new arrivals, you are very unlikely to change anybody's mind by continuing with them for the reasons I gave (point me to several cases in the past year where your continued debate has swayed anybody to your viewpoint). The longer a discussion gets, the fewer new arrivals there will be, and the less likely the new arrivals will read any of the existing discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I argue there is a gritty reality found in this photo which is more in keeping with the grizzly horror that is the subject of this article than the slightly more hopeful aura found in this photo. Do you disagree? Bus stop (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually think that both should be kept. I think that hospitalization photos are a metaphor for the shooting, and I think that these two photos "play off" one another. The placement that I had in mind situates the "cheerier" photo higher up in the article than the grimmer photo. My reasoning is that this brings to the viewer the metaphor more gently stated before allowing the viewer to see the metaphor for the shooting stated in its more stern reality. Bus stop (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Image of arrest taking place removed

Resolved

 – Image restored per 7–5 Support.[9] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This image, depicting the shooter being arrested by police in Florida shortly after the attack, was removed earlier today. The remover did so because there is another image of the shooter further down the page. That alone is not good justification for removal. Articles are allowed to have multiple images of the same subject. Indeed, it's encouraged by our manual of style to strive for a variety of images that depict the same subject in different contexts.

The remover also thinks it adds no informational value. This image should be included on the basis that it documents first-hand a significant event in this shooting. The image serves as an illustrative aid to understanding how the arrest was handled. It also portrays other factors that can't be objectively conveyed over text, such as the attacker's reaction to his arrest. AdA&D ★ 20:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The remover did so because there is another image of the shooter further down the page. is a gross misrepresentation of my argument, seizing on the last words of my edit summary and ignoring the rest. That's called strawmanning and it's widely discouraged in Wikipedia discussions.
  The question is simple and straightforward, and it should not be confused by unexplained claims of "relevance": What information does this image add? The clothing he was wearing, including his bright blue boxers, none of which had any bearing on the shooting? That the takedown occurred on grass? That the arresting officers wore dark blue uniforms? That at least one officer wore nitrile rubber gloves during the arrest, per universal practice? That the day was sunny enough to cast shadows? How does any of this justify the article real estate? The article already states that he was "taken into custody without incident", and this is supported by reliable sources. There is very little to no reader value in showing what a felony arrest without incident looks like, even if a significant number of readers don't already know that, and this article is not about felony arrests. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper, and we have a much higher bar for inclusion of images. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• You: images should add informational value, this is an image of a completely routine felony takedown...

• Me: The image serves as an illustrative aid to understanding how the arrest was handled. It also portrays other factors that can't be objectively conveyed over text, such as the attacker's reaction to his arrest.

• You: ...of an individual whose likeness we already have

• Me: The remover did so because there is another image of the shooter further down the page. That alone is not good justification for removal. Articles are allowed to have multiple images of the same subject. Indeed, it's encouraged by our manual of style to strive for a variety of images that depict the same subject in different contexts.

Exactly what part of your edit summary did I "ignore" in my response? If you actually read my comment, you'll see I talked about the information the image provides. It's almost as if you are just looking at the beginning of my comment and ignoring the rest... What did you call that again? Anyway, just for you I've inserted the text the remover also thinks it adds no informational value. AdA&D ★ 21:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - as per Mandruss above. The criteria is "how does the image improve the article?" In what way was this arrest unusual enough from any other arrest carried out by American law enforcement that it needs to be specifically documented in the article? Why does the arrest need to be shown graphically - what part of the text needs reinforcing with an image? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional - as per this facetious null edit comment ah yes, and I see you're following the ol "bold revert revert revert discuss" cycle ;) - I may be following the "bold revert revert revert discuss" cycle, but that's only because you followed the "bold revert revert" cycle and decided to skip the discuss part completely. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support since an "aye" without the bullet and bold apparently isn't illustrative enough. We currently have a completely empty shooting section, where the arrest takes place. Better this than pictures of the shooting, I say. I also say we move the "vigil for the victims" picture to Victims, and will do so if nobody's opposed. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Your entire argument, then—please correct me if I read you wrong—is that image-less sections are to be avoided and this image is better than no image at all. That is completely contrary to Wikipedia image policy and practice. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really avoid plain text, but when a picture is available and pertinent, go for it. Unless it's not available or pertinent after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I am not really for the Vigil being in victims section. It was a response to the incident so aftermath is fine, and we already have a dozen accusations of the listing of names being a memorial, that is just going to actually make it start to seem that way. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, I only did it as long as nobody's opposed. If you want to revert me, be my guest. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - To the questions posed by Mandruss above... yes. The answer is yes, that's all of the information it's adding. It's relevant and it's free. There's no reason not to use it. It's arguably more relevant and gives more context than the mugshot. GMG^talk 21:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  How is any of that relevant? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  How is it not? I for one have been living in 1868 for the past week. I had no idea there was a "take down". I had no idea what the person might have dressed like, or what their reaction may have been. If we're not comfortable having two images, we should include this one and not the neck-up head shot that tells us very little about the person overall. GMG^talk 22:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  I submit that exceedingly few of our readers have been living in 1868 for the past week. I reiterate that knowledge of his attire does not increase a reader's understanding of the subject shooting one iota. I can't speak for others, but my argument has little to do with avoiding two images; each image needs to earn its keep independently; I merely said that this image adds no relevant information about his appearance. If you wanted to make a relevance argument against the other image, I wouldn't necessarily argue with you, but that's not the subject of this thread and shouldn't be linked. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Except that we should be writing for the reader who happens upon this article in 2034, and not the consumer of the current news cycle. GMG^talk 22:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  If routine felony arrests have changed significantly by 2034, the image can be added then to show what it was like back in aught 18. See WP:CRYSTAL. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  We don't need a crystal ball to presume that anyone reading this after any significant period of time probably aren't actively consuming news about the event. GMG^talk 12:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  That's because there was no "takedown". He was seen walking on sidewalk, cop got out of his car, told him to surrender, and he complied without an incident. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  In hindsight I probably should have avoided the word. Whether he was taken down or went down of his own accord isn't relevant. The point is that it was a routine felony arrest without incident, already conveyed in the article. If we had RS saying he was handcuffed on the ground, I doubt that would clear the bar for prose, and that's a lower bar. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Not quite without incident. Was hospitalized soon afterward. Sure, he was probably just being a drama queen, but it's still extra mileage on the publicly-funded cruiser. At least the picture makes clear that he's not visibly damaged. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support keeping the image for its historical significance. It depicts the main actor shortly after the shooting. Notably: what he was wearing, his physical stature, his facial expression, and his degree of injury. Hell, I would support a dozen more images as long as they're relevant to this watershed event.- MrX 🖋 23:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - It's no news to me that editors have widely different definitions of relevance, particularly with respect to images. So this will come down to how many of each camp happen to !vote here. Give it 5 days and count !votes—as is usually the case, PAGs are hopelessly vague on this question, so counting !votes is all one can do—and I'll be happy. I can't state my argument any clearer, so per WP:BLUDGEON I doubt I'll say much more. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I consider the inclusion of this image to be tabloidesque. It is merely a depiction of a moment of arrest. In and of itself a depiction of a moment of arrest is not objectionable. But nothing further can be said about it and it contains no implications. The inclusion of an image such as this would constitute illustration for its own sake. Inclusion of this image would serve no further purpose. Anything we do verbally or visually should advance the purpose of the article. Is the article just a scrapbook? Images serve visceral purposes which must justify themselves in terms of the article as a whole. But there is nothing about the point of arrest that is enormously important to the overall purpose of this article, as I think Mandruss has already pointed out. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There's not a picture in the lot that does much good illustrating the article as a whole. They're meant to be considered in the context of their respective sections. This one merely illustrates Cruz being arrested near where we say he was arrested, just like a picture of Trump posing with a victim is merely near where we say he did that. And so on for the rest; all completely miss the central point of a shooting (a shooting), yet all closely resemble what we're talking about, with bonus details that would read poorly and cause arguments if spelled out in their thousand words. Taken together, an illiterate (or lazyish) person can learn this shooting started in a certain location, led to an arrest and booking, was followed by court, vigilance, politics, rallies and protests, then finished with one kid wondering why he's been singled out as the poster boy for online harassment (maybe that one could go). More like a school mural or cave painting than a scrapbook. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You say that all completely miss the central point of a shooting but this is not entirely true. A photograph of a visit from Trump to a victim in the hospital is more on-topic than a photograph of an arrest of a shooter without incident. There is a photo of Broward County sheriff Scott Israel visiting the 15 year old shooting victim Anthony Borges in the hospital which I really feel would be constructive to our article's purpose. That photo can be seen for instance here. The photographs of hospital interiors and visits from the president or the Broward County sheriff serve a very special purpose. These photographs are truly the aftermath of the shooting. I don't think they "completely miss the central point of a shooting". Bus stop (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

One's a victim being treated accordingly after the actual shooting, one's the perpetrator being treated accordingly after the actual shooting. Two sides of the same central point. I don't mind Israel visiting (if the picture's free), but wouldn't want two pictures of essentially the same thing, so Trump would have to leave. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

At one point we had both and I removed the sheriff because we didn't need two hospital visit images and the president and first lady are more notable (general sense). Could we possibly keep this thread on topic, rather than ballooning it into a general discussion of image usage in this article? We're talking about the merits of one image. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I've readded it and made another couple of changes, and I've started a section at the bottom of this page if my changes need to be discussed. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is a picture of a major event described in the “Shooting” section. The use of relevant images can help illustrate events in a way that mere text cannot; it is for this reason that related images are generally required in featured articles. Here, the picture provides context that mere text does not such as the shooter’s clothing, reaction to arrest and the nature of the take down. I'd support taking out the current picture of Cruz if there is a concern about image clutter. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The image doesn't provide context. The image provides distortion. The article is not about an innocent-looking boy. He looks harmless in that photograph. Depicted is a person overpowered and under control. We have no image of the person in the act of aiming and shooting. Therefore, in my opinion, no image of him should be in the article. The mugshot has its virtues, in this article. The mugshot is a straightforward photograph of the person's face. Such a picture is a standard representation of a likeness of a human being; we know what he looks like, from the mugshot. The image of him on the ground at the moment of arrest, by contrast, is cartoonish. It almost looks posed. There is inadvertent lightheartedness in the awkward contortion of the handcuffed person on the ground. There is a slapstick quality that is incompatible with the reality of the event that he was instrumental in bringing about. The inclusion of this image in this article would be in poor taste. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Once he didn't have his gun, he was harmless, overpowered and under control. Perhaps cartoonishly so, but that's the reality in this case. Some mass shooters are legit badasses, some are insecure wimps. The text doesn't convey he's the latter like the picture does; it notes he went without incident, but the same is said for Anders Breivik, who surrendered on his feet with his hands up. That's not to say Breivik is "cool", but he is made of sterner stuff. I don't see "innocent" written on Cruz's face here, just "naive" and "submissive". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between powerful images and their mundane lookalikes. This is a powerful image. Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

And this is exceptionally mundane. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support including the image of the arrest. It punctuates a key part of this story, is relevant, and is backed up by references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support A clear photo of the apprehension of the suspect illustrates an important part of the article. Edison (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support The events of the arrest were unusual and newsworthy, ducking out with the students,hiding in a theater, etc... These types are rarely taken alive and dramatically, capturing the event via image is useful to the reader. ValarianB (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I didn't realize the shooter was wearing blue underwear at the time of the arrest... No seriously, I had no idea. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It is important that the reader be apprised of the color of the guy's underwear. Bus stop (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Knowledge of his underwear provides insight into the kind of person he is. Bright blue boxers and white Hanes briefs are very different types of underwear for 19-year-old man-boys, and omitting this information would be a disservice to Wikipedia readers. (For those playing at home, I and Bus stop have both Opposed and our comments are constructively satirical in nature.) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Omar Mateen died wearing green underwear, grey socks and black socks. That wouldn't be such a weird decision for a Montreal shooter in December, but Orlando in June? Clearly insane. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The moment captured in the photo is routine and unremarkable. Articles should be written with the present-day reader in mind. If it becomes necessary in the future to show readers what a routine arrest looked like in 2018, the image can be added at that time. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Lori Alhadeff's plea

I think it's important to add Lori Alhadeff's (the mother of one the victims Alyssa Alhadeff) demands to the President in the Aftermath section of the article. These were widely discussed in the media and there seems to be an another layer of advocacy for immediate actions to improve better school safety nationwide, regardless of the outcome(s) gun control debate. --Flowell15 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. See here.  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Distressed parent...lost her daughter...implored...suggested...predictably pathetic Can we do it in a way that doesn't sound like we're writing for a teen magazine? Also WP:EUPHEMISM? GMG^talk 12:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Teen magazine? When have you ever seen any writing like that in a teen magazine?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Specifically? As it happens I was thinking about this thread, and "kicking settler butt". GMG^talk 12:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Funny. Maybe Wikipedia needs more kicking settler butt to ramp up to the high standards set by Teen Vogue. :) And the phrase "lost her daughter" maybe could be replaced by something more graphic (the distressed mother was kicking Trump's butt perhaps?)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

She didn't lose her daughter. Presumably she knew exactly where her daughter was at. There is a reason we have guidance specifically stating not to use euphemisms for death, and that's because it's not just a less professional writing style, it can also be deeply confusing for readers who don't speak English as a first language and don't understand the subtleties of euphemistic English. GMG^talk 14:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

What's the priority on adding her to article over Fred Guttenberg and his comments to Rubio or about Dana Loesch? Not saying they can't both be in or that either need to actually be in, but a lot of people have made comments and a lot have had coverage. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It is shortsighted an reactionary to try to force in every quote or response from every survivor or grieving parent. Will readers today or in 5 years need to know the name Lori Alhadeff? I suspect not, but that probably wont stop someone from writing an article for her and everyone else interviewed or quoted by CNN. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Alhadeff seems to be a slightly different case - as she announced yesterday on Megyn Kelly Today, she is also starting an organization to make schools safe. --Flowell15 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of this material would be justified even if she was not starting an organization. That is because her daughter was killed in the incident, she addressed the president of the United States, and her emotional plea was widely covered by news organizations. Bus stop (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That makes it fine for the protest or boycott articles, I think, but not here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So, we don't include something in this article because it can be included in another article? Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't include it here because it's only suitable there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you are saying why we should not include this material here. Why is it not suitable here? Bus stop (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's too finely pointed. This article should broadly summarize the protests and link to where they're discussed in detail. Somewhat like a tree; this is the trunk, she's a branch. Granted, we're already not perfectly formed like that, thanks to Runcie and Gonzales, but we're getting there. Cassidy's reaction to Trump's reaction to Alhadeff's reaction is like a worm in the bird on the branch, and I'm deleting that much right now. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you think it's relevant to the article to include her organization Make Schools Safe?--Flowell15 (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Brief mention of brothers arrested?

See recent trespassing arrest at school[10]. Is it needed in article? If so, where? It was a trespassing violation, $25 bail, he said he wanted to visit to reflect on shooting. School official have asked him to keep away. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh, I don't feel a need to include this. Pretty minor issue of little relevance to our readers imho. AdA&D ★ 14:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

The stories of people saying that certain survivors of the shootings are "crisis actors" should be referred to as "conspiracy theories" rather than "false" or "fake". While you and I might personally think the theories are outrageous, they are by definition "conspiracy theories", as there is no definite, fool-proof way one can dismiss them as "fake", as unhappy as this may make some people.

For this article to stay unbiased and be factually correct, all referrals of the "crisis actors" accusations should be labeled "conspiracy theories" rather than subjectively calling them "false". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.73.156 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It is possible for an idea to be both a conspiracy theory and false. It happens pretty often, actually. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

First, we can call them false if they are called false in a predominance of reliable sources. If you're already aware of that, which is not apparent from your comments, we can move on to discussion of whether they are called false in a predominance of reliable sources. Note that this has already been considered and the current consensus is that they are. Secondly, I don't see much difference between calling something false and calling it a conspiracy theory, which is generally regarded as being false by definition. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories arise as theories and remain in circulation due to the fact that they are generally unable to be proven false, even if the majority thinks they are. That is where the "theory" component comes from. Like I said, my belief is that these conspiracy theories are false. But it is just that: my belief. Calling something "false" vs. a "conspiracy theory" is not merely a debate of semantics. Calling it false does nothing except assign a side for the article to be on, rather than keeping it neutral and reporting the aftermath of the shooting precisely as it happened, instead of our interpretation of it. The point I'm making here is that there is no question as to whether these allegations are conspiracy theories or not; they absolutely are and neither side would disagree with that. However, calling them "false" is definitely something a portion of the readers of this article would challenge. That is why they should be referred to strictly as "conspiracy theories" and not dismissively "false", which is not a universal truth, unfortunately. I hope I was able to convey my point clearly. I assure you my intentions are in the best interests of strengthening the validity of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.75.17 (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The exact wording is The speculation included false claims that the shooting did not happen or was staged by "crisis actors". You are saying that the claim of the shooting not happening hasn't been proven false? There was no dead bodies, no blood anywhere, no incident at all? This is a false claim, plain and simple. Saying it is just a theory is implying that this incident may not have actually happened and that the students of the school some how aren't students of the school. The dead are fool-proof way to dismiss the shooting as fake. A couple thousand classmates of the students and school records can prove the students aren't crisis actors. The claims are already describe as conspiracy theories, but they also need to be stated as fault, or we as Wikipedia are implying their may be truth to it. This isn't like some random conspiracy theory that there is no way to prove true or false. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Since my main focus has been on other parts of the article, I had forgotten that particular false claim, which is what the "false" mainly refers to. That's why my earlier response widely missed the mark. There's neutrality, and then there's lending legitimacy to two groups: (1) Those in the business of manufacturing conspiracies for political purposes and/or financial gain, knowing there is a large market for that in the U.S., and (2) actual paranoids. Your edit, 74, is a non-starter. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

One person gets the word "aged"?

You say "if you want to ask 'why aged' and don't want to go find the answer in the TP archives, then start another TP thread - but edit summaries are not for discussion"[11]. Where is the discussion? I looked. I did not find it. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: It was a brief exchange between me and GreenMeansGo, the conclusion of which was not contested (including by you, although you commented later in the same thread). To see the exchange, go to Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 5 and find "anglophone". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for one of the seventeen names to be annotated differently. I think it is quite clear that the number refers to age. Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I take it you are asserting some knowledge about readers who are not native anglophones and disagree with GMG's comments. But your comment doesn't indicate that, or even acknowledge GMG's comments. I do not assert any such knowledge, I was deferring to GMG, and I will defer to any consensus here. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It presently reads:

"The seventeen people who were killed included fourteen students and three staff members. They were:"

That can be changed to:

"Seventeen were killed. Fourteen were students. Three were staff members. Their names and ages are as follows:"

Is that acceptable? Bus stop (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No. That simply reopens the whole issue resolved in the aforementioned thread, throwing away the editor effort spent on it. Let settled things remain settled, at least barring far better reason than that to unsettle them. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In this unimportant thread you and one other editor decided to use the word "aged" after one person's name. That is not binding. Bus stop (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you missed that, but your failure to pay sufficient attention hardly justifies revisiting that. As I said, two editors agreed, no other editor disagreed, and the change has 3 weeks worth of de facto consensus. For such a minor issue, that's more than enough, and your objection and that of a drive-by IPv6 user (who knew nothing about the prior discussion and has not participated in this one) hardly justify a reopening of the issue.
Your repeated insistence that others discuss until you say they have discussed enough amounts to disruption in my view. Unless you want to be the subject of a DE complaint I advise you not to change the article in this area without a consensus sufficient to supersede the existing explicit and de facto consensus.
Unless another experienced editor sees some legitimacy in your position, I'm done arguing with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You say that simply reopens the whole issue resolved in the aforementioned thread. There was little purpose to that thread in its entirety. And the minor point concerning the word "aged" is not something that has to be retained in the article at this point. Bus stop (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore you disregard your much-vaunted Victims list introduction sentence thread when it suits you as seen a few sections up on this Talk page in the section titled Victims list introduction sentence update. You've got to allow other editors, such as myself, to have input. You are acting as a gatekeeper. Bus stop (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's acceptable to me if you tweak "are as follows" to "were". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Umm... I do think as a matter of course, we should write in a way that is as clear as possible, which includes things like explaining details that might be confusing, and avoiding things like euphemistic or colloquial language in favor of literal wording. I think the burden on us in particular is heavier than on other language projects because we are writing in the lingua franca, in addition to being the largest project, and so, for example, an English article is much more likely to be used as the basis for a translation to an article on another language project.

Having said that although I think it's best practice, I usually don't have a strong opinion about how we do that in particular. This one word is still a fairly minor detail, and I find it hard to believe the project isn't better off, all things considered, if whichever side just lets the other one win and we all go on to improving the encyclopedia in other ways, rather than arguing over the presence or absence of a single word. GMG^talk 09:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi GreenMeansGo. There is no need for the word "aged" after one of the names. Our article presently reads:

"The seventeen people who were killed included fourteen students and three staff members. They were:"

That can be changed to:

"Seventeen were killed. Fourteen were students. Three were staff members. Their names and ages are as follows:"

Wouldn't the above suggested wording obviate the need for the word "aged" after one of the names? Here is that section of the article for reference. Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Either solution works just as well for me. GMG^talk 12:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Four short sentences. One full length sentence. Information conveyed in stutters. A negative outcome. For those of us who dislike having to take pauses after three words, you are proposing that we take a single sentence and break it into four small chunks just to avoid one instance of "aged" in the list. A far simpler solution would be to just remove "aged" from the list. I would need some evidence for GMG's assertion that non-Anglophones might be confused by a name followed by an age such that it needs to be explained to them in an example. If anything, I'm more likely to be confused by "aged" in one instance and no other, than by not being given an introduction to it. That said, I'm not a huge fan of the sentence as is. Do we need The seventeen people who were killed? I'm sure that everybody can do the simple math required. I'd propose Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were: or if you must insult the reader's intelligence Seventeen people – fourteen students and three staff members – were killed. They were:. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You make an excellent suggestion when you suggest Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were: Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I... don't have that strong of an opinion about sentence structure. GMG^talk 13:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What some of us are saying is that it looks odd to have "aged" after one of the names and not after the other names. Now, I understand that this is the first name on the list, so one could understand the significance as you intend it. But there is fundamentally one alternative way of clarifying for the reader, if you feel such clarification is called for, that the number after the name refers to the "age". That way involves the introductory sentence or sentences. Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Barring a persuasive argument for why your "alternative way" is better than the current way, I support the status quo as more concise. No, I don't have to discuss until you say I've discussed enough. I've clearly stated my position and I'll let you know if I see something that changes it. More generally, I think that whole area preceding the list has received enough attention and it's time to stop "improving" it, each "improvement" creating another issue that then needs "improving". That kind of thing does not benefit readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You say I don't have to discuss until you say I've discussed enough. But you seem to have boundless time and energy to "discuss" when there is no issue at all. This is not a real problem. It is a made-up problem. You claim that there has been "a significant amount of churning around the sentence preceding the list in the Victims section". So what? Does it matter? It is not an important sentence. Is it? Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

As Mr rnddude has pointed out, and I endorse, a far simpler solution would be to just remove "aged" from the list.[12] Mr rnddude also suggests, and I endorse, the wording Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were:[13]. Mandruss favors concision and this string of words is actually shorter than what is in the article presently, so I hope we can move forward. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Why I removed Corin's name

I think this edit bears a bit of explanation. Corin may be notable in Wikipedia's eyes if the BLP article created today survives AfD. But she's still a minor figure with respect to the shooting that is the subject of this article—her connection is through Cruz, that she tutored him for awhile—and that was my rationale for the removal of her name here. That we already name some of the student activists is not justification for naming her in my view, especially outside the context of student activism. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think a person with a Wikipedia article is inherently not the sort of person we're advised to not name. Granted, the article may disappear. But until it does, she's close enough to a public figure. That's not to say I want to name her, just see no reason to play vague. Cruz had dozens or hundreds of "classmates", and we already mention two as such; how should a reader know we don't mean one of them (beyond clicking and comparing sources)? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a separate question. At one point he was tutored by a fellow classmate - Who the fuck cares? What a random and utterly trivial detail to include... even in the context which was previously given as to who the tutor is. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. WWGB (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes when I look too hard at a detail of a detail, I stop seeing the the whole enchilada. But taking a step back, it is needlessly thorny and lays eggs no person should want to digest. More like an echidna. Unless she taught him to kill people or use Facebook, it's best left unsaid. Thanks for the voice of reason! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. I feel that way about ~20% of the article, but my "who the fuck cares" radar sucks so I defer that to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess "deferred suckage" is as good a reason as any for why my radar wonked out. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

False titles

Am I the only editor who thinks the false title form is overused and that "eliminating two unnecessary commas" is not a good rationale for using it? Always doing this the same way does not produce good writing in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Reads better in this case, I find. Those commas aren't just unnecessary, they slow the sentence down. A false title (or real title) is only overused when it's appended to every instance of a name, not just introducing a person. Since we only mention Beigel once, one "geography teacher" works. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of any others, my question refers to the repetitiveness of using the false title form all the time, as opposed to varying the form used. I'm not talking about the treatment of any single person, and I don't suggest we should drop the fact that he was a geography teacher. Your first two sentences seem to get that and the last two don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought it suggested you might be the only editor who thinks eliminating two unnecessary commas isn't a good rationale for using it on that single person. To be clearer, since we only mention Beigel once, one "Geography teacher Scott Beigel" works more quickly than one "Scott Beigel, a geography teacher," does. Always doing this the same way ("alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz" or "Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel" rather than "Cruz" or "Israel", for instance) isn't good writing. Know what I mean? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

No. And I'm even less confident that you know what I mean. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

False title says that many people regarded as "writing experts" object to any use of the form at all. I'm more moderate and I can live with a balance between the false title form and other ways of conveying a person's position or role. Before the example edit, 10 out of the 15 cases where we have a reasonable choice used the false title form. I felt that the elimination of two commas was not sufficient reason to make the article even less balanced. My comments have nothing to do with whether a given position/role should be stated in any form, nor are they about how we treat any single person. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

So it's about student Peter Wang, agent Robert Lasky or educators Ravitch and Berliner's displeasing forms, is it? I daresay (and I don't use that word lightly) we already mix it up quite well by not saying soccer captain Alyssa Alhadeff, prominent Republican donor Al Hoffman Jr. or defense lawyer Gordon Weekes. I'm not saying the other nine cases don't exist, but if you could pick out four (by name) you'd like to flip, I'm (probably) willing to flip them. Or at least support your flipping. Or whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hell, all this confusion has made me generous. Pick five. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Avid supporter of Donald Trump

It's clear enough to me that the purpose of this content is to show that Trump supporters shoot up high schools. If not that, what is the relevance to this shooting? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Something, something, condemn by association. The timing of this thread is exciting, refer directly above. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The facts are pretty clear, and it's well-referenced: that Cruz was a Trump supporter, wore the Make America Great Again hat, was racist, white-supremacist, etc. It's documented. But that's just Cruz; you're right that a statement that all "Trump supporters shoot up high schools" would be POV; but the addition doesn't say that, just Cruz, so I don't see why Mandruss deleted referenced content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Maybe the word avid could be struck; and whatever, it doesn't belong in the lede section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC) About the relevance to this shooting -- there's much speculation about Cruz's motives; it's pertinent to this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a note- "avid" was taken directly from the sources.47.16.198.16 (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed the content for the reasons I gave in my edit summary. I get that you disagree with those reasons. As the content is disputed and highly controversial, I think it should stay out pending a consensus, but I'm not going to continue the edit war that you obviously think was ok. I suggest both of you (assuming you are different people) learn a bit about dispute resolution before making controversial edits to controversial articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course we are different people. Thanks for the advice, though. 47.16.198.16 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, you removed referenced content with good references which is not disputed; maybe it's controversial to you, but not to pretty much everybody else. If you wish, you could do a RfC and see what the community thinks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: The mere fact that you claim it is not disputed, after I disputed it, shows that your understanding of dispute resolution is sorely lacking. No, we don't start RfCs to get editors to abide by commonly accepted best practices. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There's problems with how those sources are being used. Most of the material isn't supported by any of the six cited sources. Dailymail is not an RS, so it's out. Snopes, Hollywoodlife, and Dailykos were removed by another editor for misrepresentation (I checked Snopes, definitely was misrepresented); and I removed the Washington Times because all it says is that Cruz claimed to have written to Trump, not that he was an "avid supporter" of his. Even with the daily beast some of the material is fabricated. "Often", no it just says he had been seen wearing it. "Avid supporter" doesn't even say he's a supporter. Etc, etc. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

WaPo quote, a misleading insertion...

@Tomwsulcer: these two sentences have been stable in the article for some time:

An email from the school administration had circulated among teachers, warning that he had made threats against other students. This led the school to ban him from wearing a backpack on campus

Now you have inserted this WaPo "quote" between the two sentences:

for example, one student reported that Cruz told a friend of hers that he would be "excited to gut her like a fish and play with her dead body."

Now the text reads thus:

An email from the school administration had circulated among teachers, warning that he had made threats against other students; for example, one student reported that Cruz told a friend of hers that he would be "excited to gut her like a fish and play with her dead body." This led the school to ban him from wearing a backpack on campus

Although the quote for WaPo is properly sourced, inserting here is incorrect. It now appears that the threat was stated in the emails that the teachers circulated, and that this threat led to the backpack ban. This is NOT what was stated in the WaPo article. The WaPo article reports ONE person saying that a friend told her something. Nothing about emails and/or backpacks. Per my edit summary when I reverted, this information should not be inserted at this point in the article. It is totally misleading to do this. If you are going to report this, put it somewhere else, in its own sentence. There's a whole paragraph with student quotes.

I hope this is clearer to you now. Please revert your revert of my revert!! Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!}

If the issue is the placement of the insertion, why not move it? Instead, you deleted the phrase plus the reference. So I moved the insertion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, and for your patience with me. Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 16:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I've been deleting this section. think it happened because I was clicking edit from a diff of an old revision, and I didn't realize that I would be editing the markup of an old revision of the page. AdA&D ★ 15:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 16:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Wadler

Naomi Wadler is a hopeless stub and proposed for deletion, but some of the references there could be used here. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Wikipedia is not the place nor a platform to include random people with no notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed, but her speech on March, 24 was covered by USA Today, Miami Herald, and Huffpost, among others. The March For Our Lives should be covered here instead of Naomi Wadler. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  It already is covered here, albeit in future tense. Needs to be updated to past. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  It is mainly covered at March for Our Lives. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  I went WP:BOLD and merged/redirected the page to March for Our Lives#Washington, D.C.. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry, I switched the {{merge to}} March for Our Lives, where it fits better. Thanks for info. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  This ended up with a redirect and Talk:March_for_Our_Lives#Naomi_Wadler. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Cruz and MAGA

RfC: Should the article mention that Nikolas Cruz wore a "Make America Great Again" hat?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support There are numerous references that Cruz wore a MAGA hat on many occasions, on his Instagram account, such as here and here and here. Cruz's motives and affiliations are relevant to this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The above !vote pretty much tells it all. The best RS Tomswulcer can produce are Snopes.com, Hollywood Life, and Daily Kos, "a group blog and internet forum focused on liberal American politics". Snopes is good, and they say the hat thing is kinda sorta legitimate, supported by a student and Heavy.com. That may be sufficient RS to show he wore the hat, but it's not enough to show relevance to this shooting. For all we know Cruz could want to make America great again, as do many Americans who don't support Trump. Anybody who argues that "well, it fits with what we already know about him" is putting 2 and 2 together and getting 22. Show me far better RS and I'll reconsider. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Trump is both the most famous person in America and its president. As such, virtually every American has an opinion about him, and millions have shared that opinion online. So it's not even an interesting factoid. As a motive or affiliation (or even a vague suggestion of either), it's more interesting, but also an unsourced delusion which doesn't jibe with what we do know. Most of his targets were ineligible voters, even after the election, so posed no threat to his favoured candidate. Cruz didn't mention Trump (through words or hats) during the shooting or since. Trump has publicly condoned condemned Cruz, indicating a clash of ideals. In short, there's NO COLLUSION. Might as well wonder about whether he preferred McCartney over Lennon, Hagar over Roth or chocolate over vanilla. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• InedibleHulk - "condoned". I think you mean condemned. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, those two trip me up every dozen times or so. Thanks. But on second thought, it wasn't much of a condemnation. Headlines will tell you he called Cruz a "savage sicko", but he was tweeting about a hypothetical savage sicko. We kind of know who he meant in the same way we kind of know who "Russia" means, but Cruz did get it a lot easier than Sayfullo Saipov got. Probably just because he's...you know. Different. Anyway, can't think of a good verb, so sticking with "condemned". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Being publicly condemned is less embarrassing than being publicly "condomed". ;-) Is that a word? It's the kind of typo I would make. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be a word. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

SUPPORT. Key fact. I would even support a stand-alone article on the hay Nikolas Cruz’s Maga Hat. Inclusion of this information WILL save lives from being taken from more of these Maga-hat wearing murderes. IP user is calling for a complete and total shutdown on Maga-hat wearers entering the US. Until we can figure out what the hell is going on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.95.250 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Create new category for mass killings committed by donald Trump supporters?

I, for one, believe it is high time for such a category. Just off the top of my head, we have Las Vegas, Charlottesville, Stoneman Douglas, Charleston, and many more. Sadly, this category likely will continue to expand and already has enough members to justify this useful category for people seeking to connect the dots between Trump's ulltra-violent, white nationalist rhetoric and its consequences47.16.198.16 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC).

Wikipedia's purpose is not to help people seeking to connect political dots, and this article is not about politics. You are very close to a sanction. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Dylann Roof, James Alex Fields, Stephen Paddock, Nikolas Cruz ...how many more must die at the hands of these Trumpians before we understand the harvest which Trump has sown?47.16.198.16 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for your political views, or mine, or anybody else's. If you continue to edit against that fundamental principle, you won't do so for long. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention that Paddock's motive is unknown, Roof's massacre was a year and a half before the presidential election, and Fields wasn't a mass killing. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

All 4 were known Trumpians, though it is true that Fields only slayed a single person. The timing of Roof's massacre isn't particularly relevant. I still say we have the beginnings of a category here.47.16.198.16 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, this is the problem with even going there, which is why I didn't. It implies that it's relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

... Yeah. True. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand your definition of "Trumpian", your dot-connecting ability is awful. Only Roof was ultraviolent and white nationalistic. Paddock and Cruz were ultraviolent on mostly white people, and Fields' mundane single homicide wasn't tried as any sort of hate crime. If you want to make someone out like a charismatic nationalistic cult leader or the greatest killer in American history, there are far less convoluted ways. And if you're genuinely concerned with categorizing like subjects, remember it's the defining characteristics that count, not just circumstantial confluence like whether they prefered Trump to Clinton or boxers to briefs. I think it's high time we started focusing on the latter matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes this whole category thing is really pushing things too far, saying that all mass killers are Trumpians, etc. This is original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It's us, drawing conclusions, connecting dots like Mandruss said, and that's not our job here, but rather our job is to echo what reliable sources say, typically mainstream accepted ones. That said, I will say that it's my own view that there is a slight relation between Trump-type anger at immigrants, Mexicans, women, minorities, which seeps into the minds of disaffected alienated angry types -- it's a subtle factor -- and I bet a case could be made, further, that the typical Trump voter types are more likely to own or have access to (or live in states where it's easier to buy) guns. Again, my view, doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but if there's a study which draws a connection along these lines, and is reported by reliable sources, then we can put that in provided it's balanced. One other thing: I think there's lots of anger on the left side of the political spectrum too, so there may be left-wing nuts engaging in violence.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, nobody has said Cruz was a Trump voter type, just the hat-wearing sort. May well be among the 61% of Americans who didn't pick either side in 2016. Two studies suggest about 183 million people who wouldn't vote for Trump were already disaffected alienated angry types a year before the election, next to only 43 million who would. So it seems his radiant hate aura accounts for no more than a quarter of the state's Gross Domestic Discontent, and perhaps less so now that his backers are happy he won and Clinton's are angrier she didn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what's already been written, and personal views aside, a salient guideline is Overcategorization. We don't create capricious or trivial categories or those that promote only a certain point of view. We categorize by defining characteristics: those that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. We don't have a category for "musicians inspired by Jimi Hendrix" (no matter how verifiable) nor intersecting categories like "Films made by Obama supporters" or "Libertarian violinists". --Animalparty! (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Fix NICS Act of 2017

The Fix NICS Act of 2017 in the lede for this article about an event in 2018 is odd. Apparently it is related to the Sutherland Springs church shooting. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It was indeed. Gone now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of anchors

Re [14][15]

Hello. Anchors are used to serve incoming section links to former section headings. AFAIK they are not meant to be used as "aliases" for a section—we have no need for that since we can use piped links to create whatever linktext we want. That section has never been headed "Nikolas Jacob Cruz" to my knowledge, certainly not long enough that there is a significant chance of an existing incoming link. Therefore we don't need an anchor for "Nikolas Jacob Cruz". All we need is "Suspect". Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss. I moved your comment from my talk page to here. I hope you don't mind. By your argument, could we also remove "Suspect" if we make sure to remove all incoming links with anchors for that term? My intent is to anticipate potential incoming links for people searching for this section. This section is the redirect target for both Nikolas Cruz and Nikolas Jacob Cruz, and so I thought it would be appropriate for both possible terms to link to this section. I had a similar thought process for the "Perpetrator", "Shooter", "Gunman", and "Attacker" anchors per the RFC above. I can see how that could snowball at some point into quite a lot of anchors, and so I'm not pushing super hard for these changes, but I don't think the idea ought to be completely dismissed out of hand. - Paul^T+/_C 13:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

By your argument, could we also remove "Suspect" if we make sure to remove all incoming links with anchors for that term? Yes. (More accurately, all incoming links to the "Suspect" heading.) I would have done exactly that instead of adding the "Suspect" anchor, except I didn't know how to find all of them.
I don't see how anchors affect search, either Wikipedia search or Google search. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)