Talk:Parkland high school shooting/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Small Capacity Magazines"

Change under shooting section mentions he used multiple small capacity magazines, citing the Miami Herald where "Sen. Lauren Book, D-Plantation" says that he used only 10 round magazines after visiting the school as larger magazines would not fit in his duffle bag. I recommend not using this as fact and waiting for an official report on the incident as she is not an expert in any way. The reason I doubt the use of only 10 round mags for the AR is numerous, but the biggest factor is one of the students videos during the massacre records at least 25 round in quick succession, with no break in fire. So he had to use magazines with more than 10 rounds, at least 1. She also describes that “weapon and bullets were not high quality and were breaking apart", and that the gun jammed. I can only guess that she means that the gun malfunctioned and that maybe he had some magazine and ammunition indued failures, not the actual weapon breaking apart while firing.

I'm guessing that he had some 10 rounders along with some 30 rounders, and had one 10 round in the rifle to fit it in the duffle bag he supposedly put the rifle in. I cannot imagine that the relatively small 30 round Stanag magazines would not fit within the large space of the duffle a M&P-15 would fit in (although the bag may not have been of great depth, meaning he could not have been able to zip it up with a 30 rounder inserted into the rifle, it doesn't mean he could not fit extra mags along the profile of the rifle or is small pockets on the side of the bag that is commonly found on duffle bags). But this is only my educated guess. Glm.moulton (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That's weak sourcing for the use of wiki voice for a point connected to the ongoing political debate. Barring independent corroboration (not simply more resulting from Book's statement), I would support removing mention of magazine capacity until there is an official report from one of the investigating agencies. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done - [1] ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

One should also note that the pictures of Cruz's rifle he took himself has a 30 round magazine inserted into the rifle. While it may technically not be disproven 100% as some 10 round mags can have the shape and appearance of a larger capacity one (due to pinning), I believe this is also good evidence for skepticism of Book's expertise, or evidence for her lack of expertise. Although the change has been made, this is good evidence for the future of this page and the mention of magazine capacity. Glm.moulton (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep the original text. This is a horrible example of editors doing their own WP:OR. Incredibly, people are questioning the WP:RS based, for example, on their own opinion of a video. In other articles, people's opinions after watching a video are usually dismissed with prejudice. Also, people are attacking what's being reported by a WP:RS based on their own opinions after looking at photos published long before the shooting, because people have seen old photos of the perp with long magazines! Not to mention that to do that one must actively and selectively ignore that the WP:RS specifically said the shooter was forced to use small magazines because of a backpack size constraint... a more selective and biased WP:OR is rarely seen. XavierItzm (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What RS states "small capacity" in their own voice? All I've seen is statements that state Senator Book said that. I reiterate that That's weak sourcing for the use of wiki voice for a point connected to the ongoing political debate and there's nothing wrong with deferring this until there is an official report that will very likely clear it up. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You know very well that you don't have to use the Wiki's voice at all. Per WP:PRESERVE the correct use of the WP:RS would have been to edit the text to say that "State senator XYZ said that...". WP:PRESERVE calls for Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary, as opposed to just memory-holing stuff. WP:PRESERVE also states: «as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained». Again, no wholesale deletion of material provided by WP:RS based on easily-fixed edits. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You know very well that you don't have to use the Wiki's voice at all. That is not what you said eariler. What you said was, "Keep the original text." And I'm sure you know that we don't include everything reported in a reliable source, it is not that simple.
I have no objection to an attributed sentence about Book's statement, but it doesn't belong in the Shooting section, any more than the controversy about Peterson's response belongs there. With one exception which remains open to challenge—"He later said he did not enter Building 12 because he thought the shots were coming from outside."—the Shooting section is limited to what is known to have happened during the shooting and up to Cruz's booking. It is not known that they were small capacity magazines, yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, will include on the political section, though I see no reason why it shouldn't go in the shooting section.XavierItzm (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"suspected" shooter

I've accepted several edits that remove the word "suspected". At this point there is no doubt Cruz did it. Even his defense admits it. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem with that. I see little point in the word when we're saying things like: "Cruz entered Building 12, a three-story structure containing 30 classrooms typically occupied by about 900 students and 30 teachers. Armed with an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle and multiple magazines, he activated a fire alarm and began firing indiscriminately at students and teachers." Logic dictates that you either remove "suspected" or add a lot of allegedlys, and the former makes more sense at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Just clearly attribute the entire police account to police, and we're fine for dropping individual "suspected" and "allegedly"s. But say it in Wikipedia's voice and it's technically prejudicial, if not straight libelous. If I ran this zoo, I wouldn't risk it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Double arraignment?

According to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Legal proceedings, Cruz was arraigned on 15 February and again on 13 March, both sourced. Is this possible? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

One is the initial arraignment, which is wording I believe article used to have, and the other is the full arraignment with all the charges. I think the initial arraignment has to be done within a certain period of time, 48-72 hours. While the other when they have reports and fully investigate what happened during a crime, to show full scope of charges. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Resulting edits, FTR: [2][3] ―Mandruss ☎ 04:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Initially 17 murder charges. Later 17 attempted murder charges. That might explain things. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that an arraignment hearing is viewable on YouTube. I wonder if a link to this should be in the article, perhaps in the External links section. Bus stop (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Iffy. See PAGs starting at WP:YOUTUBE. You practically have to hire a wikilawyer to know whether this is allowed. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it out. Bus stop (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand . . . . File:N. Cruz court hearing in Florida, February 2018.webm was not just linked but copied and uploaded to Commons, and its State-of-Florida-public-domain rationale has survived the ever-vigilant and ever-diligent Copyright Police Department for over six weeks. That being the case I would be inclined to link it, assuming the copyright owner is considered to be the same (Broward County) or equivalent. I'm not a wikilawyer, but I play one on TV. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If you would be inclined to link it feel free to do so. I think it has good audio and visual quality. It is merely on the subject of funds to pay for legal representation but the courtroom procedure is nevertheless interesting. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Fine - [4] ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Good. Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Legal technicalities

The prosecutor said the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cruz knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons when he burglarized the school and committed an especially heinous or cruel capital felony without the pretense of moral or legal justification.

Do we need this sentence? Seems to me it's a bunch of arcane legal jargon, probably a close paraphrase of the relevant part of the criminal code. Particularly the reference to burglary, which to most people means breaking into a building and stealing something. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Those are the grounds for seeking death over life. Without them, it seems like she wants to kill him for sport (or whatever reasons readers imagine when given none). That's fine with me if it's fine with you, though. Burglary in Florida is breaking in with the intent to commit any crime. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd replace it with a direct quote. Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, but the direct quote has a ton of commas and claims it can prove Cruz was previously convicted of a capital felony. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that's easily proveable at sentencing for this conviction (if applicable), but it sounds confusing now. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That may be, Hulk, but the content is useless to readers if we don't explain the connection. With sourcing, of course, and preferably a better one—the one source given does not actually say that that is required for the death penalty. What it says is: "...the state is seeking the death penalty because...". ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No lawyer seeks death for crimes for any reasons beyond those which make crimes punishable by death. Not on the record, anyway. How's this connection? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That also may be, but we shouldn't assume readers know that much about American lawyers and American legal process.

The prosecutor said the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a qualification for the death penalty: that Cruz "[sourced excerpt from the criminal code]".

Not sure "qualification" is the best word there. Side benefit, this gets that problematic burglary terminology out of wiki voice and into a quotation. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to know anything about why lawyers do stuff to learn a lawyer did something because of something. You just learn it by reading it. I might be misunderstanding you. Anyway, they're five qualifications. Fix that, and I'm fine with your version. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It might be OK to omit "because it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cruz knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons when he burglarized the school and committed an especially heinous or cruel capital felony without the pretense of moral or legal justification." Why not just leave it, for now, at "He was arraigned on March 13, and the prosecution filed notice of its intent to seek the death penalty." The additional language is the prosecutorial thinking, which I think need not be given great weight at this moment. A team of prosecutors as well as defenders are considering their options and it is understood that the course of action taken in the early stages of legal representation are open to revision. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you be OK with just saying they're seeking it "because of five aggravating factors"? Short version for those who don't care to know, and a bit of context for those who do. A defendant with five points to knock down is likelier to die than one with one or two. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, to me that seems acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Then I'm half for your way and half for Tony's. You two figure it out. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

He was arraigned on March 13, and the prosecution filed notice of their intent to seek the death penalty. They said they can prove five of the aggravating factors that qualify a murder for the death penalty in Florida.

―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I like that. I think it adroitly leads the reader to Capital punishment in Florida. Bus stop (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Any opinion? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm for whatever you two are. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done - [5] ―Mandruss ☎ 09:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We might want to link to Capital punishment in Florida either in the See also section or elsewhere. (Hulk's post brought that article to my attention.) Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, it is in the article already as a piped link. I'd say it should be added to the See also section. It is that important. Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is important enough to link in the body and the See Also. I'll bend on everything else here, but not that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Anthony Borges

Per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, he probably should be mentioned in this article but does not justify a stand-alone article. SoWhy 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we should consider mentioning him by name in this article. His picture is actually included in this article. It is a picture of Sheriff Israel visiting him in the hospital. I think you make a good point in this edit summary in which you say "Decline speedy - he might be notable enough to have a standalone article but even if not, his name is a plausible search term for the shooting and should at least be redirected there". Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: I believe this represents a satisfactory solution. Bus stop (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Cruz's birthplace, where was he born within South Florida?

Wasn't that included in the police report and that that it was Margate, Florida as his birthplace.? Shouldn't that be further specified? --LLcentury (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, place of birth should not be sourced to a primary source such as that sheriff's office booking report. I can find no secondary source for Margate. If you know of one please provide a link; otherwise I think we're stuck with South Florida. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Victims list revisited

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.

---

No activity for 5 days, so I have requested an uninvolved close.[6] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Oppose - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. I ask myself how much real reader value there is in these names, and myself answers, "Not much". The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information in the article is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. Genders and ages could be summarized in prose and that would add to reader understanding.
  I ask myself whether I would want my name in such a list, or whether I would want my sister's name in such a list, and myself answers with a resounding "F no" to both questions. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. And "well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC) WP:NOTMEMORIAL, a Wikipedia policy, states: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet [Wikipedia's notability] requirements." Proponents of victims lists very often say this applies only to the subjects of bio articles. In years of discussions about victims lists, I've yet to see a halfway lucid—let alone convincing— argument for that distinction. To say only "Because that's what the rule says" is to ignore or be unaware of two facts: First, that that is not how Wikipedia works, that "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording." And second, that the rule does not actually say that. My explanation for why the policy is not more clear on this point: Written Wikipedia policy is maintained by part-time volunteers with little expertise in the organization of complex information, with no processes for planning, coordination, or quality control. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Memorialization exists where it exists and it does not exist where it does not exist—the circumstances matter. The scope of this article includes people who died who had names and ages. No subterfuge is needed to include these names and ages here. This is a straightforward listing of facts. "Memorialization generally refers to the process of preserving memories of people or events." But we are not including any other details about the victims' lives. This is the barest possible listing and it is relevant to this article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL certainly has its applicability but not where the central purpose of an article involves the killing of 17 people. Unlike articles in which a greater number of people were killed, space constraints do not limit our ability to include this information in this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:N, the victims are notable in context of the event. As I said in the other discussion we also have names in the Columbine High School massacre article, yes this is a WP:OSE argument but I feel that there should either be a streamline solution or a case by case basis of inclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I don't feel its a narrow reading, its just a literal reading. It states "4. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements., not "Contents of encyclopedia articles must satisfy...". The list is directly related to this shooting, and it purpose is not to serve as a memorial. And this is from an actual policy, not one of those essays that people cite as policy. WP:SOURCELIST is the policy to use to determine the contents of a list in an article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-topic process discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You should consider taking your issue to WP:PUMP or start a WP:RfC on the matter. If this has to go to WP:ARBCOM then so be it. Personally I feel that there are lots of other things on Wikipedia that need the attention more but this is an issue that has popped up way too many times. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @Knowledgekid87: What "my issue" are you referring to? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC) The issue of victim lists in articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC) As of this moment, there are six other editors who agree with me. How is this "my issue" exactly? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC) You don't have to go on the defense here, all I am suggesting is that this discussion be continued on another venue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC) I'm not being defensive, I'm asking you not to call things "my issue" when they are clearly not that. First, if you just wanted to suggest another venue, I don't know where ArbCom comes into that as I don't think content decisions are made by ArbCom. As for VP and other community-level venues, I've already said that that has been tried unsuccessfully multiple times. If you feel it might yield a different outcome if tried another time, go ahead and try. I don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Okay I will get straight to the point... do you take issue with the victim list (yes or no?). By saying it is your issue in no way do I mean to imply that you alone have a problem with said content. If you don't want to take this to another venue that is fine as well, I just threw out an idea to be helpful rather than having this be an endless conversation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC) do you take issue with the victim list (yes or no?) - I don't think I have ever used the word "facepalm" in a Wikipedia discussion, but I'm making an exception. Have you read my !vote and the rest of my comments in this thread? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Arbcom doesn't resolve content disputes, and I doubt that Village Pump would settle on a project-wide guideline for or against victims lists in articles. - MrX 🖋 18:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC) They do resolve disputes though when a consensus can not be reached by the community. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC) No they don't.- MrX 🖋 19:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC) In my opinion, an RFC advertised under the centralized discussion would be the best solution to the dispute over victim lists. This is an issue that affects a large number of articles, so it would be appropriate to get input from the wider community. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC) I agree, we need to have a centralized discussion about the matter. If other editors didn't care about this issue then we wouldn't be having this discussion, in my opinion other things on this article deserves the attention more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

• Oppose for many reasons already highlighted here, and also for reasons highlighted over at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting, both active thread, and the archived topic. One of the arguments for is that the victims are notable because of the event - this is circular - they are not notable in any other sense apart from being victims, and in what way is the article improved by inclusion of the list? Nobody seems to have clarified that yet. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mandruss. "Not a memorial" applies to inclusion in an article about a shooting, war, earthquake,ship sinking, tsunami, plane crash, fire, bombing, or epidemic. Newspapers have published lists of victims. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As noted above, if a different name were substituted, the reader's understanding of the event would be the same. The list of victims constitutes a memorial. Only if reliable sources state that someone had an important role in the shooting (they fought with the attacker, delayed the attacker, helped others escape, reasoned with the attacker, aided the attacker in some way, hindered the attack in some way, or otherwise affected the outcome), does their name belong in the article about a mass killing.If they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, then they are part of the "mass" in the mass casualty. Edison (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You say the list of victims constitutes a memorial. It does not. If we were memorializing these deceased individuals we would be "remembering" them. Memorialization involves the presentation of brief vignettes excerpted from their lives. A key part of memorialization is remembrance. Included here are names and ages—only. Whether you have other reasons not to want the names listed—it is not memorialization. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Seriously, how many times are we going to have this discussion? TheHoax (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  As explained in the opening comment, there was no consensus to include. This is a quite legitimate attempt to establish one. If it fails to establish a consensus either way, de facto consensus will likely continue to rule at this article for the foreseeable future (I'm not aware of any challenge to a victims list that has been in place for a long time in any article).
  I'll note that you have voted, not !voted; if you want to be counted I suggest you state a coherent rationale. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  I want to add that this has been open for over two weeks now [7], and this isn't even labeled an RfC. Maybe we should move on rather than beat the WP:DEADHORSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  We got a new !vote 14 minutes after your comment. My plan is to wait until there has been no !voting or discussion for 5 days, slap a DNAU on it, and request an uninvolved close. Open to other suggestions. But the fact that the default for RfCs is 30 days doesn't imply that non-RfC discussions should close earlier. The only actual difference is the RfC listing. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion of the list, per memorial concerns above. This isn't done at two of the more infamous shooting articles, Sandy Hook and Columbine, no reason that it should be here. ValarianB (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  ValarianB, I hate to say this, but a list of victims is published on both articles you cited. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  Meh. Darnit, I just scanned through the body of the text and looked at the TC, I never expected a sidebar of all things. Listing age and specific ("shotgun to the head", how lovely and weapon-porn fulfilling) death details is just weird. ValarianB (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yes. We're more fighting to set the precedent that this sort of information is not needed. A much better example is practically any shooting that is European centric. I don't think I've ever seen a list of names on such attacks anywhere in Europe. Whether it be the 2011 Norway attacks or 2016 Nice attack (there is a timeline, but not a list of names), Europeans do not feel the need to publicize victims names. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well one can usually find some precedent pattern that supports whatever position they choose to take. That's the first problem with looking to precedents for things like this. The second one is that making precedent our guide tends to stifle evolution of thinking, which is a Good Thing. And the third one is that no two cases have the same dozen or so relevant characteristics. These are the reasons why you'll never see me make a precedent argument—or try to establish a new precedent—for things like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support It isn't like the list is so long that it would be unwieldy anyway. 72.215.185.243 (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support — 1. Generally, I think that sequenced events with a small number of total fatalities should include the death list so as to provide a clearer explanation of what happened. In this case, we have not just a sequence but several individuals who died after intervening in the event. We have five of the individuals named already; it's odd to not just complete the list. 2. Unusually, this case also includes extensive follow-on activism and visibility by relatives and friends of the deceased, much of which is or will be recorded in Wikipedia. It's of encyclopedic value to know who was and wasn't a victim of the crime when their family and friends (e.g., Fred Guttenberg) engage in notable political activism after the fact.--Carwil (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss has gone way overboard on WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. If it happens again we should discuss a topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Since I was pinged, I will reply once and only once; otherwise I would just ignore this. BLUDGEON, an essay, advises that it is not constructive to pick apart every opposing comment (or, in a survey format, every opposing !vote). At WP:BADGER (WP:SATISFY), it also suggests that editors refrain from demanding to be satisfied and claiming that they have "won" a debate because you have failed to give an argument that they find convincing. It is not about the mere amount of participation in a discussion, and there is no community consensus about limiting one's participation. By my count I have replied to 3 of the 12 Support !votes, and I haven't badgered anybody, so good luck with your campaign. I think a sanction would be more likely against an editor who tries to stir up support for sanctions against established editors with no basis other than their incorrect interpretations of essays. I do not intend to change the nature of my participation on this talk page or any other. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC) @Legacypac: I would support a topic ban if this happens again as this is amounting to a WP:DEADHORSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC) @Knowledgekid87: If what happens again? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Posting so many times in one discussion until other editors get tired of you pushing your point and start thinking about topic banning you. I got nothing against you Mandress and we often agree on things. I'm noting you are going overboard here trying to make a case on a low importance issue where there is no firm policy. I've got no campaign against you. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC) I stand by my previous reply and have nothing to add to it—except that I had not commented in this discussion for 9 days until your comment above, except for the notice at the top that I had requested a close. Also, please don't speak for Knowledgekid87, my question was to them, not you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL the victims do not meet the [Wikipedia's notability] requirements. Bkellar (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Fairly apathetic support - I think it adds something to the article, but it also takes up a lot of space, and it wouldn't be detrimental to remove, or even to move to a footnote. GMG^talk 19:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing

Just as a heads up, I'm going to work on a close tonight. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guerillero: there's a request at WP:RFCL for this to be closed; do you need assistance? Fish+Karate 09:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Yes please. A second closer an sanity check would be helpful. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guerillero and Fish and karate: - Not to be pushy, but can we get some clarification as to where this is going, if anywhere? The comment in the WP:ANRFC request[8] suggests that this one is being handled, so no other closers are likely to have a look. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I’m away for two days. If Guerillero closes it before Tuesday great, if not I will close it then. Fish+Karate 11:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, It was the worst week this week at work. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:26, 9 April 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.

nowrap template around dates

Why are all the dates in this article wrapped in {{nowrap}} templates? I don't think I've ever seen this in any other wikipedia page. Is there a reason for this other than aesthetics? Is there a guideline or policy that supports this? My preference is to remove them entirely since it makes editing more difficult if you aren't familiar with the template. - Paul^T+/_C 18:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense to prevent the possibility of splitting dates between month and day, as:

presence. School principal Ty Thompson emphasized that the first week back
would be focused on healing, with classes ending at 11:40 a.m. through March
2. He tweeted "... Remember our focus is on emotional readiness and comfort

You could do the same thing with nbsp, but I find nowrap to be preferable for multiple reasons which we can discuss if you like. "Hey, this is UNUSUAL!" is an exceedingly poor reason not to do something, as all good ideas are necessarily unusual at first. The policy that supports this is the one that says every edit should improve the article. Tons of good things are done without specific written permission to do them. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you advocate for this on every page with dates? It isn't so much that it is out of the ordinary as that in my view the benefits (potential line wrapping issues) don't outweigh the costs (ease of editing). - Paul^T+/_C 19:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Would I advocate that? Well sure. If it makes sense here it would make sense anywhere. That doesn't mean I go around adding it to a lot of existing articles. I've done it in a handful of smallish new articles where I was heavily involved and was around for awhile to maintain consistency. Obviously I disagree with your cost-benefit analysis. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously . Having said that, we're not the only editors here. Would anyone else care to comment? - Paul^T+/_C 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem with waiting for other comments. In the meantime I'll add that the ease-of-editing cost argument doesn't hold up well because no editor is forced to nowrap a new date. In fact they almost never do, and I come along later and nowrap it. Thus the difficulty increase for other editors is exactly zero. If you're asserting that the template adds visual clutter that makes it more difficult to edit things near it, I'm asserting that that's very close to insignificant. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

RFC about the heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz

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.

---

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

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

Heading should be his name

1: Nikolas Cruz

• 1J: Nikolas Jacob Cruz
• 16: Nikolas Cruz, suspect

Heading should describe his role in the shooting

2: Perpetrator

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

3: Shooter

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

4: Gunman

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

5: Attacker

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

6: Suspect

• 6A: Arrested suspect

Survey: Heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 1 or 6. Both are factual and can't really be argued against. I prefer his name, but I can understand if people think that would be confusing in the table of contents. Natureium (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 3 or one of the variants of 3. This article is about a shooting and so the reader should easily be able to navigate to the section about the shooter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 2. "Perpetrator" is in line with the wording of various other Wikipedia articles about school shootings, including but not limited to Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Dunblane (Scotland), Winnenden (Germany) and others. No other term is as consistently used in other articles, especially not the perpetrator's name. Thus I'd settle for anything other than 1, but with 2 clearly preferred. --BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 01:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• There is zero reason to use the individual's name. We should look at the overall situation. That involves the table of contents and the specific section. From the perspective of the table of contents, the reader orients themselves to the role, not to the name. Thus "Presumed gunman" or any other terminology has greater clarity than the individual's name. But we can and should also look at this from the perspective of the individual section. That section contains, as its first sentence "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year-old former student", and the bolding has not been added by me—it is actually in the article. There is no possibility the reader can miss the name of the individual. The emphasis at present is uncalled for. A question we have to ask ourselves is why this article receives different treatment from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. What do we feel at this article would warrant a heightened emphasis of the individual's name at the section handling the person responsible for the shooting, as compared to the "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article? You don't hit a nail with a hammer one more time when it is already flush with the wood, to use a strange analogy. All you have to do is accomplish your purpose. If you have built a redundancy into your means of accomplishing your purpose, you should back off in some aspect of the carrying out of your purpose. A reader will find and understand that section of the article best using a descriptive role as a section header, not by using the name of the individual. That is adequately accomplished by the first sentence presently in place at that section. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1 - per Mandruss and Mr. X Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• NOT #1 The fact that there are a majority of novice editors for this article shows, because there is no need to rehash the global consensus about something like this which has been widely debated in the past. The policy on this is clear (WP:NPOV, WP:BLP), and the the perp's name is NEVER used as a section heading where "Perp", "Shooter", "Suspect" is always preferred. Just go to any shooting article, such as 2009_Fort_Hood_shooting or Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting, and you will see what I mean. The perp's details are there, but the name is not used to head up sections. Other than NOT #1, I don't have a preference as to the heading. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• 6A - Suspect or Arrested suspect the volume of evidence is such in this case that the likelihood that the suspect is not the perpetrator is extremely low. Nonetheless, we do not sit as judge, jury or coroner - others do that - and the suspect should not be presumed (by us) to be guilty. Name would be acceptable, but is not clear to those of us in places where the name has not become so familiar. Pincrete (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• 6 or 2-5 - It's not an article about Cruz or Cruz's family; it's about the shooting, and the shooting has a suspect. Cruz is a temporary notable/public figure, so knowledge about him is very high at the moment; however, many future audiences will not know who he is, but instead will scan the article looking for the "Suspect" header — not the killer's name. Fdssdf (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• 6A-Arrested SuspectWe can't say he IS the shooter 100% because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Bkellar (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• 16 - Nikolas Cruz, suspect (with anchors to “Nikolas Cruz” and “Suspect”): I think this is a reasonable compromise. It combines the two indisputable facts while limiting any possible confusion about the name. - Paul^T+/_C 14:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Mr rnddude and Dougal18 in this situation, everyone is innocent until proven guilty even if everyone KNOWS he is the shooter. He could technically still be innocent if the judge/jury says he is. We have no control over what the jury/judge thinks, and even if it is a 99.999% chance he is the shooter, we can not say he IS the shooter until he is proven guilty. Bkellar (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Borges paragraph

The last wounded victim to remain hospitalized, 15-year-old Anthony Borges, was released from the hospital on April 4. Dubbed "the real Iron Man", Borges used his body to barricade the door of a classroom where twenty students were inside. He was shot five times.[49][50] Upon his release from the hospital, Borges' family's lawyer read a statement from the boy: "I know I’ve been called Iron Man. And while I’m honored to be called this, I am not. I’m a 15-year-old who’s been shot five times, while Broward Sheriff’s deputies waited outside and decided that they weren’t going to come in the building." Referring to Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel and School Superintendent Robert Runcie, Borges continued: "I want to thank you for visiting me in the hospital. But I want to say that both of you failed us, students and parents and teachers alike, on so many levels." Borges' family has filed notice with the local court of their intention to sue authorities for judgement to cover costs related to his recovery.

I have two issues with this paragraph. First, we are now devoting almost as much space to the wounded Borges as to all 17 dead combined, and I call that a weight and balance problem. Second, do we really want to include a quote that misstates the facts as we know them? Our best information is that the only cop outside during the shooting was Peterson, he was only there for about two minutes—it was over that fast—and he has given an explanation that is not false on its face. It is far from established that Peterson, let alone plural "deputies", "waited outside and decided that they weren’t going to come in the building." I know the article tells the rest of the story later, in the "Officer response" section, but are we going to assume readers read that far? If our purpose is to inform readers, is that quote worth leaving some number of readers with the wrong impression of the police response, one of the key issues in the story? Not in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph looks fine to me. No need to remove/rewrite. Disagree there is a weight balance problem, as it is just a small paragraph in the context of a very long article.XavierItzm (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about the comment "he has given an explanation that is not false on its face." The radio transcripts published reveal that the "resource officer" was telling on the radio that there was shooting inside building 1200... yet he's now floating an idea that there was another shooting going on by the football field?. Like you said, "false on its face". XavierItzm (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Disagree until there is an official report. But even if Peterson is a liar and he knew the shooting was happening inside, that's still just one deputy for two minutes, and that is very different from what the Borges quote says. The impression a reader will naturally take away from that quote is that, say, four or more deputies sat outside for most of the shooting, something a lot more like Columbine than Stoneman Douglas. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

But is it the job of Wikipedia editors to edit out the actual quotes from survivors, so that some people may not get "the wrong" impression? And here I though the Wiki was to just report the facts! In any event, we don't need specific disproval of of the reasons or no reasons of the now retired resource officer; just state the facts as reported, and state the quote from the victim as reported by multiple WP:RS.XavierItzm (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the question should rather be whether we actually need those quotes at all when their content could be summarized in few words without losing any information. For example:

The last wounded victim to remain hospitalized, 15-year-old Anthony Borges, was released from the hospital on April 4. Dubbed "the real Iron Man", Borges used his body to barricade the door of a classroom where twenty students were inside. He was shot five times.[49][50] Upon his release from the hospital, Borges' issued a statement criticizing the actions of Broward Sheriff’s deputies as well as Sheriff Scott Israel and School Superintendent Robert Runcie. His family has filed notice with the local court of their intention to sue authorities for judgement to cover costs related to his recovery.

Same information, much less text, no need to use quotes. Regards SoWhy 15:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The quote is important and should stay. Just as the quote from Sheriff Israel farther down in the article is important. Just as the quotes from any other notable survivor is important. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect to Borges, why are his words so important that they need to be quoted verbatim? After all, don't WP:QUOTE and WP:MOSQUOTE advise us to paraphrase quotations if possible? Regards SoWhy 15:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's important because he's a survivor who is going to be one of the most affected by the incident for his entire life. It's important because the story will continue to evolve regarding the lack of response from law enforcement both before and during the shooting. Wikipedia is never finished. Looking at articles as "perfect finished product" is a trap for many, and I fall into it frequently myself. Leaving the quote in hurts nothing, gives perspective to readers, helps them understand the article subject better (what better than the perspective of a victim survivor?) and it's true balance in light of Sheriff Israel's comments later in the article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that having another overlong quote in the article does not make it better to have this one, can you specify which quote of Israel you are referring to? Regards SoWhy 16:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I support SoWhy's proposed wording as a good compromise. We use far to many quotes for these current event articles. That's not only lazy writing, but it tends to tilt the POV scales.- MrX 🖋 20:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, not sure his name needs to be bolded per WP:R#PLA. I left it since another editor reverted me. --Malerooster (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Criminal case number

User Mandruss has twice deleted the following content at the very bottom of section "Suspect":

«Some victims chose to refer to the suspect as "18-1958" (his criminal case number) rather than use his name.»

As the content is well sourced, this looks like a personal opinion by Mandruss, whose justification for expunging the content is "unencyclopedic, trivial news". Maybe there is a new Wikipedia initiative to save 1000 bytes of server space I am unaware of. XavierItzm (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not a matter of server space, but reader value. This is a big article, and it's supposed be a summary of the relevant details. I am conservative, I suppose, on what should be included in an article. My measure is am I imparting anything of value for the reader? You didn't provide any context of how or why this is important when you included it in the article. So I'm not sure why you added it, or why it deserves its own paragraph. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing why it is needed in article. From the same quote about Pollack it says and also calls him “the thing.” I don't think we need to mention that detail either, or any of the other names/terms used to described Cruz. His quote can be used in the Andrew Pollack article. The second source is quoted from a series a tweets from a student(not from Douglas as far as I can tell). If the sentence were to be in article, it would probably also need to be reworded from "some victims choose" to "some people choose", based on sources being used. Pollack was the father of one of the victims, and the other quote is from a student in the same county. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Re my "personal opinion", please note a different part of the WP:ONUS policy that I linked in my edit summary. "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." It is my "personal opinion", which is more correctly called editorial judgment, that this does not improve the article. I concur with Mr rnddude and WikiVirusC above, and I also wonder why you added it. Like Mr rnddude, I think the question—for any content—should not be why sourced content should be omitted but why it should be included. So far, you haven't stated any case for inclusion except that it was reported in the news. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude: excessive intricate detail and unneeded. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch RfC

You are invited to participate in this RfC, which is about whether to include certain content about NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch being heckled offstage at a CNN town hall meeting on gun policy. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Offstage? Her statement that she made is talking about the event that occurred onstage. This is what she said. And it was over 5K people. I had to have a security detail to get out. I wouldn’t have been able to exit that if I did not have a private security detail. There were people rushing the stage and screaming ‘Burn her!’ And I came there to talk solutions. Jake Tapper confirmed this. The Miami New Times only shows videos offstage and misleads their readers to thinking that Loesch was talking about what happened offstage. ViriiK (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Political reaction section

Perhaps 1-2 democrats should get a word in as well? Assuming any have said anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Bunch of conspiracy stuff I removed

User Jackstig16 (talk · contribs) added the following to the conspiracy theories section. I removed it immediately as it seems contentious. Please review to see if any of it can be used. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Conspiracy Theories A wide variety of conspiracy theories were circulated after the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High. Students were accused of being crisis actors, and were the victims of false claims and hoaxes surrounding the events following the shooting, such as the March for Our Lives David Hogg Student Activist David Hogg was accused of being a crisis actor. The report stems from a year-old news clip from CBS Los Angeles in which Hogg was interviewed about a confrontation he witnessed between a friend of his and a lifeguard. The incident was posted a year later by a youtube user going by the name of ‘mike m.’ with the caption ‘Daivd Hogg the Actor…’ The video would become the #1 ‘Trending’ video on the site, before youtube removed it for violating its policies. Benjamin Kelly, the district secretary for Florida State Representative Shawn Harrison (R) released a statement to the Tampa Bay Times claiming students David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez were “not students here but actors who travel to various crisis when they happen. Kelly was fired shortly after Emma Gonzalez- Photoshop Controversy Student-activist Emma Gonzalez was the victim of another conspiracy theory involving a photoshopped picture. The original image appearing in Teen Vogue magazine depicted Gonzalez ripping up a shooting target. An online media outlet, Gab, tweeted a doctored version of this photo depicting Gonzalez ripping The Declaration of Independence. Gab later backtracked and stated that the image was “obviously parody/satire”. March for Our Lives Another group of conspiracy theories arose immediately after the world-wide March for Our Lives held on March 24th, 2018. The Tea Party Command Center, a conservative blog, claimed to have found a ‘smoking gun,’ in the form of an advertisement posted on craigslist that indicated proof that left-leaning political contributor George Soros was paying protestors $300 to March in Los Angeles. The ad in question was, in fact, for indepentent contractors to sell merchandise at the event in Los Angeles. The ad indicated that those interested could make between $120-$300 based off a percentage commission of sales. The media outlet infowars also posted a 10 minute video to youtube indicating they had proof that George Soros and his charitable/activist organizations funded busses for activists to and from various marches. ‘Bots’ Involvement on Social Media In the wake of the shooting, a number of ‘bots’ took to social media to influence the public on political issues. Botcheck.me, which analyzes 1500 known ‘political propaganda bots’ found that in the wake of the shooting, the most used two word phrases were  School shooting, gun control, high school, Florida school. The top hashtags from the last 24 hours include Parkland, guncontrol, and guncontrolnow. Student David Hogg was subjected to widespread false allegations of being a crisis actor. References

Cruz expulsion?

I thought I'd raise this one, since I removed the word "expelled" which was accompanied by what seemed a contradictory citation, and it has been put back in. I suppose, insomuch that Cruz was indeed forcibly removed from Stoneman Douglas, but not from the County Schools system, it is reasonable to apply the word "expelled" in this context. However, for me there are two reasons why the use of the word is misleading and should be avoided. First, the government is explicit that students are not expelled from the schools system, simply transferred to a different school if it's deemed appropriate. Given there is a global audience, the word could cause confusion in areas where expulsion means just that, expulsion from school, not just a school. Second, the word expulsion carries an implication of permanency, but here there is no permanency to a removal which can be reversed, and indeed was in the case of Cruz who was returned to the same school at least once.

For these reasons I think that the word "expelled" should be avoided where another word could be used. I would prefer the word "removed".

Makercomms (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Assuming you can ascertain some coherent verifiable "truth" from the few confusing sources available, I would suggest a couple of sentences that explain the situation more clearly. That would seem preferable to both the status quo and omitting anything about his status vis-a-vis the school system. Sadly, I lack the motivation to do any more than drop my opinion on this talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've always known expelled to be from a particular school, since kids that I remembering being expelled, just ended up at another one. I haven't heard any reports of him being expelled twice, so him "returning"(idk when), doesn't mean anything if he never returned as a student after the only explicitly "expulsion" that I believe has been reported. Removed is too soft, as it could be removed for a day, suspended, taking to principal office. We used "banished" at one point I believe. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Where I am from a "suspension" is a temporary removal from a class or the school and an "expulsion" is a permanent removal from the school (or even the entire school system in extreme cases). Meters (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction in the sources. It appears that he was expelled from the school (and probably from several others in the district) but not from the district itself as that would not have been legal. Meters (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a ref http://bcps.browardschools.com/schools/pdf/Matrix-Final%20Secondary.PDF that confirms that this school system has a disciplinary system that progresses through increasingly severe corrective measures depending on the severity of the incident and the number of occurrences. It includes in-school suspensions of increasing lengths, out-of-school suspensions of increasing lengths, and finally expulsion. Meters (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Excessive detail

@Bohbye: could you specify which section has too much detail, and/or on what subject matter, that way editors can address or discuss which issue you have. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

One week with no response. A tag should not be placed if the placer is not prepared to explain it and discuss specific improvements, and I have removed it. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

School resource officer

In the officer response section we just describe him as the School Resource Officer(SRO), but the section has a hatnote saying Scot Peterson redirects here. He isn't named anywhere in article, and I believe at some point we decided(or at least discussed) to leave him unnamed. But it seems pointless to leave him unnamed in text and have a hatnote that has his full name there. I also am not even sure we need a redirect for him, especially with him only referred to as SRO in the article. The redirect for him had 117 views[9] in the last 30 days, 45 of them occurring on the day the redirect was adjusted towards the section. Any opinions on this? WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That is an odd situation, and should be fixed, one way or the other. I didn't participate in the discussion to leave Peterson out of the article, but I found it here: Talk:Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting/Archive_4#Armed_Sheriff’s_Deputy_‘Never_Went_In’_During_Florida_Shooting in late February. The redirect Scot Peterson was created by user:Dennis Brown a couple of days prior to the talk page thread winding up, which would explain the disconnect. Meters (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

See related discussion, now idle and apparently completed, at User talk:Oshwah#Peterson redirect. I favor removal of the redirect and the hatnote. The linked discussion does not fully express my current thought process on this, and I can try to do so upon request. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

But if it is getting a reasonable number of hits passed the initial burst, you really want to remove it? That discussion wasn't exactly advertised nor widely participated in, btw, so I find it hard to believe that is really a global consensus. I think it is worth discussing, particularly since the individual DID get a respectable amount of press in major outlets. Not enough to pass BLP1E obviously, but enough to debate inclusion, as his failure to engage is a key point in this event. It isn't about shaming, but it is about giving the full picture. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of us also thought it was worth discussing. We discussed it. We didn't get the level of participation we would have preferred, and many of the editors who were still around the article at that time chose not to weigh in, apparently for lack of interest. We had a small but (we judged) significant consensus to omit the name per the spirit of WP:BLPNAME, and none of the dissenters chose to start an RfC on the question. So here we are. I think it's unlikely we'll get more participation now than we did then, without an RfC, as most editors have long since moved on. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really saying it needs to be removed or not, but the hatnote doesn't help, since as a reader you would have to already know, or just have to assume that the SRO the article is referring to is Peterson. The full picture is still given with or without his name, which is why I assume the article has just used SRO without much issue. And yeah I agree it's worth discussing, which was my primary intent here. Maybe doing one now will be better than previous one when the information was first released. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As his actions are central to the event, enough so that major outlets made a pretty big deal out of it, I would say inclusion is warranted. Carefully chosen inclusion, but inclusion nonetheless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting we remove the content about Peterson's actions. Is his name needed to understand the article subject? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it is. (Parkland School Resource Officer Breaks Silence On ‘Haunting’ Failure To Stop Shooter) Particularly since his perceived failure to do his duty is claimed to make a bad situation worse. Whether there was a failure or not, I have no idea and insufficient info to form an opinion on his actions, however, even he is now talking about them, so this isn't a case of someone who wants to disappear into obscurity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Dennis Brown. Must include name in order to fully explain the events; also, the guy is talking to the media in his own name and voice. XavierItzm (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Graduation ----> delete

WP is not a memorial. The recently added section on the graduation is not relevant to the case. Some of the survivors will graduate in 2019. Will you then add another section on yet another graduation? What if anyone graduates in 2020? Maybe someone will graduate in 2021. My personal congratulations to the graduates, but it is maudlin and unencyclopaedic to have this section. XavierItzm (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it belongs. I don't think it is "maudlin" at all. The graduation bears very real continuity with the shooting. Call it "healing" or simply call it "consequence" but there are repercussions that go on. Obviously the repercussions diminish with time but it is possible that graduation events of the next few years could be mentioned in this article if reliably sourced. Or even the coverage of the current graduation event could be modified. But I disagree with the argument that the present coverage of the current graduation is uncalled for. Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Maudlin or not, it is not particularly unencyclopaedic. The graduation is part of the result of the incident. It shows a reaction to it. Of course we will not detail future graduations; that would be WP:UNDUE. But if some element became a tradition at their graduations that would bear mention, but only briefly. In fact if they end up handing out diplomas for all the student victims, we would end up making it more brief by saying diplomas for all the students killed were awarded in the years they would have graduated rather then listing them. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Name of the section on Nikolas Cruz

I renamed the section from “Suspect” to “Nikolas Cruz”, but I don’t know if it should be called “Perpetrator” or something similar. Is this a good title based on the content of the section? -Nick Gurr 7777 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus was to use Suspect. See the discussion here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to create a separate article on Nikolas Cruz

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.

---

To prevent an edit war on the biography of Nik Cruz, I think a new article should be created discussing his life, and a little info about the shooting, similar to Columbine High School massacre and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. This was a major shooting, with more deaths than Columbine, so in my opinion, the perpetrator deserves his own page. -Nick Gurr 7777 (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No thank-you. He "deserves" nothing but life in prison not more notoriety. Also he is 19 years old its not like he has accomplished anything notable. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring the emotional aspect of what one "deserves", I'll note that there has been a plethora of such discussions and, if IIRC, they have always concluded "no because WP:BLP1E". You can list me under that argument too. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• No. Not notable for anything but the subject of this article. He "deserves" nothing more than a section here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong no per all of above (except the policy-free emotional part of Legacypac's rationale). Wikipedia does not measure notability by body count. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

my comment was directly in response to the "deserved" comment. Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for your feedback. This discussion should be closed. -Nick Gurr 7777 (talk) 16:33, 10 June 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018

The official Stoneman Douglas Victims' Fund was created by Broward Education Foundation on the evening of February 14, 2018, and in partnership with GoFundMe and the National Compassion Fund, raised $10.5M for victims' families, survivors and those impacted by the horrific tragedy. Broward Education Foundation coalesced the Stoneman Douglas Victims' Fund Steering Committee, led by Senator George S. LeMieux and comprised of 18 prominent business, civic and community leaders to determine the distribution and allocation of funds. Pejayryan (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Which one

....he was spotted and recognized by a staff member, who radioed a colleague....The first staff member claimed his training called for only reporting threats; his colleague hid in a closet.... At about 2:21, the same staff member heard gunfire and activated a code red lockdown.

Bit confusing. Which staff member heard the activated code red? Moriori (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

After doing some googling, the staff member is not named in any news articles. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Not what I asked. Was it the "staff member" or the "colleague". Moriori (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay I get what you're asking now. I think it was the colleague from what I read of the article. QueerFilmNerd^talk 16:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please change

BBC News characterized Republican politicians' reactions as focusing on mental health issues while dodging debate on gun control, with the reasoning that it was either "too political or too soon".

to

BBC News characterized Republican politicians' reactions as focusing on mental health issues while dodging debate on gun control, with the reasoning that it was either "too political or too soon".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43079170|title=Florida shooting: Two Americas speak in aftermath|date=15 February 2018|author=Anthony Zurcher}}</ref>

My Favourite Account ^Talk 20:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 22:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)