Talk:Parkland high school shooting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

worth noting that this is the deadliest mass shooting in the U.S. w/ living perpetrator?

Apologies if I'm doing this wrong - this is my first time posting on a Talk page Anyways, perhaps it may be worth mentioning somewhere that this is the deadliest U.S. mass shooting where the perpetrator is still alive?[1] I noticed that the Orlando nightclub shooting has a similar mention in its first paragraph: "It remains the deadliest U.S. mass shooting in which the perpetrator did not commit suicide.". It's a somewhat interesting factoid that occurred to me as I was just watching the arraignment of the perpetrator and thought "woah, you actually don't see arraignments very often in these kinds of cases because they're always dead.." Edasaki (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source that makes this observation? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems like an unencyclopedic, unconsequential trivia item that would come about via synthesis rather than a WP:RS. But maybe that's just me. As well, if we consider including it simply because something similar is in another article, WP:OTHERSTUFF should be invoked. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no comment on the inclusion of this info but I don't think you need synthesis. E.g. while this source doesn't directly say it's the deadliest with a perpetrator who survived [2], it does say "Of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history, 19-year-old Cruz is the only shooter to survive". Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

characterization of FBI involvement as "mishandling"

It is not clear that the FBI "mishandled" anything.

Characterizing their involvement as mishandling implies that there was something they should have done that they did not. The FBI investigates potentially dangerous people all the time. There are many young men with guns and troubled lives agitating online. They do not have a legal right to arrest or otherwise detain people on the basis of the information they appear to have been provided with so far.

Perhaps "FBI involvement" would be an appropriate title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C54E:F100:3185:A9ED:C0C:6594 (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Many major reliable sources say mishandling, so we say mishandling. Some Wikipedia editing is really complicated, that part isn't. Oh and you'll notice that some of those Googled sources say the FBI acknowledged the mishandling, not that it matters for our purposes. Anyway, you may have missed that the mishandling was the FBI's failure to pass a tip about a death threat posted by Cruz on to the Miami field office. That's supposed to be routine, so a failure to do it is clear mishandling. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As Mandruss said, they said they were suppose to forward information to Miami office and they didn't do so. So by your definition that fits. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Per the existing sources, it's mishandling because the FBI is supposed to operate by its rules. But if sources should show the FBI (in practice) routinely ignores protocol, it would seem more apparent that this is simply the way the FBI handles things. I know I wouldn't want to call every city in America for each of the 5,000 or so bullshit leads I got every day, if I were an FBI agent (and maybe I am, but I'm not). I've read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and can see how actual agents might not rush to aid that boy who sends the cities' SWAT teams to harass (or kill) people who beat him at online FPS games. Makes the cities look like dicks for believing the Internet, then the cities blame the spooks.

But, if that's the job someone agreed to do impeccably and they didn't, they mishandled in the plainest sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(and maybe I am, but I'm not) is a self-contradictory statement. Just sayin'. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Whether action was taken or not, it was simply the tiplines job to forward information to Miami office, from there they decide whether or not it's a boy calling wolf. WikiVirusC^(talk) 05:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources say mishandling. NOTAFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC) (never mind, if we're actually talking about the article as below.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So it was just the tipline's foul? Is that even run by agents? I've amended "the FBI admitted it mishandled" to "the FBI admitted the PAL mishandled", based on what the agency as a whole clearly did not say about itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not even "admitted PAL mishandled" - it's "stated that PAL did not follow protocol". Making that into "mishandled" is OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I changed "stated that" to "said". If someone would rather "said that" or "stated", I suppose that's fine. But three syllables is too many. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Second shooter claims

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

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

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

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

This is the video interview that KHOU reporter Matt Musil refers to in the video linked above.

In this video interview with KPRC, a student describes two shooters approaching from opposite sides to prevent students getting out either of the two exits. She describes it twice in the video. Also when she was asked to confirm that there was more than one shooter, she states that she heard that there were three, but the reporter does not pursue that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.90.84 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

It's never premature to TALK. Talking is how we evaluate inclusion maturity. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Silly. They were talking about a second shooter. And you're on vacation anyway.[3] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Pandering to conspiracy theorists is not something encyclopedias should ever do. If the authorities confirm evidence of a second shooter, the cite from credible sources. If not, then such suspicions belong in a distinctly separate entry. However, not only is there not enough moment to even accept such a a new article, but security camera footage in the school has already confirmed that the suspect acted alone.Clepsydrae (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it would be pandering to theorists to acknowledge witnesses who said there was another shooter, and reporters who have highlighted that aspect of witness testimony. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No way we include this as factual (or anything close to it) information. However, we should probably have either a section or (depending on how events unfold) an article on Florida school shooting conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Depressed and self harming?

That should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Alex of Canada (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

From the Nikolas Cruz section (emphasis added): "The Florida Department of Children and Families investigated Cruz in September 2016 for Snapchat posts in which he cut both his arms and said he planned to buy a gun. State investigators reported Cruz had depression, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder." ―Mandruss ☎ 11:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

He was jewish 58.173.115.85 (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - Not an edit request. Specify exact changes and provide reliable sourcing for verifiabililty. Then we can discuss relevance and weight. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I just want to add that we normally put a subject's religion in the info-box only if he/she has been impacted by it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(And that's only if they have an infobox, which he doesn't.) ―Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

This needs to be listed as Stoneman Douglas School Massacre not "shooting" The13thWASP (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - Edit requests are not for title changes, and this title was chosen 6 days ago by clear consensus. We should stick with the existing title for a while, probably at least a couple of months in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Additionally, please see WP:NPOVTITLE. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Grammar error: "anti-immigration and antisemitic"

The article has a grammatical error. Currently it reads "antisemitic," which should be "anti-Semitic." "Anti-immigration" should probably be "xenophobic," but either way, it needs to be followed by a word like "views." Otherwise it's an adjective with no noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephkugelmass (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-immigration" is not synonymous with xenophobic. Antisemitic and anti-Semitic are interchangeable. JDiala (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Emma Gonzalez speech -- weight

How much detail are we going to put in from the Emma Gonzalez speech? This question is governed by WP policies, particulary WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT:

WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

The Gonzalez speech, both the full speech and lengthy excerpts, got massive media coverage. Her viewpoint should be represented in the article in proportion to its prominence in the published, reliable sources. Gonzalez' speech got more coverage than any other section in the entry.

To reduce it to "Student and survivor Emma González was noted for her impassioned speech rebuking "thoughts and prayers" from the government and the President.... She has since emerged as one of the teenage leaders of a protest movement against gun violence in the United States..." does not represent her viewpoint in proportion to its prominence in published WP:RS.

Furthermore, the summaries of the students' positions -- including Gonzalez -- are not as articulate or well-argued as the original statements from the students themselves. You've edited out the voices of the students. Stoneman Douglas attracted some of the best students in Florida. They were taking an AP Government class, taught by some of the best teachers in Florida, in which they studied gun control. As part of the class, they had three debates on gun conrol -- which is why Gonzalez was able to give such a striking, informed, well-argued speech.

There are no Wikipedia editors here (including myself) who can summarize or paraphrase the words of these students as well as they expressed them themselves. You've taken their words and turned them into a word salad of snippits and quotes. You missed their main points, and weakened their arguments. They didn't simply "vocally condemn... U.S. lawmakers who have received political contributions from the National Rifle Association." They demanded lawmakers refuse contributions from the NRA, and they said they would support primary campaigns to challenge those lawmakers in the primaries.

You missed other main points. Let me ask you: What do you think were the main points of Gonzalez' speech?

This was written by somebody who didn't even understand Gonzalez' speech, where she laid out these issues so clearly.

You've reduced their whole argument to two paragraphs that don't even quote the students directly. Instead, you quote politicians and officials. That was exactly what the students were complaining about: the news media quoted politicians and officials, but not the students themselves. Read the entry. Find the quotes. See who it quotes. You've used Wikipedia to quote the establishment and the authorities -- the worst flaw of journalism -- rather than the people themselves. You've failed.

I think we should restore the Gonzalez block quotes. That's what block quotes are for. You shouldn't delete them unless you think that you can express Gonzalez' ideas more clearly and concisely than she can herself. And if you believe that, you're deluded about your writing abilities. --Nbauman (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You also have to think on how to write it so we are not promoting Emma Gonzalez. Her speech was moving, but it should not warrant a section bigger than the reactions for all of the politicians combined. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I do think we should minimize the use of lengthy quotes, and have about one good paragraph about Gonzalez' influence. The more detailed content can go in her biography, but we have to be careful not to advocate for or against her cause. Let the sources do the talking.- MrX 🖋 19:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

user:Knowledgekid87, WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, "a fundamental principle of Wikipedia." WP:WEIGHT says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." So if Gonzalez' speech had coverage as big as the reactions of all politicians combined, wouldn't her speech get a section as big as all their reactions combined? --Nbauman (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be interesting if we can compare the coverage. I believe that all of the political responses would get more collective coverage over time than one viewpoint. There are also other students who also made great speeches that got coverage as well. This is hard, as her viewpoint is strong for pro gun control which is a debatable issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

user:Knowledgekid87, The first question to answer is, do you agree with WP:WEIGHT? Do you agree that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to their prominence in published, reliable sources? --Nbauman (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Gun Control Debate" Section is Biased

The "gun control debate" section is really only giving one side of the "debate". It's not giving the conservative, pro-gun perspective. For instance, you could discuss Trump's tweets immediately after the shooting. Alternatively you could mention this pro-gun editorial written in the National Review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7753:9B00:9DA3:45AC:3D71:B475 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump's tweets are not really usable for a serious subject such as this. The National Review article might be usable. Please let us know your proposed wording and any sources, and we can go from there.- MrX 🖋 21:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

DISCLOSURE: I'm (JDiala) the user who made this original thread; I wasn't signed in initially.

Trump's tweets are absolutely relevant, serious or not. He is the president of the United States. For the National Review article, consider this wording: "An editorial published in the National Review criticized the calls for gun control, arguing that gun control legislation proposed by progressives would likely have not prevented the shooting." JDiala (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What's in the tweets? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if he's the president—most of his tweets are vacuous, especially on this subject. If we are going to add something like "...arguing that gun control legislation proposed by progressives would likely have not prevented the shooting.", then it needs to be expanded to explain the reasoning behind it, because it seems counterintuitive.- MrX 🖋 23:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We could alternatively convey what the proposed legislation actually is (anybody know?). Definitely counterintuitive when it's just "to prevent similar shootings", especially if the argument is against it preventing this shooting. I checked Trump's Twitter, nothing seems relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Claims by Republic of Florida

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

Please see LA Times:

Did he have ties to a white nationalist group?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"no known ties" [4]

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

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

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

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

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

From the clues above, we can eliminate seven men. Freger didn't contribute to this report, so she's out. Conway and Sheeran both contributed to this report, which calls Fernando Santos "a friend of Cruz who spoke to ABC News through Instagram". Could be an entirely different Instagram source, but if not, the bits about Cruz liking guns, being picked on for "the first few years" of school and not having enough friends might well be lies, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a good New Yorker account of the whole debacle. If we ever decide it's useful in retrospect, it would go with the Russian trolling paragraph in the 'Aftermath' section (like 2017 Las Vegas shooting#Hoaxes).--Pharos (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The botched media claims and 4chan hoaxes related to Cruz and the ROF have received plenty of WP:RS coverage. Any reason they shouldn't be included in this article? Oren0 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories grow in darkness, but shrink to absurdity when exposed to the light. We have sections on conspiracy theories in every major mass shooting recently and this is, sadly, no exception. More sources forthcoming. -- GreenC 03:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Chris Hixon removal

Resolved

 – Notice: InedibleHulk is not complicit in the inclusion of this content. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: [5][6][7]

So the guy's actions weren't "remotely heroic" because he got shot and killed before he could help. That's some remarkable reasoning. I'm not a big fan of these memorials, but that's no rationale for removing one. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Victims section has two people who died opening doors and one who shielded. These are understandable as potential life-savers. But it also had a man who ran into the fire with presumably good intentions (per his wife), which apparently only cost him his own life. Removed him as a non-factor, which seemed somewhat controversial, so I'm opening the floor showing up a minute late. Aye? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I originally added the content. He put others' well-being before his own in a mortal situation. That's heroic in my book. He could have run away but he didn't. starship.paint ~ KO 00:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If that was his thinking (I have no reason to doubt it was), it was still just wishful thinking. I'll grant that by taking the bullet(s), those particular ones didn't hit who or what they otherwise might have, but each victim and solid object hit bought time and saved damage by drawing fire. It's not a particularly noble sacrifice, in context, especially if he'd intended to help in a different way. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The essential point, which you appear to be missing (it's not about stopping bullets from hitting others), is that he could have chosen to run the opposite direction like almost everybody else, and chances would be greatly improved that he would be sitting on his couch with his wife at this moment. But he didn't, and he isn't. Heroism isn't about results, so if you exclude him you exclude Beigel, Feis, and Wang as well. If you charge the machine gun position and get cut down before you can kill any enemy, you still get the Silver Star. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Wang and Beigel opened doors, allowing a dozen or so others to choose to run or stay. Feil directly and intentionally put his one person before two. These willfull decisions likely produced a net-positive in casualty figures, while Hixon's selfless act was more like a trade-off. Good for whomever Cruz might have spent the time it takes to kill one person on, but still 17 dead in the end. Being a hero is totally about results. Meaning to defend people before you die just makes you sympathetic and kind. Can you name one other real hero who didn't accomplish anything against villainy?

The Silver Star is for courage, not heroism. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Joseph P. Kennedy Jr.. Chose to volunteer for a mission he knew to be very dangerous. Never made it anywhere near the target, died in friendly territory. Awarded the Navy Cross, etc. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

He wasn't suddenly caught up in his mess with only fight or flight response to guide him. Far more cognizant of the suicide mission, and volunteered after deliberation. But I'll count it, and drop the stick. As long as I don't appear complicit in it, I'm fine with including Hixon. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You didn't appear complicit in it before your removal, but thanks for the stick droppage. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Historians won't read the edit summaries, they'll read the Talk Page. Can't have them finding a conspiracy of silence. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Meaning to defend people before you die just makes you sympathetic and kind - so what you're saying is, 99% of students at the school are unsympathetic and unkind. Well... Cruz might be doing society a favour in that case. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No, they're probably decent and would've helped if they thought they could. Just better decision makers, who likely saved their own lives. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nobody said heroes made good decisions, many if not most of them end up dying. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Everybody dies in the end. It's what you do or don't accomplish before or through that which makes you a hero or a fool. There's no shame in being fooled once. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You might actually read some of the stuff you wikilink, unless you're just trying to impress with the color blue. Hero links to Courage in its first sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It says a hero "combats adversity through feats of" courage. There's no feat here, just a feeling. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

On that topic; often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good. - for example: sacrificing their self-concern for survival, for the greater good of saving others. Mr rnddude (talk)

Real greater good, not a possibly anticipated greater good. Even if he fully meant to die in someone else's place and did, that's only equal good (in a value of life way, perhaps not in value). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It can be said that the life of a child is more valuable than an adult's. Also, heroes are subject to the fight or flight response too. Just saying. Persistent Corvid 03:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersistantCorvid (talk • contribs)

I can argue that time and energy invested in a life increases the value until it hits 70 and plateaus (with a spike at 100), or I can leave it alone, respecting your opinion and avoiding further potential insult to entire demographics today. Some things are best left unsaid, let's just say that. Live and let live. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

While hiding during the shooting, student David Hogg ... used his cell phone to record video of his classmates

Vox actually says: "Hogg, a student journalist, took out his cellphone and began recording his classmates — a gun control plea in sickening real time." It doesn't exactly say that he was hiding in the closet from the shooter. Watching the video (which there are several edited versions of that have been released by various reliable sources) it's not clear that this is during the shooting. No gun shots are heard. Aside from the interview noise there is a murmur of others talking in the background, there is not evidence that people are hiding, it seems more likely the event was over at this point.

The video linked in the Vox article is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=E8luXbglTaw

It includes an extended comment from a woman, however the video is blank for her extended comment, audio only.

The same audio is included in this International Business Times (Newsweek Group.) video report of the event, with a slightly longer introduction. That is located here:

The entire first part is the same, but there is additional audio at the cut where the Vox-linked video goes black. That audio includes the reporter (presumably David Hogg) giving the time and date for the recording, as well as the subject of the interview/statement. ("This is Alex View, this recording was taken at 9:32 on Feb. 14, 2018"...)

So the article's claim (echoing Vox's claim) that the video (linked at Vox) was taken "in real time" must be presumed false, for at least the longer part of the video that begins with the blackout at about :30 in the Vox linked version and :57 on the IBT broadcast version.

It appears that most of that was recorded at 9:32 PM, about seven hours after the event, not at all "in real time". Perhaps the first 30 seconds were earlier, but there is no claim or date made on the tape, and since Vox is clearly confused I suggest we remove this claim, or possibly the link altogether until the actual facts around its creation are verified.

Is "storyful" a reliable source? Is Vox?

ZeroXero (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Vox is generally reliable, but even reliable sources are often wrong, especially about shootings and politics. If any one is saying something the others don't (or contradict), the claim itself is exceptional, but the source is still good for other things (unless it happens every day). Absolutely no Very little idea about "storyful". Someone else will be by to handle your many remaining implicit questions shortly. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I've just spent a half hour trying to sort all that out, and without much success. The vid doesn't look or sound to me like people in immediate fear for their lives—they're lucidly, articulately, and calmly discussing a political issue. I don't know why that first girl says something about hiding in a closet, but that's the only hint in the video that it was during the shooting. I don't know why Vox wrote it the way they did, but they may have just gotten this one wrong. Then we have Alex Jones's InfoWars presenting the "9:32" time as proof of conspiracy, somehow failing to consider that it might have been 9:32 p.m. It looks to me like multiple parties are at fault in some way or other, and I'm not really concerned about determining who and in what way, even if that were possible. Since no other source has deemed that video important enough to report on, as far as I can tell, I'm going to boldly remove the sentence per WP:WEIGHT and call it a day. In the overall picture it's not really that significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Should Cruz be categorized as an American person of Jewish descent?

Should Cruz be categorized as an American person of Jewish descent because he once wrote "My real mom was a Jew" in an Instagram chat? See this edit of the redirect page.- MrX 🖋 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Not a reliable primary, and the secondaries only parrot the primary. I'm not a category expert but it seems logical that we would need verifiability. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No. This guy could claim his real parents were Martians and we wouldn't just add him to Category:American person of Martian descent. He's not reliable. -- Veggies (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

white supremacist gang leader's suggested motive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"no known ties" [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:813:53A7:45D8:DDBA (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

I don't know if Jordan Jereb can be considered a reliable source. All kinds of nobodies could come forward to claim that a famous murderer was part of their organization to get attention. Woodall appears to be doing some lazy reporting here. A group leader claiming someone trained with them is not proof that he actually trained with them. You'd need more than that, like pictures showing Cruz training. ScratchMarshall (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

The motives of murderers are psychopaths (suicides). In their damaged psyche. Who and how? Why and for what purpose?

  Damaged the psyche of 239 murderers. Bereaved children in schools. During the last 5 years in the US. Are there any mature technologies? Makers? Toxins?Klein pigeon (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Victims

In the victims section of the article, I would add more information about exactly who each victim was. Eric Levenson's CNN article would be an extremely helpful source for this. I would specifically include the quote about Scott Beigel made by one of his students. "Mr. Biegel was my hero and he still will forever be my hero. I will never forget the actions that he took for me and for fellow students in the classroom, I am alive today because of him" (Levenson, 2018).

Levenson, Eric. “These Are The Victims of the Florida School Shooting.” CNN (2018). Sydorloff (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nikolas Cruz

Under the section of Nikolas Cruz I would add more information in regards to the early childhood and adolescences of Nikolas Cruz. This information would provide the reader with valid information demonstrating why Cruz took such horrific actions. Specifically I would add a quote taken from a New York Times article from Cruz's childhood neighbor. "He had emotional problems and I believe he was diagnosed with autism. He had trouble controlling his temper. He broke things. He would do that sometimes at our house when he lost his temper. But he always was very apologetic” (Fausset, 2018). This quote shows how Cruz's behavior was effecting other individuals even at an early age. It also links Cruz's detrimental actions towards his disturbed mental state.

Fausset, Richard. “Nikolas Cruz, Florida Shooting Suspect, Showed ‘Every Red Flag’.” New York Times (2018). Sydorloff (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Gun shop where the weapon was purchased

There are a few sources that mention where the rifle was purchased, and some that go into detail about the gun shop (Sunrise Tactical Supply) closing its business.[9][10][11][12] I think something about this should be included in the article, but I'm not sure where.- MrX 🖋 04:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Weak oppose, tangential. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. They are not related to the shooting and the sale was a year before the shooting. There's no allegations that they did anything wrong. On the contrary, they followed all the laws, performed the background and complied with any waiting periods required. There is more harm than good coming from including them as well as an WP:UNDUE. I don't see a connection especially since a lot of the troublesome behavior outlined was after the sale. Are we then going to mention the abused girlfriends name that failed to get a restraining order that would have confiscated the rifle? It's an awfully slippery slope naming people and entities that did nothing wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ummm... I wasn't proposing that we portray the gun shop as villains. On the contrary, I think it would be useful to mention that they were investigated, cleared, and indefinitely closed their business. It probably falls somewhere under aftermath and it's certainly no more tangential than Russian bots.- MrX 🖋 04:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support removal of Russian bots. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Simply no. They add nothing to the account of the shooting. Unrelated and listing them at all is undue weight. Why would we need to mention they were "investigated and cleared" (which is actually false as there was never an investigation of them at all). --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Mention it as the place of purchase. The gun itself is a huge part of the story, and its background is relevant. The shop's past or future is its business. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I see no relevance except that it was purchased legally at a nearby gun store. Whether it was Sunrise or Bob's Killing Machines seems immaterial to me. Tangential. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Very few things really matter. Not naming the town or the day of the month wouldn't affect much. But with this much minutiae about the shooter's background here, anything at all about the deadliest weapon in an American high school's history seems conspicuous by its absence. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/sunrise-tactical-supply-coral-springs 131.111.184.102 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I just moved it from Legal proceedings to Shooting, before anyone complains it's gone. After the five footnotes. Can't miss it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That's where it was a couple of days ago. I had moved it out because it interrupted the narrative flow of the shooting (and it was the only thing in the section that did so), but I wasn't sure where to put it. The purchase occurred a year before the shooting, which is the subject of the section. Frankly I'd prefer Suspect over Shooting, but it's not a huge deal, Frank. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The gun made the shooting. Sure, there was a gunman and victims and space between them, but it doesn't get much more central than this. Flow, we can work on, but there can't possibly be a more relevant section. Of the ones we have, I mean. There's no rule that a gun can't have a section, it just doesn't happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The gun made the shooting. Please, let's try to avoid aphorisms. Gun purchase is background. It could just as easily be argued that Cruz made the shooting so we should move some of his background to the Shooting section. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've half a mind to trout you. As Marge Simpson says, guns are designed to kill cannons are designed to hurt. This one is no different. If you pull the trigger on a beaver, nothing. Pull it on a lamp, it makes light. Pull it on a gun, it makes shooting. This is not a bumper sticker slogan. This is both plainly apparent and extensively documented. For centuries. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Very true, and yet so irrelevant. I don't think we're going to reach a consensus on a general and comprehensive philosophy of Wikipedia editing to be applied article-wide. Time to hope for more participation on this single issue, and since I'm such an awesome guy I'll let you have your way pending a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright, but if your side wins in the end, you get the trout in the end. Or ultimately, at least. My mind was made up by that bold-faced "yet so irrelevant". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you might be at the wrong venue. Wikipedia isn't about 'winning' arguments. -- Veggies (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ten bucks says I can write a persuasive counter-essay to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Are we mentioning the names of the family that took him in and provided storage for the rifle? Let that sink in. --DHeyward (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a BLP issue per WP:BLPNAME. No comparison, if one was intended. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And so is the store. It's not a faceless operation, it's a married couple running a small business and their names are tied to the store. Naming the store is naming them. They are inseparable. They've received hate mail and death threats and it's the reason police are outside their store and house. --DHeyward (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a new one on me, BLP by association. Got any policy backup, or is that your interpretation? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the policy. the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Do you have any evidence that it's harmless? The current state of police presence protecting their lives and property speak directly to this harm. --DHeyward (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As I suspected, your interpretation. Sorry, but it doesn't automatically follow from that blurb that BLP policy applies to something that could be linked to a living person's name. It's anything but a minor or subtle distinction, so one can't point to WP:CREEP for an explanation for why there isn't a single word about that in the entire multi-page BLP policy. Therefore you're inventing personal content policy, a really bad idea for multiple reasons. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to name the owners. Maybe name the shop and note that all laws were properly followed in the purchase. If there's any significant aftermath to the property owners' livelihood, that could be added in an 'Aftermath' section. -- Veggies (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Here;s what the article currently says: "He had purchased the rifle legally from a nearby Coral Springs gun store in February 2017." ―Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention the name of the gun shop, but we should mention that that the owners are distraught and closed the business indefinitely.- MrX 🖋 14:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No objection. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Do you have any objection to my above proposal?- MrX 🖋 18:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I object, in the meantime. There's no reason to personalize this at all. The salient issue is whether the gun was stolen (illegal), grabbed off the back of a speedboat (complicated) or bought at a store (legal). Saying anything at all about the storeowners reaction or emotion is what'll make them potential targets of hypothetical readers upset they didn't do or feel the right things. These aren't public figures, they're just people doing their jobs. Gun stores are designed to 'sell guns. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

OK InedibleHulk, but you did write: "Mention it as the place of purchase. The gun itself is a huge part of the story, and its background is relevant." Do you think we should name the gun shop?- MrX 🖋 13:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I can take it or leave it, so long as the sentence conveys the store was legit and nearby. If it were a notable store with an article, I'd insist on naming it. That's not a call to create the article, just a bit of reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Weapon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern sporting rifle? Take 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Refrences

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

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

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

Source identified

Multiple sources have now identified the weapon as a Smith & Wesson M&P15. The sources do appear to be copies of each other, but there isn't much to say in identifying the model. Our article on Modern sporting rifles could use a little more building, but its fairly solid. Good lesson learned here - all of the early sources were all derived from the exact same source (a clip from the sheriff's announcement) , when the sheriff was either using the genericized term, or just misinformed/mistaken. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Still not an official statement; Just hearsay of unidentified "law enforcement sources" (that don't exist). We KNOW he purchased an AK-47 (which can't be readily concealed either, but an AKS-74U can be), but mysteriously he used an "AR-15" (which can't be). (Now, if the Sheriff says something that dishonest, at least THEN it's on him.) 2600:100C:B227:D544:707A:E424:849:C8DF (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC) MandatoryCarry.

Correction; If the sheriff 'did' say that, then all is 'well enough.' I've been searching for this video since I first heard about the shooting. Ain't found it yet. 2600:100C:B227:D544:707A:E424:849:C8DF (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)MC

The video interview from the first day did have the sheriff saying "AR-15" - I'll assume good faith that it wasn't dishonest (i.e. intended to deceive), just inaccurate. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

What video?! I googled "Parkland AR-15 just this morning, still NOTHING. (Hey, it might even be true and correct, but without confirming HE said it, we can't begin to move forward.) 2600:100C:B227:D544:707A:E424:849:C8DF (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)MC

Pretty much every video source purporting to show Cruz's guns prominently features various airsoft and pellet guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Eagle Eye

Columbia Journalism Review had an article https://www.cjr.org/analysis/parkland-school-shooting.php about The Eagle Eye http://eagleeye.news/category/news/ , the school newspaper at Stoneman Douglas High School (or MSD as they call it). At least one of the photographers said that they encourage any and all news sources to use their work. So it might be a good source of photos for Wikipedia. --Nbauman (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

if you are referring to the one tweet that says "Any and all news sources are free to use my footage please.". I don't think that by itself would qualify for use on Wikipedia. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No, but if someone can "tweet back" and point them to WP:CONSENT that certainly would, or encourage them to upload their images with a compatible license on Flikr (probably more user friendly than Commons) and then they can be transferred over. GMG^talk 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If he'd offered to give photos to the news for free, I could see why we might ask, too. But he offered them his footage. Used to literally mean feet of film, but still means video today. Cellphone screencap quality has come a long way since the Northern Illinois University days, but are they yet worth the effort? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Scheduled drill that day

I've seen in several of the interviews with students there that they thought at first it was a drill because there was some kind of drill scheduled that way. I can't think of what existing section to put this in. Possibly aftermath? A pre-scheduled drill would actually be a prelude though, so perhaps it should have a new section? ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There was a fire drill earlier in the day, and so when Cruz pulled the fire alarm, some assumed it was just another fire drill. There was not an active shooter drill, or anything like that.--Pharos (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What should be made of this?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/20/florida-school-shooter-sympathized-with-syrian-terrorists-sold-knives-from-lunchbox-friend-says.html

It says that he allegedly was sympathetic with "Syrian terrorists" granted his Islamophobic views and remarks this is rather interesting nonetheless. Perhaps he was pro PKK/YPG or even Hezbollah as it is unlikely to be that he would support Islamist oriented groups like ISIS or some FSA factions or Nusra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not particularly interesting, and we shouldn't expect ideological consistency. The common point is just an affiliation for death and destruction.--Pharos (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's unpatriotic to refer to the YPG as Syrian terrorists on Fox News. They're the "People's Protection Units". But in a quote, who the hell knows? Everyone's a terrorist in Syria, according to one side or another. Maybe he felt bad for any rebellious force that has to fight drones with rifles while the side with the drones has food, water and shelter. It's human nature to at least think "sucks to be them" now and then in private conversation, even if it's unpatriotic. That's all this is, one teenager to another. Remember when a bunch of them marched about the country, calling for the rape and murder of their newly-elected President, or when you wished your parents were dead for not lending you the car (or whatever)? Kids can be so cruel. No big deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean, it's a big deal when it's as cruel as a school shooting. Just not when it's schoolyard talk. Even if it looks serious in hindsight. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe that this should be mentioned. If his views are ideologically inconsistent, then we should let the readers know this fact. Typical Islamophobes do not support groups like Hezbollah. In fact, it might not even be ideologically inconsistent. He might be pro-Hezbollah in light of his anti-Semitism (Hezbollah is anti-Israel). Perhaps he just has a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude. JDiala (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone beside you and the OP mentioned Hezbollah in particular, or "like Hezbollah"? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of ones views of the PKK/YPG, to a typical High school student Im sure the YPG would look like terrorists as I doubt most teenagers outside Syria would really know the difference between the various fighters, it's not just Fox news who said this there was an interview with a girl who was an acquaintance of his who said he admired 'Syrian Terrorists' without naming a specific group. I believe his interest in the Syrian conflict such as possible support for Kurdish, Pro-Government militias, or even though unlikely Syrian Opposition groups could be an ideological description that leads to something much deeper about himself. Also given his Anti-Semetic views it could be assumed as mentioned he liked Hezbollah or SSNP but his Islamophobic views would not allow him to support Islamist oriented groups such as ISIS or Tahrir Al Sham, nonetheless however as stated this provides further insight into his mind and possible motivations and alignments while also providing the full picture of the story of Nikolas Cruz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

He can have his full story told (incompletely) when he has a full article, which will happen after he's convicted. For now, we still need to rein back on the near-libelous and potentially prejudicial gossip, especially from high school girls.

Less importantly, I bought a knife from a classmate in Grade 5, and it wasn't weird at all (probably saved $40). Plenty of non-violent and productive uses for knives. You can peel an apple for teacher, shave your peach fuzz like Rambo or help a kindergartener out of a tetherball snafu. Trying that with a gun is what gets kids suspended/killed/looked at funny. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the topic of his admiration for Syrian armed groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're asking me, the second part isn't. Just replying to something else that freaked Lopez out in the source you offered. Also a bit peculiar that she'd have her mind blown by the normality of seeing a hamper in the background of a picture of a bed. This may sound to some like the type of source for complex analysis of Syrian-American relations, terrorist/freedom fighter motifs in pop culture or what makes mass killers kill, but (in my experience) she sounds more like the sort to ask where to find weed if you're new in September. That's just personal speculation though, since Fox didn't bother asking her to clarify what her favourite Steve Miller Band tune is, either. (Hint: They're all pretty much the same.) InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk with that being said, it is clear that it is very unlikely for her knowledge regarding factions in Syria to be in depth. However she still referenced it as it made an impact on her to the point that she would mention it in an interview on television. This might show a sign ideological inconsistencies that could be a result of self-hatred that in itself is motivated by antisemitic and racist sentiments. It could also be an indicator to violent obsessions and tendencies as his interest in Syrian groups is likely not motivated by political or religious motivations but rather psychopathic based ideals and low-self esteem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That impact on her is relevant to her article and Fox News' human interest piece. One doesn't exist and we already read the other. That's enough. I don't think the girl I bought pot from in school ever repeated anything she heard on the news (and I thank her for that).

It absolutely might show something about the way buddy ticked, in which case it would be huge for understanding this shooting and mass shootings, period. But it might not be anything, because it's just some girl on the news for the first time. Reporters have ways of making stoned kids talk.

In any case, "Syrian terrorists" can be narrowed down into three basic groups: America's enemies, Syria's enemies and Turkey's enemies. They're as different as System of a Down is from Avenged Sevenfold is from Frank Sinatra and until we can tell which band he preferred, there's no telling what's what. Thankfully, this "terror attacker" is not dead. He (and his counsel) can tell us what was in his head from a more credible source, if we just hold on a few months. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

Add Marjory to the name Change title from Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Bobmalone729 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Bobmalone729 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done See Talk:Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting/Archive_1#Requested_move_15_February_2018 - you will need to start a new discussion and gain consensus to change the name again. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I oppose revisiting this so soon. Nothing has changed since that clear consensus was reached. Also, edit requests are not for title changes. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

other perspectives on student walkouts and School Resource Officers

We had small student walk outs locally covered in Wednesday's paper 21 Feb 2018. The students at the city high school were quoted as saying they wanted social media threats taken seriously, security beefed up, maybe metal detectors at entrances. They complained that some school entrances are left unlocked when most entrances require the students to swipe their student ID cards to open.

A walk out student at another school was quoted as saying: "I was trying not to make it about gun control necessarily." 2013 two students at his school who were obsessed with Columbine were thwarted while planning an attack to kill as many students and faculty as possible; a parent and a mental health specialist alerted the authorities.

The local walk-out students apparently were focussed on indentifying threats and beefing up school security. Identifying actors with motive and denying them the opportunity to act. The current news media and social media campaigns focus on "students for gun control"; they even declare they don't want police in schools turning schools into "armed camps" with no guns in schools, especially police.

The city high school (2,200 students) has two School Resource Officers SROs. The four high schools in the county have had SROs since 1997. They do more than just act as armed guards; they do all sorts of in-school public safety programs. But they do act as armed guards.

30 Aug 2010 Sullivan South in-school SRO Carolyn Gudger engaged an armed intruder Thomas Cowan who had the prinicipal at gun point. Cowan demanded her gun and access to the fire alarm system. She held him in a stand-off until other deputies arrived and entered in minutes. It ended with Cowan dead. (I note: Cruz started his rampage by using the fire alarm to fill the halls with targets.) -- Naaman Brown (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Lost source?

(Redacted)

Moving this to talk for the time being. Possible that this got separated from the actual source at some point. But while the article does mention these two, it doesn't seem to contain any of these further details (and neither does the article the article links to). Also both are presumably still living at the moment, so this should be fixed or removed, including this section from the talk. GMG^talk 15:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing it.- MrX 🖋 15:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Text redacted. If someone wants to try to fix it, or if I've somehow overlooked where it is on one of these pages then we can restore and discuss further. GMG^talk 16:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Protests

How much detail are we going to put in the gun advocacy section? At least 5 articles I have seen been created due to responses or planned responses to this event, do we really need every bit of detail here. For instances as it is right now there is a paragraph and a half mostly about Emma Gonzalez and two block quotes from her. Some triming overall on specifics could be done since most of this information can go into their respective articles, particularly the 2018 gun violence protest one. A good summary is fine, but if every protest or rally that gets coverage, or every walk out planned at individual schools gets added in, it's gonna become a lot. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree It's getting a bit absurd. A high schooler gave a (rather inaccurate) emotional speech. I understand the need to include it as part of the reactions to this event, but that section alone is now almost longer than the "Shooting" section itself. There's no reason for two separate blockquotes or that much fawning silliness about "emerging as a passionate advocate for gun control" and "one of the teenage leaders of a protest movement against gun violence in the United States." Focus on the facts, please! -- Veggies (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Veggies, can you be mindful of the BLP and not suggest that high schoolers shouldn't be talking about adult matters? Did you notice that all of a sudden the whole country is talking about gun control, and that it's very, very possible that that's because of those kids who refused to be quiet? "Emotional"--you mean irrational? Or do you mean that it was just a girl talking? If you don't want to elaborate, don't drop those silly comments here: it's a bit emotional. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I never said students shouldn't be talking about "adult matters". I don't know where you got that from. The country has been debating gun policies for decades. If you think "the whole country is talking about" it right now, I think you probably need to get out more. The whole country is doing what it does regularly—Fox and CNN News' interminable babbling don't represent the whole country. By emotional, I mean emotional, but a lot of the speech was irrational, yes. -- Veggies (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree - I said this once before and I will say it again...we just need four clear opinions on the gun debate section, two for and two against. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Uh, why four? And why two for and two against? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Also do reliable sources give equal weight to both sides like that? Because WP:BALANCE says that they sould only recieve as much prominence as reliable sources give them.--2600:1702:280:ECE0:6896:4C4A:82E8:1E40 (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes they do. This is not a fringe theory or topic. This is a topic that has been subject to a decades-long policy debate in this country. And that includes both pro- and anti- arguments made in the aftermath of this shooting. -- Veggies (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a fringe theory or topic. Is it your understanding that all non-fringe viewpoints should be given equal weight? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No. -- Veggies (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree - Could we leave a summary and push the rest down to the Never Again MSD article? (Which apparently is failing its deletion survey.) It would become the main article for Stoneman's Gun control advocacy section and 2018 United States gun violence protests would be the main article for NAMSD. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note: 2018 United States gun violence protests is the main article for this, which should eventually be much more built up.--Pharos (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done - I fixed up the section to include two sentences on Emma Gonzalez. I deleted info that was displayed in a promotional resume like tone rather than focusing more on what her role was in the shooting response. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87, why did you take out the part where Gonzalez said that Trump received $30 million from the NRA? --Nbauman (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Because its not relevant to the shooting, we already have Political positions of Donald Trump. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Gonzalez and the students were studying political science. They said that the underlying causes of access to guns, and school shootings, including this one, was contributions by the NRA to politicians, and they named several. So Gonzalez thought that it was relevant to the shooting. That's why she included it in her speech. Why do you disagree with Gonzalez and the other students? --Nbauman (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87, here's another student who said that money from the NRA was relevant to the shooting. “We are losing our lives while the adults are playing around. … This is about us creating a badge of shame for any politicians accepting money from the NRA and using us as collateral,” Cameron Kasky, a junior at the school, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” [17] Why do you disagree with Kasky that NRA funding was relevant to the shooting? --Nbauman (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You are giving me loaded questions, so I want to say that this isn't the place to debate gun control. Trump receiving $30 million from the NRA is wrong, but per WP:UNDUE we would also have to add a statement from the NRA or such to back up their actions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That the country's largest gun promoter is also one of its biggest lobbies is a salient point in the gripe, but the "math" about Trump's share of the cash per 2018 shooting victim is utterly senseless. The first part should be included in the Never Again article, the second nowhere. I think the overall NRA contribution bit is summarized fine here, as of now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87, I am pointing out that Gonzalez, Kasky, and other students said that gun control, and financial contributions to politicians from the NRA, were relevant to the Stoneman Douglas shooting. Why do you disagree with Gonzalez, Kasky and other students? --Nbauman (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop with these loaded questions already and WP:AGF....The donations to the NRA are another talking point that throws weight towards pro-gun control. As it is the Gun control debate section leans towards pro gun control as pointed out in another section here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87, these aren't loaded questions, they're difficult questions for you that you can't answer, because you are editing this entry according to your own personal views, rather than according to WP policies and guidelines, particularly WP:NPOV.

You are saying that gun control, and the $30 million contribution to Trump, are "not relevant to the shooting." Why aren't they relevant to the shooting? Do you have any facts, or reasoned arguments, or Wikipedia policies or guidelines, to support that viewpoint? If so, what are they? Or is that just your own viewpoint, based on your own personal feeling? --Nbauman (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Because Trump was paid it well before even Cruz knew this shooting (or the rest) would happen. And it was given under the (assumed) assumption that Trump would promote and allow guns in a manner befitting the NRA. Have you ever known them to campaign for school shootings? It's not their style. They're all about proper storage and only blowing the fucking heads off of deer, bear, burglars, beaver, tailypo, foxes, wolves, rats, pigeons, possum and the King of England (should he come knocking again). If you're going to connect these dots, you need to connect them to every rifle homicide, not just the one you heard a girl talk about recently. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Hulk above as the NRA paying Trump isn't a new thing but part of a larger issue. I'm not editing from my personal beliefs and yes those are loaded questions you are asking me. Why would you insert me not supporting inclusion of a piece in this article to me not agreeing with the students? This is a pretty big assumption as I am only trying to keep things that are relevant to the article rather than shift the focus on things that might be seen as WP:UNDUE weight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nbauman, please have a read of WP:SATISFY. It's part of "only an essay", but the essay is one of the most widely-accepted we have, and that carries significant weight. Discussions are not interrogations.
Further, you are editing this entry according to your own personal views, rather than according to WP policies and guidelines is a fairly clear violation of WP:AGF. You can't make such a statement absent "clear evidence", and that's absent no matter how you perceive the situation. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87, You are saying that gun control, and the $30 million contribution to Trump, are "not relevant to the shooting." I'm asking you, Why aren't they relevant to the shooting? Asking why you believe as you do, or how you support your argument, is not a loaded question. In college freshman English composition, students are taught to support their arguments with facts and logic. So far, you haven't done so.

User:InedibleHulk, you say that the payment isn't relevant to the shooting because it occurred before the shooting. Gonzalez, Kasky and other students said that it was relevant, for the reasons they gave. Many WP:RS quoted them. Under WP:NPOV WP:WEIGHT "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Therefore, the students' comments about Trump's NRA contributions belong in the article, under the policy WP:NPOV, "a fundamental principle of Wikipedia". Why do you disagree?

The Talk page is a place to discuss improvements to the article, not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. But since you bring in your own personal opinions about the subject, that the $30 million contribution is "not relevant" because it occurred before the shooting, I'll address that objection if it makes it easier for you. The students are saying that the $30 million contribution is relevant (even if it occurred before the shooting), because it was that contribution, and other contributions like it to other politicians, which led those politicians to oppose gun laws which would have restricted or eliminated access to these kinds of weapons, and (as Gonzalez said in one of the quotes that you deleted), he couldn't have killed 17 people. That's the argument the students made. Many WP:RSs thought it was worth reporting. Why do you disagree with that argument? --Nbauman (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Already answered, teenagers sometimes speak from the ballsauce rather than brainjuice. Don't ping me anymore unless you have something new to ask. I'm not a busy man, but still only have 24 hours a day (23 and a bit now). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, your statement dismissing these students as speaking from "ballsauce" is so insulting to them, that I am giving up trying to convince you with facts and logic. --Nbauman (talk)

User:Knowledgekid87, for the record, you are saying that gun control, and the $30 million contribution to Trump, are "not relevant to the shooting." I have asked you for any supporting evidence, acceptable under WP policies or guidelines, to support your claim. You have not given me any evidence. --Nbauman (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Where did I mention gun control? Of course gun control is relevant here which is why we have a whole section about it. If you are asking if we should add: "Trump took a $30 million contribution from the NRA" or the like then start a section about it to get a consensus. Right now this has just been a back and forth ball toss so it would be nice to get some other editor input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You wrote "this isn't the place to debate gun control" above. Yes, I agree it would be nice to get some other editor input. --Nbauman (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the sheriff's proposal leadworthy?

I say yes. Not only would detaining Floridans for being vaguely disturbing online affect vaguely disturbing Floridans as much as taking their guns away, it's probably more likely to become law (like this one did on the day of the shooting). Jeff Sessions is already loosely onboard, so maybe even beyond Florida. If we're going to mention know-nothing kids with their even vaguer pipe dreams, we should give at least some weight to a full-grown sheriff and attorney general. MrX says no. What say you, a jury of our peers? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The sheriff is not an authority on law making or mental health, as far as I know. There are a lot of proposals floating around in the wake of the shooting. This one is not particularly noteworthy in my opinion.- MrX 🖋 01:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

These kids are authorities on lawmaking and gun control, I understand. Lots of proposals out there, but two in here that I see. Take everyone's guns and detain weirdos. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Where is there a proposal in the lead to take everyone's guns?- MrX 🖋 01:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, "control" everyone's guns. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this, but not if you aren't going to be serious.- MrX 🖋 01:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Tell me what you want me to call it and I'll refer to it as that. I swear to God. The point is the body mentions two ways to go about never letting a third Florida school shooting article on Wikipedia again, and Wikipedia's lead mentions one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

InedibleHulk makes a valid point. The sheriff has a much better position for making calls then the students do. I don't see why we'd mention the kids arguing for broader gun control and ignore the sheriff arguing for broadening the scope of a current and existing law. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not a significant point for inclusion in the lead. The student activism obviously is as it has been covered extensively around the world, regardless of the validity of their position. WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:LEAD should be our guide.- MrX 🖋 03:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes and WP:LEAD mentions WP:NPOV, which mentions representing all views fairly and proportionately to avoid editorial bias. So I can sit here and make the argument that presenting one side is a violation of NPOV. There is no reason to exclude it, and some reason to include it. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't some ass-backwards backwoods sheriff you see in a movie, either. Broward County has 2,000,000 people. They elected him for something or another to do with law. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the children or felons didn't have anything to do with that. Still a lot of political power, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

He seems to have the support of the county's superintendent, who says (waving to his friend, the governor): "We should not have disconnected youth wandering around in our communities...". That's cherrypicked, obviously, but they're all basically on the same page. Round up the nutjobs before they turn dangerous. And if rounding them up turns them dangerous (as most crazy people will tell you sudden involuntary unwarranted detention might), the children of tomorrow can "deal with it" in their future without guns. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Related topic: I don't see how his proposal fits into a 'Gun control debate' section.--Pharos (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If enacted, the proposal would further restrict certain people's ability to use, transfer or obtain guns (even previously and legally purchased guns) by keeping them secured in hospitals. In theory, they would only be released when they no longer pose a threat to themselves or others, after which they would in theory use their guns like healthy, law-abiding citizens (or not at all). This would also designate them as the type to flag a background check, should they stop taking their pills and get the urge to buy another gun.

Granted, this approach more directly controls the potential mass shooter than his potential murder weapon(s), but the general gist of our section seems more about stopping the overall illegal shooting problem, title notwithstanding. I believe Israel's proposal is more in the spirit of the protesters' who want laws amended specifically to avert human tragedy than suitable amongst the political responses, which largely revolve around the usual hollow statements.

If American media has given anyone the delusion that mental health and gun control are polar opposites and must be kept apart, Dr. Hulk suggests giving your head a brisk shake, then looking at the last dozen or so deadliest US shootings. In each, a disordered man worked hand-in-hand with a dangerous weapon, creating a distinct problem neither issue poses alone. This continual combination should suggest a need to address it as one; if it doesn't, shake your head as needed and call me on Monday. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we need page protection?

I've recently felt that, with the 3RR restriction, there aren't enough competent editors still actively working this article to deal with the stream of incompetent ones. I would like to request extended confirmed protection, but I would settle for semi-protection. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protection as a first measure. The disruption is relatively light, and the majority of it seems to be from IP editors who typically don't meet the threshold. If I recall correctly, ECP could only be pursued if semi fails to work. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Auto-confirmed semi-protection is warranted now. If there are still problems after that's implemented, extended confirmed protection can be requested.- MrX 🖋 13:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Requested 14 days semi.[18] ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Eh. A half dozen IP edits in 24 hours (not all of which were reverted) is probably well within the acceptable limits of normal disruption that can be solved through editing, rather than needing protection. To justify protection, you're usually looking for something more on the level of several edits per hour, especially on an article as high profile as this. This is actually a pretty remarkably low level of disruption for a politically charged topic receiving about 100k page views per day, not to mention a current entry on the main page. GMG^talk 13:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm impotent for the next 17 hours. Then I get one revert. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

While yeah the protection just expired yesterday, the vandalism/unconstructive edits was a lot higher before it was protected the first time. Adding that with the fact that a lot of IPs probably left while it was protected and these half dozens could be just new ones, with the old ones have yet to return. Being that this is recent event, has political arguments involving it, and the contains BLP concerns, I feel keeping it semi-protected isn't a bad idea. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"NRA-funded" JROTC

A recent edit to this article now described JROTC as "NRA-funded". I'm not disputing that JROTC receives funding from the NRA. However, it seems that the placement of this in the Cruz section could cause readers to infer negative thoughts on the NRA. In the Victims section, where JROTC is first mentioned, we don't mention the NRA funding, which could cause some readers to infer positive thoughts on the NRA. In an effort to remain neutral, I have removed the "NRA-funded" adjective. GoingBatty (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well they funded JROTC to the tune of over $10,000 in just that one school, in one year. See: [19]. You don't think that the referenced fact of them paying to train a mass murderer to kill people is on topic???GliderMaven (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct - there are many reasonable criticisms of the NRA, and positive things as well. I think we should not imply that the NRA paid to train Cruz - or Wang/Petty/Duque. GoingBatty (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

BUT THEY DID PAY TO TRAIN CRUZ!GliderMaven (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't yell. You provided a reliable source that says that NRA gave money to the school's JROTC group. I don't want to imply that the NRA's intent was to train a mass murderer, just like I don't want to imply that the NRA giving money to JROTC was intended to help Wang/Petty/Duque to become better citizens and put others before themselves. GoingBatty (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I do not see anything in the article that states the NRA was paying the "air-rifle marksmanship team" to train to kill people. GoingBatty (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone else funded the JROTC, or just the NRA? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

JROTC: "federal program sponsored by the United States Armed Forces". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose content (support removal) as I had previously removed same.[20][21][22] Editor prefers to edit war, so I was working on starting this BRRD when I saw that it had already been started. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Process discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So you've removed it multiple times, apparently against multiple people, and I'm the one that's rever warring how exactly?GliderMaven (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Check the history, I removed it once (that's the R in WP:BRD). You reverted me, which is the second R in BRD. Oh wait, there is no second R in BRD. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC) NO I only made two edits. Where's the third one come from????GliderMaven (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Have you read WP:BRD? Here's how it works. You make a bold edit (B). I dispute it by reverting it (R). You either accept my rationale for disputing it or start a discussion (D). Instead, you re-reverted, which is technically WP:edit warring. We don't resolve edit disputes by re-reverts, and edit summaries are not for discussions. I'm sorry that other editors do this so often that you think it's normal, and that's not your fault. But now you know. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't know the NRA funded JROTC. That's a rather interesting point, and 10k is no chump change. Surely we can leave it to the reader to do the inferring from this factual statement. Are all JROTC programs thusly funded, to that extent? Drmies (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  As a reader I would read "NRA-funded" as "NRA-sponsored". And I likely wouldn't spend the time verifying my assumption; it wouldn't occur to me that I needed to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So what? The NRA fund JROTC to the tune of millions of dollars per year, $10,000 in that one school.GliderMaven (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Mandruss, I fail to see your point. So for you "funded" means "sponsored"? I don't find that very surprising given the meanings of those words. Are you proposing inserting "NRA-sponsored"? That's fine with me. But which assumption are you talking about, and why does that matter? Drmies (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm saying that I would read "NRA-funded" as JROTC is an NRA program. Whether that's a correct reading of the term or not is immaterial, what matters is whether I'm more or less typical in that interpretation. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose content (support removal) - as pointed out above the NRA aren't the only ones here providing funding. To me this is not needed per WP:UNDUE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Knowledgekid87, that's misleading. Yes, the JROTC is "sponsored" by the United States Armed Forces--duh. That's what they do: it's a federal program founded by federal law. The NRA funding the joint is an entirely different thing: the US Armed Forces, as you know, are the country's armed forces. Federales and all that. The NRA, as you know, is a non-governmental organization which aims to protect certain rights of certain people to do certain things with certain tools. Not the same thing. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay I struck the funding bit, with all the other things going on in the article though I still think its not needed. I'm happy with the large bit about the gun debate so I have been trying my best to keep the relevant things as neutral as I can. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify: I just feel we need significant RS to talk about NRA funding of JROTC in the context of this shooting. I mean discuss it, not just mention it in passing as that source does. If we have that, and I would think more than one source would be needed, we should discuss the relationship briefly instead of just the vague "NRA-funded". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Get rid of "NRA-funded" or "-sponsored" or any unsubtle insinuations. Even the most anti-NRA commentators haven't produced anything of substance linking the JROTC and its finances to this killer's crimes. Did they pay for his sporting rifle? Did they instruct him on how to kill humans? Did the NRA provide all the money that the JROTC used? Because, if not, it's an insinuation by omission to include it. Think of it this way: if the JROTC had received some money from the Democratic Party and right-wing blogs started publishing "FUNDED BY THE DEMS!" would we put "Democratic Party-funded JROTC"? No. -- Veggies (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Remove. Whether or not the JROTC program was funded by the NRA is entirely irrelevant in the context of this article. It's not an article of the politics of the JROTC program itself. Any comments on the NRA are only serving to attempt to add bias. Natureium (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This seems non-neutral on its face, and that's regardless of whether it leads the reader to think "Gee how nice, the NRA is funding youth activities" or "Oh my geez, the NRA helped train a killer," both of which seem about equally likely. GMG^talk 19:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The JROTC supported and trained Cruz in marksmanship. That it was with an air-rifle is immaterial. If he had killed with a long bow that might be material but an air-rifle is different in degree rather than in kind. Furthermore, intent on the JROTC or NRA's part is immaterial to whether this is relevant a fact. Olsonist (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

Add Category:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting to the list of categories. Veldscott (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Other deputies who failed to enter?

Content about responding Broward deputies who failed to enter has been added and removed several times, per this in the CNN source: "Sources cautioned that tapes are currently being reviewed and official accounts could ultimately differ from recollections of officers on the scene." This is based solely on comments by arriving Coral Springs officers. I think this is weak and we should wait. Latest add is here and I'm impotent. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW that last add included background information that is out of place in the Shooting section. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

CNN talked extensively about it. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

There should be a subsection in the aftermath that talks about the criticisms of both Scot Peterson and three other deputies who failed to enter. Maybe the section can be called "Criticism of delayed action". TheHoax (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, depending on how much space we can justify per WEIGHT and BALASP. For now I moved the background and reaction from Shooting to Aftermath, adding it to that related to Peterson.[23] ―Mandruss ☎ 09:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I went looking for a second source and found only this in the New York Post. Not only is the Post generally a weak source, but they only echo CNN. The New York Times reported yesterday that "The Broward County Sheriff’s Office said it was investigating whether other deputies from the department did not go into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to engage the gunman." This now seems even weaker to me than it did before, I think that addition of that content on the basis of one source was a bit irresponsible, and it's unfortunate that people are so focused on political issues that we can't get some participation on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have made this series of edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that it would be best to wait for more confirmation about this information before adding it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Major backlash against the NRA

Quite a few sources are reporting a major backlash against the NRA as a reaction to the shooting, including boycotts.[24][25][26][27][28] It may be worth a couple of sentences here. What do others think?- MrX 🖋 12:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but try editing Wikipedia's article National Rifle Association -- there are die-hard staunch NRA-types who will not allow much criticism, even of a neutral nature; like when I tried to add this single well-referenced and neutral sentence to the lede section here it got kicked out. So the article as of February February 24th is (in my view) a biased, non-neutral puff piece extolling how the NRA upholds civil rights. It's like the NRA has no idea how much the public is turning against them, how the NRA is increasingly seen as pushing a consumer product and a gun culture that encourages violence and mass shootings. The NRA article in my view is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, adding it to the lead of the NRA article is likely to get push back at this point since the NRA has a 146 year history. If the current anti-NRA movement gains any momentum, that would change things. I will add the NRA article to my watchlist, just for the fun of it.- MrX 🖋 13:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a short reference to the article on the boycott in the section about mass shootings.--DarTar (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Getting back to the question concerning this article, I agree that the #BoycottNRA initiative is national news (see sources above) and closely related to this particular school shooting. The NYT [29] says " In less than 24 hours, at least eight companies that had offered N.R.A. members discounts or special deals announced plans to separate or end affiliations with the organization, including Hertz, Enterprise and Avis Budget; SimpliSafe, which gave N.R.A. members two months of free home security monitoring; and North American and Allied Van Lines." WAPO [30] says "The decisions came as the names of companies with NRA associations began circulating widely on the Internet and social media under the #BoycottNRA hashtag after the deadly Valentine’s Day attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla." HouseOfChange (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't edit the story, so let me add two more sources here. Newsweek [31] suggests the movement began with a Feb. 20 story in ThinkProgress [32] listing the companies that have business ties to NRA. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC) See also 2018_NRA_boycott. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the article needs info on the NRA backlash. It is a major part of this shooting and may well go down in history as a turning point. (which would be nice...) Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

Due to incredibly ample scientific evidence for notoriety's association with copycat murderers, I suggest that the name of the self-confessed perpetrator in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting be removed from this article. In addition, I suggest that the image of that living person be removed thusly protecting other American children from future copycat murderers. Freedom of speech can be fully maintained without making people notorious for murder; there is no rational justification for correlating individual names with heinous crimes. I will watch this page and due my best to learn the rules of your community. Is your community interested in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, reason, scientific evidence, enlightenment and rational thinking or is it an extremely radical propaganda organization aiming to hurt and kill children by arming other children against them with military-grade weapons and delusions of fame for committing heinous crimes? If it is the latter, Wikipedia has no place in civil society, whatever its political affiliation may be left, right or as a genuinely non-partisan group of civilian journalists for the common good. KirstenStoffa (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: No rationale has been presented for removing the name or image per Wikipedia policies. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll point out also that you are misusing the edit request facility. Please see WP:Edit requests. If you just want to have a discussion, you don't need an edit request to start a new thread. But I'll also point out that Wikipedia policy is not changed at article level. You are free to start a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but frankly I think you would be wasting your time and that of other editors, as well as adding to your frustration. I say this based on almost 5 years of Wikipedia editing experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

KirstenStoffa—you should try to WP:SIGN your posts. At the end of your comments simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Cruz's name and face have been and remain all over the news. Having him named here is not going to create any copycats that the media coverage will not create. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The "all over the news" reasoning is never a reason to include Wikipedia content. The point is that Wikipedia does not drive social change but rather follows it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Widely reported is good rational for NOT excluding some verifiable fact about a notable event. Also I was responding to the idea that wikipedia mention of his name was going to create copycats. 23:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Legacypac (talk)

Copycat children aren't limited to mimicking the latest infamy, they're free to learn all sorts of potentially deadly lessons here. From Cain and Abel straight through to the February 2018 Mogadishu attack, knowledge is power. How kids use that power is up to them. By the time someone responsible (in the "good sense") has taught them to read, someone has also taught them basic manners; it's the illiterate, unassimilated and literally moronic youth we need to worry about, and by "we" I mean the TV, relatives, social workers and bullies. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

ROTC

I don't believe that we should mention the ROTC students which places them above their classmates that we do not have information on. Gandydancer (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that could be shortened a lot, the mention of the medals they were awarded should stay, but the details of Wang, his clothing, his burial and witness reports of him, are a bit overweighted, compared to the other ROTC members, the coach/teacher mentioned above it, and the rest of the victims.

Fifteen-year-old Peter Wang was last seen in his Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) uniform, holding open doors so others could get out more quickly. He was called a hero, and a White House petition was circulated calling for him to be buried with full military honors. He, Alaina Petty, and Martin Duque were all posthumously honored by the U.S. Army with the ROTC Medal for Heroism at their funerals, and Wang was buried in his JROTC Blues uniform. On February 20, he was awarded a rare posthumous admission to the United States Military Academy. Could be changed to:

Peter Wang, Alaina Petty, and Martin Duque were all posthumously honored by the U.S. Army with the ROTC Medal for Heroism at their funerals. Wang also was awarded a rare posthumous admission to the West Point. These two sentences could be added with the paragraph above instead of a new one. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agree, I think that it is a bit much. Even perhaps: "Fifteen year old Peter Wang was last seen holding open doors so others could get out more quickly. He, Alaina Petty, and Martin Duque, both also ROTC members (wording), were all posthumously honored by the U.S. Army with the ROTC Medal for Heroism at their funerals. On February 20, Wang was awarded a rare posthumous admission to the United States Military Academy." I'm definitely not against mentioning his acts of heroism (as is done with the two teachers, but if we want to leave it out your edit suggestion seems fine!--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I probably should of left the description of the acts of heroism, although it would be nice to get details on the other two as well. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact he was in uniform should stay. I've yet to see why the other two students got metals but Peter Wang clearly ended up giving his own life to help save others. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)←

ROTC will wear regularly wear uniforms/apparel when at school. His clothes is significant even if it wasn't a rare thing for him to do? For a standalone I understand, but here? It just seems to be a lot of detail added in. I think what he did saving lives and the recognition he got afterwards with the posthumous medal and admission are the details needed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. At the West Nickel Mines School shooting, they dressed formally, too. But it was normal for them, so we don't mention it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we just want to keep it the way it's worded then? I also think they all got medals because they were all ROTC. As for OP, it's very common during shootings and events for certain people to be... singled out for acts of heroism, as with the football coach and the teacher. If we think that the description of Wang is fine, then we could just leave it. If any more information comes out about the other students, we could surely add it.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hogg v Trump

I notice that the article mentions both of their involvement in the aftermath, but hasn't actually highlighted upon the attacks Hogg has made against Trump personally, or Hogg's defense of the FBI, or Hogg having a parental connection to the FBI. I think this is worth mentioning if we're going to talk about Hogg and his involvement in the push against the government. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We have articles on Donald Trump, anti-Americanism and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for things like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the article to chronicle the details of Hogg's life or his apparent connections to the FBI (which mostly seem fodder for conspiracy theorists). This talk page also isn't for snark about Hogg being "anti-American", however that's supposed to be connected (anti-Trump? pro-gun control? idk) ^Falling_Gravity 07:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

What do they call pushing against the government where you're from? Feel free to replace my link with the article on whatever it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

These details should not be covered here. I don't know what "defense of the FBI" or "push against the government" are supposed to mean.- MrX 🖋 13:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't, either, to be clear. I just read what Scratch wrote and picked out three pertinent topics. Not calling Hogg, Trump or the FBI "un-American", if anyone's reading deeper into that. I don't even follow those storylines, which is how I know they're not shooting angles. If he was talking about The Un-Americans, The Full Blooded Italians, Henry O. Godwinn or Trump and his black friend reigning supreme, I'd know exactly what he meant. Read into those connections what you will, but they're merely tangential, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Followup comment: I don't think being against any particular presidential incarnation of government (ie the Trump government) makes one against the country. I did not insinuate that Hoff was Anti-American. Being anti-Trump is not un-American just like being anti-Obama is not un-American. My point is simply that he spoke against Trump rather than against FBI. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)