Talk:Parkland high school shooting/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Emma Gonzalez speech

Here's an op-ed from the NYT by Emma Gonzalez about how she wrote her "We call B.S." speech:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/opinion/sunday/emma-gonzalez-parkland.html

A Young Activist’s Advice: Vote, Shave Your Head and Cry Whenever You Need To

Some people say, “I don’t pay attention to politics.” Others don’t have a choice.

By Emma González

New York Times

Oct. 5, 2018

On the 16th, I was asked to speak at a gun control rally by a woman on the school board. For what seemed like the first time, adults were treating me and my peers as though they cared about what we had to say. I started writing my speech and didn’t stop until I got up to the lectern. I gave it my all. All of my words, my thoughts, my energy, every political fact I knew. My mom had “Rachel Maddow” on the TV and was saying: “Pay attention to this! It’s about Chuck Grassley! You should consider putting it in your speech!” and I did. The speech followed a pattern: I had a thought, I wrote a new paragraph, I filled in the gaps, I ranted, and then deleted the rants. I had waves where all I wrote was a kind of scream of consciousness: “How could this have happened? So many people died, so many people died. I can’t do this. How do I do this? How do we do this?”

One the main justifications to include material in Wikipedia is WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and specifically WP:WEIGHT, which is that content should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to their prominence in published, reliable sources. By that standard (or any Wikipedia policy or guideline) the Gonzalez speech got enormous coverage in WP:RSs and should be included in this article. Here's a transcript from a WP:RS [1] Instead, the speech is reduced to "Survivor Emma González was noted for her speech that rebuked thoughts and prayers from politicians." I think this does not represent the views of the Stoneman Douglas students in proportion to their representation in the media. This article originally had a significant block quote from the speech (for example in this version [2]). I thought it should stay. A few Wikipedia editors tag-teamed to delete it, because they didn't like gun control advocacy. There was a discussion about it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting/Archive_3#Emma_Gonzalez_speech_--_weight

With time it's turned out that this speech is one of the main events that is remembered, and much of the discussion in the article is about people and events that have never been mentioned again in WP:RS, and meaningless platitudes like like Rob Runcie saying, "now is the time to have a real conversation about gun control legislation".

This deletion violates one of the classic rules of writing classes and textbooks, like Strunk & White": Show, don't tell. Instead of showing what Gonzalez actually said, we're summarizing it in a meaningless sentence, and telling what other people said about it. As the saying goes, "It's Hamlet without Hamlet."

If you read the Edit summaries, you'll see that editors made deletions not for reasons supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but because of their own personal opinions [3] [4].

I would like to restore the block quotes. However, I will not do so if it will be reverted by editors who openly expressed their personal opposition to discussing gun control and who showed their personal contempt for the opinions of teenagers. I would prefer to have some Wikipedia editors behind me who support me on this. --Nbauman (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, obviously. Here's a link to Shakespeare's Hamlet. Find me on that page where we publish even a single paragraph from the work. We don't, we have secondary sources summarize each act. Why?
1) This is an encyclopaedia, not a repository of source texts. That is per WP:NPS – the exception that is carved out is for including shorter, public domain, texts in articles dedicated to those texts. I mention this because you seem to be borderline suggesting including her speech.
2) We use secondary sources over primary ones. We write what the RS say about what the subject said. We do not simply paste what the subject said. That includes CNN just pasting her speech without making a comment about it. That is per a combination of WP:RS and WP:OR. We can include quotes from the subject, but those quotes should have some demonstrated significance, with citations.
3) A few Wikipedia editors tag-teamed to delete it, because they didn't like gun control advocacy - Well, neither does Wikipedia: WP:NOTADVOCACY. That's a policy, btw.
4) This deletion violates one of the classic rules of writing classes and textbooks, like Strunk & White - WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and specifically; [t]he purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter.
5) There's an article for Emma Gonzalez, because she's notable by Wikipedia standards, and it has a small excerpt of her speech cited to an NYT article – because NYT thought that quote was significant enough to single out. That would be a better place to include sourced information about her and her work specifically.
Finally, it is hilarious that one of the editors you are indirectly accusing of opposing gun control advocacy, is almost certainly a supporter of "common sense" gun control. That really takes the cake here. Now, what you might choose to do is take a half dozen of these reliable sources to Talk:Emma Gonzalez. Summarize what each one said about her speech, and propose that for inclusion in the article. I'm not entirely sure that that will be necessary though, as there is already an entire section dedicated to doing just that on the article about her: Emma Gonzalez#'We Call B.S.' speech at the Rally to Support Firearm Safety Legislation. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Mr rnddude, I'm not suggesting that we include the entire speech. I'm suggesting we restore the block quote excerpts, as we had before, or equivalents. I don't think block quotes from a widely-reported speech are forbidden as primary sources, when they are repeated by many WP:RS as Gonzales' speech is. There are many block quotes in Martin Luther King Jr., including a quote from his I Have a Dream speech.

Could you please cite the text of Wikipedia policies or guidelines that would define block quotes such as these as primary sources, and forbid them? --Nbauman (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Nbauman - courtesy ping. Your example just supports the point, or rather point 5 of my comment. The quotes of Martin Luther King Jr. are found on Martin Luther King Jr.'s article. Normally that's where you find personal quotes, in the biographies of the subject. One key thing with those quotes, is that while they are from MLK, they are not cited to MLK or to his work. That is, somebody who is not MLK thought those specific quotes were significant enough to include in their works about MLK, or about the Civil Rights Movement, and thus significant enough to include in our article about him.
There is no policy that forbids primary sources, what is forbidden is [d]o not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself per WP:OR. The CNN source you cited isn't secondary, because it does not provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources and thus does not contain an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources also per WP:OR. It's just a transcript. In effect, you are taking a primary source, the transcript of her speech, and evaluating it yourself for its significance (or the significance of the quote). That's OR, and you need a secondary source to do that for you. Those policies apply to the text, quotes, infobox, image captions, audio clips, and anything else included in the article. They don't need to call each segment out by name.
With regard to the other block quote – which is cited to NYT and is not a transcript – as I have said, it is already presented at Emma Gonzalez. Which, again, if you want to include material specific to her, that would belong in the article about her. But first take some secondary sources to the article with you.
Btw, I hadn't mentioned this in my previous comment, but you make a good argument for trimming away much of the peripheral discussion that has had limited, if any, significance that is in the aftermath section of the article. I wonder if it'd be possible to contain this article down to <100k bytes, as is typically expected from a Wikipedia article. For example, I'm not sure we need half a dozen quotes from various Republican Senators in the "Political reactions" section. We certainly don't need half a dozen citations for a single quote. I'll look at trimming away the fat later today. The "Gun control debate" section is bloated as well. Both those sections have been given more weight than the shooting, and this article is ostensibly about the shooting. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Mr rnddude Thanks for the ping. The same quote could be appropriate for a person's biographical page and also for the page on the event that made her prominent. I think Emma Gonzalez herself explains the views of the Stoneman Douglas High School students better than any Wikipedia editor, including me, could do it. Any skilled writer would see a quote that expresses an idea better than he could do it himself, and leave it alone. When I was writing term papers, my teachers told me to express myself in my own words. When I was writing for a news magazine, my editor told me to first, be accurate, and second, write clearly so my readers could most easily understand it. When you paraphrase people for publication, they often complain that you misinterpreted their statements. When you quote them directly, they're more accurate than you are. And they're often clearer than you are.

Do you really think that you can express the Stoneman Douglas students' views -- and Gonzalez' views -- better than Gozalez did herself?

Can you quote any Wikipedia policies or guidelines that forbid using the same quote in two different entries? --Nbauman (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Coming at this article as a user of the encyclopaedia I was very surprised by the lack of description of the creation of a prominent political movement by the Parkland students. A reader wouldn't know pertinent facts, such as the fourth-largest demonstration in US history being one of the responses to this shooting. The article gives great prominence to trivial details of the shooter (count the frequency of last names in the article). This is counter to journalistic best practice (see the "No Notoriety" guidelines) and to the research of the US FBI on the motivations of mass shooters -- Wikipedia has a social responsibility which this article fails to meet. Gdt (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Gdt: March for Our Lives and Never Again MSD is where you'll find material related to the demonstration and political movement. As I've said previously, this article is badly burdened with trivial matters, but there's been no discussion on what to remove and I'm unwilling to jump in and start cutting material out because it'll likely be disputed – there was an edit-war over the victim's list, and a discussion here defaulted to a no-consensus keep. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This page is about the shooting. That event is over. Emma's page and March for Our Lives and Never Again MSD are the correct places for material about those topics. Emma did not become notable in the shooting event but because of how she responded to the event. Legacypac (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

School resource officer

I know there was discussion back in June where there was some consensus that we should not mention Scot Peterson's name, even though some people stated it should be in this article. I was not present when these discussions were going on. But a lot has transpired in the news since that debate took place.

Others mentioned the BLP rule, about not mentioning living persons to protect privacy, or if they are known for one only thing. Well a lot of living people mentioned in this school shooting article are only known for this one thing. It is possible to mention Peterson's name without passionate language and still satisfy the guidelines, just as I had done this evening before it was rolled back because of this consensus. I gotta tell you I don't see this "consensus" as being one of guarding the truth, since it appears to not be equally applied across all the names.

That said, I believe Peterson should be mentioned because it's not like he's trying to protect his own privacy, he did appear on Today Show live back in June: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/parkland-officer-scot-peterson-s-message-families-i-m-sorry-n879716.

Also Peterson is no longer known for just this one event, he is now known nationally due to lawsuits, and even more so nationally with controversy when he failed to show up for the subpoena to appear before the MSD investigation the same day that Scott Israel and Robert Runcie showed up to face the music. Peterson keeps making news, that once again made national headlines: https://www.foxnews.com/us/scot-peterson-parkland-deputy-who-failed-to-enter-school-during-shooting-no-show-in-front-of-investigative-panel

So he is not the non-notable person he once was. So the "protecting the living person's privacy" ship has already sailed, and every major news outlet has mentioned him. So it is appropriate to mention him in this article, the way I attempted to this evening. Nothing inflammatory, just matter of fact, describing what happened.

Lastly, the resulting article seems to contradict the reasons for not mentioning Peterson, so why can't we mention him, but it's OK to mention others like Lori Alhedeff, Robert Runcie, survivor Anthony Borgese, etc., shouldn't we protect their privacy? Are they not living persons under BLP? They are only known for this one event only also. So why does our filter apply to Peterson but not the rest?

Why is the article not deleting those names as well? I get the feeling there is an aura of "not invented here syndrome", and conflicting filters being applied to certain names.

If we try to contribute, someone in the "clique" rolls it back. But other names were not rolled back, it seems like what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

In the end it makes the article less valuable when people search and expect to find out who was this person involved, or who was that person, and the end user walks away without what they came here for.

I say we open it back up and accept Peterson's name, he is now a part of history whether he likes it or not. That's my $.02 give or take a penny.

CarIndustryFan (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm generally unconvinced by whataboutism arguments; it would be entirely impractical to be consistent in the ways that such arguments demand, and no two cases are exactly equivalent anyway. Likewise any arguments about some imagined "clique", as if a group of editors convenes secretly off-wiki to coordinate strategy. What some editors call a clique or cabal is in fact a subset of editors who see things the same way, and editors' viewpoints tend to converge to a large degree as they gain experience.
That said, the thrust of my earlier opposition to naming Peterson was privacy, and the OP makes a fair case that that horse has left the barn, citing some things I wasn't aware of. So I'll Support inclusion at this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Did Nikolas Cruz actually "drop" his rifle?

The section "Shooting" says that "Cruz dropped his rifle on the 3rd floor of the building". I also read an article on the subject that used the word "dropped," but how do you know that this is actually what happened? A lot of information that you read in "reliably" sourced information is false. As I mentioned before, Cruz could have gently set the rifle down on a table or even thrown it against a wall in a fit of anger. It is my belief that the word "dropped" might not be an inaccurate description of the incident. Of course, Cruz himself is the only person who knows how he disposed of the rifle before he fled the school. Let's say that Cruz actually did set the rifle down on a table instead of "dropping" it. If this is true, the word "dropped" is a false statement in the article. Don't tell me that the word "dropped" should be used in the article even though the source gave false information. Only a very naive person would think or believe that all the information in Wikipedia "reliable" sources is the truth. The important thing is to publish the truth, not publish information that might be false.

If you want to publish potentially false information that you read in a source, go right ahead. This is the reason why Wikipedia information cannot be verified even with sources. There is only ONE source that means anything, and that is the actual witness.Anthony22 (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources report, not the truth. I have some concerns about some of the edits you've made here in the past 24hrs.

• ... but Cruz himself offered several motives for the crime <- citation needed.
• ... his hatred of people ... <- POV
• ... surpassing by 4 the 13 people who were killed in ... <- These are not scores from a football match or a video game high score. Specific? Yes. Pertinent? No. Inappropriate? Quite.
• [D]eleted unnecessary word (age) from description. If you want or need to leave "age" in the description for Alyssa Alhadeff, then it's necessary to use "age" in the remaining 16 descriptions <- To my recollection, the word age was added for the benefit of ESL readers. It is added only at the first instance to clarify that the number by the name is an age, rather than some other detail. I personally didn't think it was necessary, indeed I opposed the list in the first place, but there was a consensus to include it here and elsewhere.
• Adding the definite article "the" to several headings. Unnecessary, and I believe, suggested against by current guidelines for writing headings.

• Otherwise, I didn't note any problems with most of the rewording and prose tightening. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

All of those statements appeared in reliable sources and videos. I uploaded a video that was removed because it was copyrighted. In the video, Cruz said that he hated people and would kill many students because he wanted to become famous. He even mentioned Angie, his ex-girlfriend. You can believe that Cruz was arrested at gunpoint. Do think that the police would have failed to draw their guns on somebody who had just killed 17 people? You can also believe that Cruz hated a lot of people. Hatred is one of the prime motives for premeditated killing. If "surpassing by 4 the 13 people who were killed" was overkill information, and maybe it was, it could have been reverted.

The one thing that I positively cannot understand is the policy of holding on to sourced information that is probably false. The key is to publish the truth, not publish incorrect or ambiguously worded sourced information. I still don't understand the $200,000 bail that was set for Cruz after he assaulted the prison guard. If somebody came up with the money, he could have been released. Is this possible? I don't think so. People and organizations who publish false information can be sued for slander, libel, and defamation of character. I don't know if Wikipedia can be sued for publishing false information. IMHO, the important thing is to publish the truth. The truth can be a very elusive target. How do you know when you have the truth? Most of the time, it's after the fact in looking back, but by then it's too late. From this point, Cruz has one of three options: the death penalty (where he could languish on death row for 15 or 20 years), life-without-parole, or an insane asylum until he dies. It will be interesting to watch his defense attorney.Anthony22 (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Anthony22: As you are an experienced editor, I am surprised you do not seem to be familiar with WP:NOTTRUTH. In particular, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". If an issue is cited in reliable sources then it is acceptable. Truth is secondary to verifiability. WWGB (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I did not know that verification trumps the truth. I'm still confused about how an editor determines whether or not a given source is reliable. I've had edits reverted because the source was unreliable, but I had no way of knowing that the source was unacceptable according to Wikipedia standards. Most newspapers are considered reliable. Back in 1948, the Chicago Tribune published a front-page headline, "Dewey Defeats Truman." It would rather silly for Wikipedia to publish this information simply because it came from a "reliable" source.

Getting back to Nikolas Cruz, I'm still confused by the $200,000 bail for his assault of a jail guard. It just doesn't make any sense. Cruz will NEVER see the streets again. What is the point of setting bail for someone who can't get out of the lockup? If the information is known to be false, keep it out a specific article even though this information is properly sourced. There is no point in letting people read false information.Anthony22 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Whenever a suspect is charged, a judge has to deliberate bail on that charge. Cruz is facing charges on two separate incidents: the shooting and the prison assault. As this source makes clear, "Cruz appeared at a brief initial hearing Wednesday on the assault charges, with bail set at $200,000. But he won’t be released because he is being held without bail on the murder charges.". So, regardless of the $200K bail for the assault, he won't be released. WWGB (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Since many editors can't control themselves and wait a day or two for the news to become somewhat accurate, Wikipedia might initially state that Dewey defeated Truman—it would depend on the number of over-eager editors present compared to the number of calmer editors who know this is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator. But when it became obvious that the early reporting was wrong, Wikipedia would change to the correct information based on later sources. We can ignore sources we know to be incorrect, but not without sources to support the correct information. We cannot substitute our own reasoning for those sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The editor should have mentioned the information "won't be released" in the text of the article. Some readers could erroneously assume that Cruz could have gotten out of jail by posting bail. The bail hearing was a waste of the judge's time because the assault incident cannot trump the previous crime of 17 murders.Anthony22 (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest the following changes. First, mention the $500,000 bond set on March 20 on the more serious charges.[5] The "without bond" currently in the article was from the initial February 15 hearing. Second, I would seek a reliable source that says he remains in jail because of inability to come up with that bail amount, and include that. Finally I would remove the sentence about the additional bond for the jail incident. We needn't include each little hearing reported in the news, and the inability to produce the first bail amount makes the additional, smaller bond a mere formality. The reader will correctly assume that he remains in custody. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This source, which we use in our article, uses both "discard" and "dropped" at different points in their article: "The suspect then took the east stairwell to the third floor ... he then dropped his rifle and backpack containing extra ammunition and ran down the stairs ... exiting building 12 and ran toward the tennis courts" and "Cruz told investigators that as students began to flee, he decided to discard his AR-15 rifle and a vest he was wearing so he could blend in with the crowd." Bus stop (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

2nd suicide

he was 17 not 16 see https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/25/second-parkland-survivor-dies-apparent-suicide-police-say/ why does it say 16? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.18.48 (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

American sources don't report any age. I'd omit it. wumbolo ^^^ 21:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request 2

Need to link to the Survivor guilt article as it is mentioned. Please change

On March 17, 2019, Sydney Aiello, a survivor, committed suicide out of survivor's guilt.

to

On March 17, 2019, Sydney Aiello, a survivor, committed suicide out of survivor's guilt.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.19.157 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the name be dropped? WP:BLPNAME. wumbolo ^^^ 23:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Per Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 6#Victims list revisited there was a decision to maintain victim names. I interpret that to include later suicide deaths. WWGB (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't. That RfC result was not "consensus to include" the list, but rather "no consensus", which meant that the status quo was maintained. These suicides were not part of that status quo. I oppose naming them per BLPNAME. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus from this discussion, as well as previous discussions (1, 2) is that Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is not the common name. I can't find a discussion regarding Netoholic's proposal in the talk page history, so this is without prejudice to speedy renomination with that as the proposed target. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting → Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting – The majority of search results for "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" also include "Marjory". Unreal7 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• For reference, here's a couple past discussions where including "Marjory" was considered: [6] [7]. AdA&D ★ 16:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above-linked discussions. There were a lot of sources using "Marjory" in the name then, too, and very possibly a majority of those that popped up on the first pages of a Google search. But COMMONNAME is not the only factor to be considered in this title or any other; the discussions presumably weighed all the factors and this is the title that resulted. There is no justification to revisit this now. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I agree, the vast majority of sources use the full school name. Also may as well be consistent with Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. AdA&D ★ 21:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The name of the school at which this incident took place is Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School therefore the subject of this article is the "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" therefore the title of this article should be Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Parkland shooting as the current and proposed are not WP:CONCISE and "Parkland shooting" is likely the more WP:COMMONNAME per worldwide Google Trends comparison and Google Scholar (122 vs. 280 results). -- Netoholic @ 00:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - was overwhelming support for current name, even with the full name of school being known. Still feel it is the more common name of the two, with Parkland shooting probably more commonly used. I think that one as redirect works better due to lack of being specific, but could see an argument. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name satisfies all criteria at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above. There was a clear consensus for the current title, if anything, like said above, Parkland Shooting is probably more commonly used. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"Parkland shooting" is a redirect. But should "Parkland shooting" be the title? What would be the reasoning behind "Parkland shooting" being the title if "Parkland shooting" is a redirect? Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh I don't think it should be in the title, I was just acknowledging what someone pointed out earlier. While Parkland shooting is it's most know title, it's too vague for the title article. I think the current article title is fine! QueerFilmNerd^talk 22:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The proposal is to change the title from "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" to "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting"? I understand you think "the current article title is fine", but why? Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Because there was already a unanimous consensus before to change the title, as well, as pointed out below, Stoneman Douglas is used far more than it's full name. There's no reason to change the title. Most of my thoughts have already been stated here. QueerFilmNerd^talk 01:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - As I've pointed out before, even the school's website titles itself Stoneman Douglas. However, the majority of sources don't use Stoneman Douglas or Marjory Stoneman Douglas in their titling. Most available sources refer to the "Parkland shooting" or the "Florida school shooting". The only result on page 1 of Google that includes a school name, aside from Wikipedia which is the top search result, is "Florida School Shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School" by the Sun sentinel. The same pattern appears on Google News except that "Stoneman Douglas" shows up more frequently: "Dozens of Stoneman Douglas students walk out of class after recent classmate suicides" - WPLG local 10 on 3 April 2019, "Sandy Hook victim's father found dead days after Stoneman Douglas ..." ABC News March, 2019, and a few others from Sun sentinel. The first reference to Marjory Stoneman Douglas is on page 3 "How an art museum near Marjory Stoneman Douglas became a hub ..." from CNN. Note: I was searching for "Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school shooting". The school name is an uncommonly used but specific name, and Stoneman Douglas is rather more common than Marjory Stoneman Douglas in article titles. In the body of these news articles, the full name of the school appears, but so it does in the Wikipedia article as well. If a rename is necessary, it ought to be to the common name which is "Parkland school shooting". Mr rnddude (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2019

Can you make a change to "committed suicide" and replace with "died by suicide"? 24.218.11.118 (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia follows language evolution rather than leading it. Can you make a convincing evidence-based case that "died by suicide" is the more common phrase in reliable sources? I see lots of "committed suicide" in recent news reporting indexed at Google News, and I ran across this article that says to use "died by suicide" is to "lead the way", which is what Wikipedia doesn't do. So no, I'm afraid I'm not inclined to make this edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Daniela Menescal listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Daniela Menescal. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Include Cruz's birthdate?

Re: [8][9]

Repeating my editsum: "Removing Cruz's birthdate. This is not a biography of Cruz, and he is unlikely to be confused with a different Nikolas Cruz who was 19 on February 14, 2018."

Responding to WWGB's editsum:

• as it does for other Shooter descriptions - That's some other shooter descriptions. Regardless, pointing to precedent is never a particularly strong argument, as what's common is not necessarily what's best and the encyclopedia must be allowed to evolve and improve. I would defer to an explicit community consensus or long-standing, unambiguous guideline on this, but I'm fairly certain none exists.
• it is well-referenced to multiple reliable sources - Another weak argument, per WP:ONUS.
• it adds context to subsequent life events, such as the prison guard bashing - I can only assume that refers to Cruz's attack on the jail officer on November 13. How does it add context to know that his birthday was on September 24? In any case, if there is any content where his birthday is relevant, it should be pointed out there, rather than assuming readers will remember the birthdate and figure out that relevance on their own. That can be done without giving a precise birthdate, e.g. "within days of Cruz's birthday". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—why should we omit the date of birth of the person suspected of being the shooter? You've said "This is not a biography of Cruz, and he is unlikely to be confused with a different Nikolas Cruz". A reader may want to know the date of birth. Do you have any other reasons for wanting to remove the date of birth of the person suspected of being the shooter? Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So, readers are "allowed" to know the birth date of school shooters like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Jaylen Fryberg, Adam Lanza, Brenda Spencer, Seung-Hui Cho, John Samir Zawahri, Mainak Sarkar, Amy Bishop Anderson, Charles Whitman, Thomas Watt Hamilton etc, but Mandruss thinks we do not want/need to know the same information about Cruz. Like all very experienced editors, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but precedent, convention and expectation also have a role in Wikipedia. If Mandruss was serious about birth dates not being reported then one might expect a similar intervention elsewhere, rather than picking on one article.

WP:WEIGHT requires that "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Well, Cruz's birth date has been reported in multiple reliable sources, so it satisfies that criterion.

Finally, I am stunned that one long-standing and established fact from one article is being cherry-picked for deletion. It seems so random and inconsistent. WWGB (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Mandruss, aren't you second-guessing our readers? Just because you can't imagine why readers might be interested in his birthdate doesn't mean readers won't find very interesting reasons to want to know his birthdate.

Don't sports statisticians, and actuaries, correlate things like, which birth months produce the best pitchers, which birth months are most likely to commit suicide?

Our readers may include people who want to refute or confirm whether birth month plays a role in whether a kid grows up to be a killer. Why should your, well... frankly... your failure of imagination, preclude those readers looking up his birthday here?

Our readers may include those who believe in astrology. Yeah, I don't believe in astrology, either. Nevertheless, should our personal disbelief preclude those readers looking up his birthday here? Geo Swan (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Check the time stamps, I long ago conceded this case for lack of support. But it hasn't altered my strong view that filtering information is an important part of Wikipedia editing, and that we need to make cases for including content, not for omitting it. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You are suggesting that we filter information. How would we know what is needed by readers? We are not tasked with anticipating the needs of readers. We are tasked with reflecting sources and including information that falls squarely within an article's scope. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to publicly identify the two teenagers who committed suicide a year after the shooting?

The article mentions two Stoneman Douglas teenagers who committed suicide a year after the shooting, but the persons are not publicly identified in the article. I'm not sure if it's OK to mention the names of the boy and the girl in the article. The names of all the victims are mentioned. Should the two suicide victims be publicly identified in the article?Anthony22 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

No, the article does not benefit from inclusion of their names. WWGB (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

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

---

I propose that section the suspect section of Nikolas Cruz be split into a separate page called Nikolas Cruz. The content of the Nikolas Cruz is too large to be on this page. It is large enough to make their own page. Some of his information should however be kept on this page Grahaml35 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Grahaml35 5/8/19

• Oppose. All that needs to be said about Cruz can be contained within this article. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Suspect section is roughly 20% of the article, not too large. Nor is the article too large at only 39 kB readable prose size. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, nothing more needs to be said about him, it's fine within the article itself. QueerFilmNerd^talk 21:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't give that him his own article. He's a murderer that does not deserve anymore attention at all costs. Also haven no idea why my vote was "rejected" earlier, was it because I said some "bad" words? Well my bad but I want him to hang.Dr. Pizza (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Dr. Pizza, you've been here long enough to know what the rules of engagement are. Kindly keep your personal opinions to yourself. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Split, Confining our coverage of Cruz to this article would only make sense if we somehow knew that every single possible reader would only be interested in him in the context of the Stoneman Douglas shooting. However, some of our readers may be students doing essays on the pros and cons of gun control, or reasonable equivalent, who are looking specifically for our coverage of the backgrounds of mass killers - and aren't interested in the actual murders. Those reader should be able to skip from Jack the Ripper, to Nikolas Cruz to Charles Manson, in their search for what they have in common - skipping the details of their actual murders. Geo Swan (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There is already a great amount of detail about Cruz and his life in the article, mass shooters don't need their own articles unless they commit the most deadliest attacks in U.S. History, Omar Mateen and Stephen Paddock for example YatesTucker00090 (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)YatesTucker00090
• Split. The perpetrator's background elicited legal changes affecting similar persons. It needs to be analyzed in a separate article. Zezen (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Split. The person is still alive and represents an unfathomable paradox. It is inevitable that his psychological state will be subject to numerous investigations. The unanswerable question of "why did he do this" will linger for the duration of his lifetime. This person represents a cogent area for scholarship as well as ordinary commentary apart from the horrendous event that defines him. The person as an entity is well-enough defined to warrant his own article. Bus stop (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The subject is covered more than sufficiently in this article. Moreover, near nothing appears to have changed in the coverage of the suspect in the past year, barring some copy-edits, rewording and the dispute over whether to keep his date of birth in. At <40kb of written prose, we are not at the stage where splitting is necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's not necessary at this point. The article isn't too long and I don't think Cruz is independently notable of this shooting. AdA&D 18:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose there's no point in making a seperate article for the shooter as majority of the article is about the shooting a portion is about Cruz. Not the entire thing Lylahearts (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Cruz's section is too short at the time. I would support splitting when more information about him emerges. --Pjoona11 (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• YatesTucker00090, Mr rnddude, Anne drew Andrew and Drew, Lylahearts, Pjoona11, I suggest that our discussions should be actual discussions, where we read the opinions of people who disagree with us, do our best to understand any valid points they made, and do our best to offer rebutals of those points.

  I pointed out some of our readers may ONLY be interested in Cruz, and not interested in the killing, at all, because they are doing a survey of mass killers, like Jack the Ripper, Son of Sam, Charles Manson, and aren't interested in the details of their killings, either.

  Coverage in a standalone article is neither a reward, or a punishment. We should not allow our personal admiration of people we like to influence us to create articles about them, if they don't genuinely measure up to GNG. And, we should not prevent notable individuals from having standalone articles out of moral repugnance. GNG and our other special purpose notability guidelines should rule.

  Mr rnddude, Anne drew Andrew and Drew, Lylahearts, Pjoona11, all voiced some variation of "the article doesn't contain enough information about Cruz to justify a split". Sorry, but I suggest this opinion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how notability is determined. We don't delete a weak article on a genuinely notable topic, we fix those articles. So, it is a fundamental misunderstanding to look solely at this article to determine whether Cruz meets our inclusion criteria. Rather, policy compliant contributors form an independent conclusion as to whether a topic measures does or does not measure up to our inclusion criteria.

  Look at this google news search for "Nikolas Cruz" personality".

  Look at this google scholar search for "Nikolas Cruz" personality".

  The news articles and scholarly articles hit by these searches aren't mainly about the killing, they cover Cruz in detail. Some of them mention the killings only in passing. Geo Swan (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Consider Animal Abuse and Human Abuse: Partners in Crime... It is mainly about the history of early abuse of animals by mass killers. Parkland is mentioned only in passing.

    If someone were to add this reference to this article, they would be doing so aware that it would likely be removed, as off-topic, because it was really about Cruz, not the shooting. So, the argument that there is not enough coverage of Cruz, in the article, is a very weak argument. Since much of the material they claim is absent would be off-topic, and would be removed, from this article, because it was off-topic. Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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

"Alleged killer" and "accused killer" are the wrong adjectives to use in the article

There is no question that Nikolas Cruz is the person who killed 17 people and wounded 17 others on February 14, 2018. It is also true that he has not yet been convicted of the heinous crime. In my humble opinion, however, it is silly and even ridiculous to refer to him as the "alleged" or "accused" gunman simply because he has not yet been convicted of murder. Those adjectives were appropriate for O.J. Simpon but not Cruze.

Many suspects were referred to as "killers" and not "alleged killers" before their respective convictions. The day after Jack Ruby killed JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, the New York Times ran a headline," President's assassin is Shot to Death in Jail Corridor by a Dallas Citizen." The Times did not use the terminology "accused assassin" or "alleged assassin." Don't tell me that those words are appropriate only when the criminal is dead or convicted. I recently replaced the words "alleged" and "accused gunman" with "perpetrator" and "gunman" in this article, but the edits were reverted. The reverted edits should also be reverted.

Cruz's trial is scheduled to begin early next year. The prosecution refused to take the death penalty off the table, and it looks to me like Cruz's lawyers have no alternative but to mount an insanity defense in the hope of sending Cruz to the state mental hospital instead of death row.Anthony22 (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME requires a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Hence, Cruz is just "the accused/the alleged" for now. A comparison of media standards in 1963 with the present day is spurious. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This is largely irrelevant because WP:BLPCRIME applies. There have been similar arguments, eg at Christchurch mosque shootings, but if no trial has taken place, Wikipedia is not the judge and jury in the matter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree that Wikipedia is not a judge and jury in highly publicized criminal cases. A suspect is presumed innocent until he/she pleads guilty or is convicted at trial. You have to recognize, however, that a criminal's guilt or innocence is unrelated to that person's status as living or deceased. Many heinous criminals never lived to stand trial. If you insist that Nikolas Cruz (living) is innocent until he is convicted, you must also recognize that dead people are also presumed innocent because they have not been convicted. Because of this policy, it is imperative that you edit articles relating to Omar Mateen, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Stephen Paddock, Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, and Mohamed Atta. Eliminate the words "perpetrator" and "gunman", and replace those words with "alleged" and "accused gunman." Those people were never convicted of their "alleged" crimes. It is imperative that dead people be given the same respect, due process, and benefit of the doubt as people who are still alive after the crimes have been committed. Wikipedia does not convict living people, but this encyclopedia has convicted a hell of a lot of dead people. I guess that it's OK to convict dead people but not living people. There seems to be a double standard of dead vs. living people. Double standards are WRONG.Anthony22 (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It's beyond the scope of this talk page and should be raised at WP:VPP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove information that promotes violence

Is it necessary to include information about “deadliest shooting”? First off how do you measure deadliest? Secondly, with this information included, it only promotes violence because you make it seem like these shootings and acts of violence are a game. When you include this redundant information, you are only inspiring or giving other shooters the idea of how many people to try and hurt to beat the “record” whatever that even means Cleaner THE (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This information is useful (and necessary) to provide context for the article. I can't imagine how this "promotes violence", and your argument is entirely unconvincing.--Jorm (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I don’t see how it’s necessary to include that at all. It doesn’t provide context when there is other facts in the article that give context Cleaner THE (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

While I'm not a great fan of lists or score sheets, it is worth noting that this incident led to more deaths than Columbine in 1999. It set off a fresh debate about gun ownership and background checks in the US, so it is notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Cleaner THE, in my view yours is essentially WP:RGW reasoning, in the same social-activism category as the various "don't glorify the shooter" arguments. I oppose indiscriminate inclusion of these rankings, but I agree with Ianmacm that they are sometimes justified and encyclopedic. We should take greater care to avoid rankings that require ongoing updates as new events occur, perhaps always starting with "At the time of the event...". ―Mandruss ☎ 07:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

Scot Peterson was not wearing a bullet proof vest. This is referenced in the IA report. The current reference is only speculation. Kcamiliere (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC) https://app.box.com/s/4nikg3wc531ga8rr8wvnnf58eu3zobhm/file/481596436209 source Page 59 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcamiliere (talk • contribs) 05:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It comes from the CNN cite here. This is an eyewitness report and there are numerous sources saying this. Things can change, so if you want to change the text here, please provide a link to a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Sorry, I crossed paths with you and removed that per WP:V. We need sourcing to include that, not omit it. A quote from a student is not adequate sourcing. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Peterson was criticized for his lack of action, but the specific claim that he was wearing a bulletproof vest is sourced to an eyewitness report and needs stronger sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the internal affairs report. The specific reference is on page 59 (talk)

References

Thanks, this is a very substantial PDF document which is 112 MB to download, so here is a screenshot from page 59. It says "Peterson was wearing a standard BSO patrol uniform, but not his ballistic vest."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2019

I found several spots were President Trump is called "Trump", not "President Trump". This is bad spelling style and not worth wikipedia. 88.65.176.56 (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Wrong, it's pretty common to use a person's title the first time they're mentioned in that capacity and then drop it for brevity until a new section has started. See, for example, Death of Osama bin Laden, where "President Obama" or "President Barack Obama" only appears 33 times out of the 864 times Obama is mentioned (i.e. 3.8% of the time). In this article, the phrase "President Trump" or "President Donald Trump" appears six times out of 31 mentions (i.e. 19.35% of the time). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This is governed by the Manual of Style guidelines for titles. It says "Use titles where they are necessary for clarity or identification in the context" so in practice it isn't necessary to say "President Trump" every time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If anything, the reverse of the request should be done - all but the first instance of "President Trump" should be removed and replaced with "Trump", unless context requires "President" to be present. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Cruz status clarification question regarding expelling.

The wiki page here says "19-year-old expelled student" when describing Cruz. However, the page also notes that Cruz chose to leave the school of his own accord as he was struggling with his grades. This makes the earlier quoted portion of the wiki page not make sense. When a student is expelled, that's an action taken by the school itself based on (typically) behavior, though it can include criminal activity. The specific definition being "Getting expelled from a school is a step beyond suspension. It means that a student is told to leave and never come back. In other words, they are been kicked out." Based on this, to at least bring it in line what's said elsewhere on the page, I propose removing the word 'expelled' and re-writing that to say "19-year-old former student" (bold only here for clarification purposes.)

2601:681:5080:3A0:DDB0:ECC9:578C:F347 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times says "On Feb. 8, 2017, Mr. Cruz’s failing grades forced him to withdraw from school."[10] This suggests that he was asked/required to leave rather than leaving of his own free will. The NYT source also says that he was "forced to leave Stoneman Douglas" but this isn't quite the same thing as being expelled for misconduct. As this source says: "Contrary to early reports, Cruz was never expelled from Broward schools. Legally, he couldn’t be."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. As your listed Miami Herald source says, he wasn't expelled from Broward County Schools, which would be the entire school system and not legal as stated. From the same source Cruz was banished from Douglas a year later for other disciplinary violations, which says he was banished/banned or whatever you want to call it(expelled), from that Stoneman Douglas itself. At first we put banished as stated, but then since it basically means same thing we it was changed to expelled. And as the IP editor pointed out, expelled means told to leave and never come back/kicked out, which is what happened. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a subtle distinction, and some people might still get the impression that he was expelled from the word "banished".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That is because that is what happened. Read what I said above, and read the source itself. He was banished, it's not that harsh of a word if that is exactly the reality of the situation. In regards to your edit comment "Expulsion is not an option in Broward". The source says he can't get expelled from the Broward School System, that does not mean he can not be expelled/banished from a specific school, which the source says happened.

The reason I used banished this time(and the last time this discussion was brought up), is because it seems to just cause arguments about expelled or not expelled. So rather than do that, I used banished which is what the source says. Arguing that it is too harsh doesn't make sense, because it is exactly as the source describes it. Transferred is way too understated, as a kid can transfer to play sports, to go to a better/private school, or just because they moved. It is minimizing what happened for no legitimate reason. I say we stick with the source. If we want to add he wasn't expelled from school system, we can, but we can't remove reference to his banishment, as it isn't stating all that happened. As this has been discussed at least twice before, I'll add it back in later today unless you have a better way of wording it, that doesn't just exclude the fact. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

More opinions needed here, as I'm not really a fan of saying "banished".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

As it was discussed twice before and consensus was reached to mentioned banished in some shape or form I'll be restoring the original version with an added mention of alternate placement. If you want to suggest an alternative, we can see what others state, but until then I have restored the word banished which there was agreement to include some version of the word. And in regards to your edit comment again, expulsion is indeed an option in Broward County(see the pdf that was posted in previous discussion[11]. You simply can't be expelled from the entire school system. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Score sheet?

Re this edit: As I said, it isn't really an improvement to change the wording in the WP:LEAD to "In addition to being the deadliest mass shooting in the United States in 2018, Cruz's killing spree is the deadliest high school shooting in U.S. history, surpassing the Columbine High School massacre that killed 15, including the perpetrators Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, in Colorado on April 20, 1999." The "deadliest mass shooting in the United States in 2018" is largely superfluous and introduces an element of a score sheet. It is important that the shooting killed more people than Columbine in 1999, as discussed in this previous talk page thread, but in my view the 2018 part isn't adding key information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Title change

I feel like the title should be changed to include Marjory; I definitely was confused when I initially saw the article, and I feel like adding it would alleviate some confusion. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:COMMONNAME. The school's full name is Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School but this is quite long. There doesn't seem to be an easy COMMONNAME for this shooting, with various news articles using different names such as Parkland shooting [12] and Parkland, Florida school shooting [13] which I liked. Maybe the article could be renamed but for some reason suggesting the renaming of mass shooting articles often sets off long running debates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Concur with the preceding. I'll assume that your confusion lasted as long as it took to read the first sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Individual notability of student activists

Some of the student survivors meet GNG (like Hogg, Gonzalez, Kashuv, Kasky) but not all of them warrant an individual article according to GNG, so I started a draft (User:CookieMonster755/Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor activists) to include some of the less-notable members and a summary of those with individual articles and I'd like editors feedback. Thanks, cookie monster (2020) 755 23:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School banner.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Scot Peterson

This needs to be revised as he's now been reinstated with back pay — Preceding unsigned comment added by RanielDigal (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It was reported in May 2020 that he would be reinstated [14] so this should be added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

After reading through the CNN source again and looking at other sources, it was Sgt. Brian Miller who was reinstated with full back pay in May 2020.[15][16][17] I can't find a source saying that Scot Peterson was reinstated, so this would need a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

Regarding this edit (courtesy ping for User:King Zowie), do we necessarily want to be including an image of a kid running through a school with an assault rifle? Works of local government agencies in Florida are normally public domain, so I' don't necessarily have particular copyright concerns. But... I dunno... this seems a little much on an intuitive level maybe. GMG^talk 17:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It is obviously tempting to compare the infobox image here with the one at Columbine High School massacre. Somehow though, the image of Cruz from the CCTV just doesn't seem to work well in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that there's an obvious NOTCENSORED argument there. But I can't help but wonder about the balance between encyclopedic relevance verses needing to show someone actively committing murder when many victims yet survived and are still alive. Maybe I'm just being a big softy. GMG^talk 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I added the image as it seemed a lot more relevant to the event than the old image, which was a picture of the school from over 10 years ago. While I do see where you're coming from in terms of the image being jarring/"too much", since the image doesn't include any graphic content (In fact Cruz is the only visible person in the image) or shows him firing the rifle, I don't see why the image should be removed. --King Zowie (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I support the new image as more descriptive of the article subject, assuming it survives the copyright police. It does not show someone actively committing murder; rather it shows a guy in a hallway with a gun. This is essentially the same discussion we had recently at Killing of George Floyd. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Cruz is a registered Republican

Re this revert, I don't see any discussion about this in the archives, let alone a consensus. Like the IP editor, I would like to know the relevance of Cruz's purported political affiliation. (Not that it's anybody's business, but I'm a left-of-center independent.) Do any of the cited sources claim any causal link between his voter registration and the fact that he shot up a high school? I seriously doubt it, but please correct me if I'm wrong (and then we can discuss WP:WEIGHT). User:Jorm, having edited with some frequency since 2015, should be aware that reversions without edit summary are to be used for clear vandalism only. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

But it's true! The problem is whether it is relevant to the shooting. I'm not convinced that it is, and would be happy to see it removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 01:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Do not include, yup, it is not in the archives. So we need to establish consensus here. WP:PROPORTION applies as his political views are not so important as to include his party affiliations. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed.[18] ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say the political views of the perpetrator are very relevant to the article about a terrorist attack. — Red XIV ^(talk) 14:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Only if reliable sources report what the investigators said. Did Cruz really do it because he was a registered Republican? This is unclear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh come on. You're trying to thread a needle. It's absolutely relevant because it provides context for his political views, which provide context for his actions.--Jorm (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no evidence that there was a political or religious motive for the shooting, and investigators have not classified it as a terrorist incident. There is an obvious risk of WP:SYNTH with saying "Cruz was a Republican who committed a mass shooting."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What I said last month. We can't connect these dots unless reliable sources do, and that means more than merely reporting his voter registration and showing him wearing a MAGA cap. Being highly controversial like all U.S. politics these days, that RS bar would need to be relatively high. I'll watch this space for those links. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, the FBI has been so kind as to declare all mass shootings as terrorist attacks. Creeper Ninja (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@User:Mandruss Creeper Ninja (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Responding to ping. This discussion is about the removal of the content, "Cruz is a registered Republican and a supporter of Donald Trump. His Instagram account, now deactivated, featured a MAGA hat." I struggled to see the relevance of your comment, particularly when accompanied by a notification to me. I am now assuming that you are responding to the comment, investigators have not classified it as a terrorist incident – a comment not made by me. If your statement is true, I don't see the importance – we would still lack necessary WP:WEIGHT for the removed content even if the shooting was classified as a terrorist attack. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I'm in a conversation about that issue below coincidentally with the correct person so I'll leave it there. Creeper Ninja (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Cruz said he is Jewish

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

---

Despite his anti-Semitism, Cruz claimed his biological mother was Jewish: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/242098 (Derscht (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC))

This is Original Research to apply anything other than a trivial notice to this. Your source is questionable. This is trivia. It should not be in the article unless it is something that receives significant coverage.--Jorm (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It is very notable in view of his far right and anti-Semitic views. (Derscht (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC))

It is not notable. If it were notable, a reliable source would have written about it. It is absolutely not worthy of inclusion. Jorm (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This site details whether Heydrich, Lenin, Manstein and Rosenberg were of Jewish descent. (Derscht (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC))

Are those people named Cruz? If not, then what we say about them - if we say anything at all - is of exactly zero relevance. Jorm (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It was his mother who was Jewish, not his father. (Derscht (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC))

That changes exactly nothing. You have failed to a) show that it's actually true (that source is dubious); b) show that it's notable for inclusion (it's not, otherwise there would be more sources) or c) shown why it is WP:DUE for inclusion.

I suggest that you read WP:OR and WP:OTHER as well as WP:DUE. Jorm (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's running into problems with WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. If this was an important factor in the case, it would be easy to find various reliable sources that mention it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

His birth mother's name has been reported by the Associate Press, and other local papers, and it's mega, mega-non-Jewish sounding. Also see the conversation about this here, pre-identification. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

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

serial killer tag

Last I checked, mass murder doesn't equate serial killing so why is this page in that category? (using FBI definition here) Creeper Ninja (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It is in the categories on this talk page and I will remove it unless anyone objects. Mass shootings, where all of the deaths occur at the same place and time with no cooling off period, are not serial killings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It's also possible that other mass shootings are categorized similarly, and should also be removed, though I confess it seems too large a (potential) problem for a humble article talkpage. Creeper Ninja (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The use of terrorism categories is also a problem here. This implies some sort of political or religious motive and per the article text and previous discussions about this issue, there isn't a motive of this kind. These could go too.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Within the US the FBI has declared (and afaik its generally agreed) that mass shootings (especially school shootings) are terrorist attacks (usually domestic). In addition I'm not aware of motive requirements for any crime, though sometimes intent is an issue. Creeper Ninja (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The article Terrorism says "Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence for political or religious purposes." There have been attempts at 2017 Las Vegas shooting to say that it was a terrorist attack, but the police said that they did not believe that there was a political or religious motive. This risks creating confusion; Timothy McVeigh was a clear example of a terrorist, Stephen Paddock was not. The FBI defines domestic terrorism as "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature."[19] There is a lack of evidence that the Stoneman Douglas shooting had any motive in these areas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force does not only cover serial killers. Per the scope: "The goal of this task force is to update and maintain all articles relating to serial killers, mass murderers, and spree killers." Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Status of Cruz

Re this edit: it is problematic because it describes him as the perperator, then describes him as the suspect, which is still his official status. It was previously discussed here. There is a WP:BLPCRIME issue here, despite what some people may say, as he is awaiting trial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Cruz infobox

I think it’s appropriate for the perpetrator to have an infobox, even perpetrators who we know very little about such as Lanza have them. Not sure if it will show up, but I made an infobox so thoughts?

Nikolas Cruz
Born	(1998-09-24)September 24, 1998 Margate, Florida, U.S.
Education	Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (no diploma)
Occupation	Dollar Tree employee
Criminal status	Incarcerated
Parent(s)	Brenda Woodword (biological mother) Lynda Cruz (adoptive mother; d. 2017) Roger Cruz (adoptive father; d. 2004)
Conviction(s)	Premeditated first-degree murder (x17), attempted first-degree murder, 4 convictions related to assault against a jail officer
Criminal penalty	Awaiting sentencing
Details
Date	February 14, 2018 2:21 – 2:27 p.m. (EST)
Location(s)	Parkland, Florida, U.S.
Target(s)	Students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
Killed	17
Injured	18 (including 1 jail officer)

TheXuitts (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm worried that this is largely repeating what is in the main infobox and article text. Apart from the image, it doesn't say much that is new about the case. There wouldn't be much point in having both of these infoboxes in the article. Also, the article is about the shooting, it isn't a biography of Cruz where this infobox would be more appropriate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Who committed the shooting?

I understand this wiki wants to be as neutral as possible. Thus, to label this as a criminal incident would be premature without a conviction. However, there can be no doubt that Nikolas Cruz committed this shooting. Whether that's a crime is for the courts to decide (Cruz might have legally been insane, or perhaps it wasn't even a crime to begin with), but there is zero doubt who did it. Consider this: no one speaks of the 'alleged' gunmen re Columbine or Sandy Hook, despite no one having been convicted for their role in the shootings, so why should we be any different here? It seems like a double standard imo. We should either write 'alleged' in all cases where no one was convicted or we should just be as fair and objective as the evidence allows. - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.4.151 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The key difference with Columbine and Sandy Hook is that Cruz is still alive and facing trial. This means that WP:BLPCRIME applies.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's the discussion that precipitated this. [20] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Information regarding assault on guard in infobox should be moved

The information about the assault on the jail guard in the infobox is a bit confusing. A reasonable reading of the information in the infobox might conclude that Cruz attacked a jail guard during the shooting, based on the "Sentence" section. The "Convictions" section notes that the 4 charges are "unrelated", and indeed they are not directly relevant to the shooting event (they are only relevant to the shooter). I propose all information regarding the attack on the guard be removed from the infobox and that a sentence or two explaining this event, as well as the subsequent charges and conviction be added to the "legal proceedings" section. 204.115.183.4 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point and I agree with you. The assault on the jail guard is unrelated to the mass shooting aside from the fact Cruz was in jail for the shooting at the time. It doesn't make sense to include it given that the infobox is supposed to only include information on the attack itself. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

& U should motive inconclusive or unknown or under investigation since we still dont know motive. Monkeylady999 (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes should keep it simple. The assault on the guard is a side issue, while there is little point in saying that the motive is unknown.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

what about the drugs?

It is mindblowing that there isn't a single mention of psychiatric/psychoactive drugs when the person was obviously made to take those drugs throughout his childhood. This is a crime against humanity at this point, nobody will even allow an acknowledgement of child drugging harms, disasters, deaths, etc. This needs to be rewritten to include a childhood psychiatric survivors perspective. 24.231.190.211 (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

A "crime against humanity"? Oh please, get real. WWGB (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

See also righting great wrongs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate information

This is not the deadliest school shooting in US history. That statement should be omitted. Also, the death toll and injury count of the tragedy at Columbine is inaccurate, as well. 47.155.95.149 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The lead section says that it is the deadliest high school shooting in United States history which it is. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and the University of Texas are not high schools. The Columbine info looks ok, please be more specific.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

An article on Nikolas Cruz

The query above has got me thinking; is it worthwhile making a Wikipedia article on Nikolas Cruz? The article has a pretty descriptive biography of him, but I feel like it could be better to create a seperate article about Nikolas that could go in depth about his childhood/mental issues. What are your thoughts? thanks, Medalpager (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's at best 50-50. There would be little point in a separate article unless it went into a lot more detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I always thought an article of the shooter would go against the idea or general trend of *not* naming these people to avoid a sort of celebrity status like the columbine shooters. A lot of the time these people enjoy the attention. Raveonettes Simp (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I support this MitochondriaIsThePowerhouse (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are we not making an infobox for Cruz?

The source says not to make an infobox on Cruz without a discussion in the talk page...why? Praiawart (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

See also Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 7#Cruz infobox. WWGB (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

TLDR: Articles about mass shootings are not biographies.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Article says he grabbed a soda afterwards at the mall , it was a specifically a Red/blue mixed ICEE at Subway

Nikolas Cruz update 2600:8806:3403:5F00:E512:1795:9D3B:C013 (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

From a cursory Bing search of "Nicholas Cruz" and "Icee" I've found one story from Fox News that mentions it in the headline [21] and a few others that mention this fact in the body. I don't see the purpose of throwing in a brand name; anyone (mostly non-Americans) who doesn't know what a "red/blue Icee" is or the chain "Subway" will have their understanding reduced by the change and this isn't something that reliable sources consider particularly important. Soda at a fast food restaurant is more clear and concise. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it’s utterly trivial. WWGB (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

As a British person, I had to look up The Icee Company. It is an iced soda and is carbonated, unlike a Slush Puppie which isn't. But it has no real bearing on the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is "Nikolas Cruz" bolded?

The article's title is not "Nikolas Cruz", it's "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting", so the bolded text in the header should be something like ...2018, a shooting 82.9.94.225 (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it probably doesn't need bolding in the opening sentence but let's get some more input to avoid an edit war.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:R#PLA, "It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term". In this case, the redirect Nikolas Cruz lands on the section Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Perpetrator, so Cruz's name may be bolded in that section, but not the lead. WWGB (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2022

Cruz went to the 2nd floor and fired into two classrooms. They were empty. There is no mention of the students and teachers on the 2nd floor who followed lockdown procedures instead of evacuating due to the fire alarm. Those teachers' actions saved lives. 2601:82:C000:C480:2018:11DE:8854:E1A0 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Orphan

Adults are not orphaned an orphan is a minor child whose parents have dies. 87.10.157.81 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The article says "Both his adoptive parents died, Roger at age 67 on August 11, 2004, and Lynda at age 68 on November 1, 2017, leaving Cruz orphaned three months before the shooting". This seems OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Birth Family

It should be noted somewhere in the article that Nikolas birth mother Brenda Woodard was a street prostitute, drug addict and violent felon who abused drugs and alcohol while pregnant with Nikolas and that his older half sister Danielle Woodard is also a violent felon and that she testified in Niks defense during his sentencing trial about their mother and the mothers drug and alcohol abuse during that pregnancy which caused his brain to be damaged. Shktriib1 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. As you have been told many times, everything on Wikipedia requires a reliable source. No one is responsible for finding sources for you. If you can spend hours creating dozens of sock puppets, you can spend a little time finding a source. 18:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

How is this for reliable sources? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nikolas-cruzs-brain-irretrievably-broken-birth-mom-abused-cocaine-alco-rcna44366 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/nikolas-cruz-birth-mother-brenda-woodard-parkland-shooting-b2150745.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article264768514.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/us/nikolas-cruz-trial-defense/index.html https://www.flmhlaw.com/nikolas-cruzs-birth-mom-violent-criminal-past-help-keep-off-death-row-miami-herald/ https://apnews.com/article/shootings-education-florida-fort-lauderdale-parkland-school-shooting-edc948935ed5563adf3d19132ecb55e1 https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2018/09/05/cruz-biological-mother-s-past/10839405007/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shktriib1 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It is no longer the deadliest school shooting

According to the firs paragraph after the table, it is the deadliest school shooting but the uvlade school shooting [Robb Elementary School] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robb_Elementary_School_shooting surpasses it in injury and deaths 45.117.130.221 (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It was never even the deadliest as the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting in 2012 was the deadliest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:301:4A90:898A:B6A2:CA0:D42F (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Editor of this page disagrees with every correction addition and refuses to add even with follow up reliable sources .

Someone at wiki with some passion for humanity correct this page . 2600:8806:3403:5F00:7467:8BED:D1D4:4700 (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it part of the Columbine effect?

Hi. I'd wish to know whether this case is or should be discussed as part of a Columbine-copycat or Columbine-influenced due to the perpetrator making online comments referring to in a paragraph of this note as follows:

The 18-page list that Masters read in court included searches for “perfect murder weapon,” “how to become evil in society,” “Why I want to kill woman,” “how to become a school shooter,” “how to shoot at 500 yards,” “AR-15 tactical shooting,” and “pumped up kicks columbine high school.”

Thank you and I beg your pardon if it has already been discussed but I couldn't check on all archives. Best. --CoryGlee (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Defense Rests

The defense rested its case today and it should be noted in the article as such. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/judge-irate-as-defense-abruptly-rests-in-parkland-school-shooting-trial/2857904/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/parkland-shooter-trial-live-nikolas-cruz-b2166369.html https://nbc-2.com/news/state/2022/09/14/defense-suddenly-rests-case-in-parkland-school-shooter-trial/ https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-parkland-cruz-trial-defense-continues-20220914-zleml6c3crcorkjcx224rpkpam-story.html https://www.inforney.com/texas/parkland-shooter-trial-uproar-as-defense-rests-without-warning/article_0ed56d97-887d-5a97-8047-55404cc1c159.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/nikolas-cruz-trial-sentencing-defence-parkland-b2167166.html https://www.npr.org/2022/09/14/1122956721/defense-rests-marjory-stoneman-douglas-shooting-trial-parkland Poop Pee Barf (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It was added. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe it should also be noted that the defense is now asking the judge to recuse herself from the case for many reasons including potential bias.--2601:206:301:4A90:7C17:174C:6C5A:611C (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC) https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/nikolas-cruz/i-will-not-receive-a-fair-trial-parkland-school-shooter-asks-prejudiced-judge-to-disqualify-herself-for-lashing-out-at-defense-attorneys/ https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/he-will-receive-fair-impartial-trial-parkland-shooter-nikolas-cruz-s-defense-team-files-motion-remove-judge-elizabeth-scherer https://recentlyheard.com/2022/09/17/lawyers-for-florida-school-shooter-nikolas-cruz-have-asked-the-judge-in-his-murder-case-to-stand-down/ https://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/fl-ne-fetal-alchohol-spectrum-disorder-explained-20220917-oc755bmw6nd75koaieelri7yty-story.html https://meaww.com/parkland-school-shooter-nikolas-cruzs-lawyers-want-judge-to-be-removed-from-case-animosity https://www.local10.com/news/local/2022/09/17/parkland-school-shooters-defense-asks-judge-to-step-away-from-case/ https://www.wptv.com/news/parkland-shooting/nikolas-cruzs-lawyers-file-motion-to-have-judge-elizabeth-scherer-removed-from-case https://cbs12.com/news/local/nikolas-cruz-defense-seek-to-disqualify-trial-judge-after-much-criticism-parkland-elizabeth-scherer-melisa-mcneill-september-16-2022

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2022

Parkland is not a suburb of Miami, it not even in the same county. It's much closer to Pompano. Daniel E. Arista 01:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The articles for both Parkland, Florida and Miami metropolitan area describe it as being part of the Miami metropolitan area; being in the same county is not a requirement for that. Aoidh (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

can we please add what tha motive was 2 tha infobox? thanx Monkeylady999 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Where is Nikolas Cruz now?

Shortly right after Cruz's sentencing, Cruz left the Broward County Jail in Fort Lauderdale and was transported to the South Florida Reception Center in unincorporated Doral, Florida. It looks like he appeared in SFRC for only a time due to the fact the remainder of the 5-day reception process was being used to conduct tests and interviews to help in facility assignment decisions, in which inmates are transported to their permanent facilities within 5 to 6 weeks which is past the limit; and judging from the inmate search, it appears that Cruz was already placed in a permanent facility, probably the Florida State Prison in Raiford but I am definitely not 100% sure what facility Cruz is at now. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

There is an element of WP:NOTNEWS here. He is undoubtedly in jail, but it isn't necessary to say where unless it is reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The Florida Department of Corrections inmate search appears that I cannot find the right Nikolas Cruz. I found a different Nikolas Cruz who was the same age and being held at FSP but it's not the one we're looking for because his DOB is wrong (although it's almost correct) and its a black male and not white. To my best thought, I hope someone in the WikiWorld can get info on where the right Nikolas Cruz is being confined at. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I had a look with one of the "find an inmate" online search tools and didn't find Cruz; anyway this is WP:PRIMARY. What is needed is a reliable secondary source such as a news story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep. I hope there is possibly a good chance that information might serve up in the near future; and if it serves up then we will add where Cruz was currently confined at. ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

Hello,

I am a student at University of North Carolina of Charlotte. I am working on an assignment for my digital writing class. I need access to edit this page because I have more information to add to this page, and I will have to submit it for a grade. I am working in a group with 3 other people, so you will be getting a request from them too. Please allow all of us to edit this page.

Thank you! Haidermughal1 (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. It looks like your account isn't autoconfirmed yet. This means that you would have to suggest the edits here on the talk page at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023

Dear Wikipedia Editorial Team,

My name is Aman and I am a student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC). This semester, I am working with a group of three other students on editing a wikipedia page [include the title of the page with a hyperlink] as a project for our writing course taught by Dr. Kefaya Diab for the spring of 2023.The issue is that we wish to add to our page but currently it is semi-protected so we are unable to edit it. Would you please advise us how to acquire permission to edit it for the page? Kind Regards, On behalf of my team, Aman Holmes AmanHolmes11 (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

See the thread above. You will need to be WP:AUTOCONFIRMED and you have currently made only one edit with this user account.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Insert request of new information: Sentence results with captions

- Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmVvUei6-tY - Nov 2, 2022

Section: Legal proceedings - 2022

Life sentences

Count 1 of the indictment the murder in the first degree of Luke Hoyer the court imposes a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole
Count 2 of the indictment the murder and the first degree of Martin Duque the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 3 of the indictment the murder and the first degree of Gina montalto the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole foreign
Count 4 of the indictment the murder in the first degree of Alex Schachter the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 5 of the indictment the murder and the first degree of Alaina Petty the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 6 of the indictment for the murder and the first degree of Alyssa Alhadeff the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 7 of the indictment for the murder and the first degree of Nicholas Dworet the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 8 for the murder in the first degree of Helena Ramsay the court imposes a life sentence mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 9 for the murder in the first degree of Chris Hixson the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 10 for the murder in the first degree of Carmen Schentrup according poses a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 11 for the murder in the first degree of Aaron Feis the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 12 for the murder in the first degree of Scott Beigel the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 13 the murder in the first degree of Meadow Pollack the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 14 for the murder in the first degree of Cara Loughran the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 15 for the murder in the first degree of Joaquin Oliver the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 16 for the murder in the first degree of Jaime Guttenberg the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
Count 17 for the murder in the first degree of Peter Wang the court imposes a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole

Attempted murders

Count 18 for the attempted murder and the first degree of Ashley Baez the court imposes a life sentence with a minimum mandatory sentence under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 19 with the attempted murder for the attempted murder of William Olson the court imposes a life sentence with a 20-year minimum mandatory sentence under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 20 for the attempted murder in the first degree of Kheshava Managapuram the Court imposes a life sentence with a mandatory life sentence under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 21 for the attempted murder of the in the first degree of Justin Colton the court imposes a life sentence with a 20-year minimum mandatory prison sentence under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 22 for the attempted murder in the first degree of Alexander Dworet the court imposes a life sentence with a 20-year minimum mandatory prison sentence under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 23 the attempted murder in the first degree of Genesis Valentin the court imposes a life sentence with a 20-year minimum mandatory prison sentence under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 24 for the attempted murder in the first degree of Daniela Menescal the court imposes a life sentence with a 20-year minimum mandatory prison sentence under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 25 for the attempted murder in the first degree of Samantha Grady the court imposes a life sentence with a minimum mandatory of 20 years Florida State Prison under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 26 for the attempted murder in the first degree of Samantha Fuentes I'm imposing a life sentence with a minimum mandatory of Life under 10 Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 27 for the attempted murder in the first degree of Isabel Chequer the court imposes a life sentence with a minimum mandatory prison sentence of 20 years Florida State Prison under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 28 for the attempted murder in the first degree of Samantha Mayor the court imposes a life sentence with a life minimum mandatory prison sentence under Florida 10-20 life statute
Count 29 for the attempted murder in the first degree of Benjamin Wikander the court imposes a life sentence with a minimum mandatory of life in prison under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 30 for the attempted murder and the first degree of Madeleine Wilford the court imposes a life sentence with the minimum mandatory of 25 years Florida State Prison under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 31 for the attempted murder in the first degree of Marian Kabachenko the court imposes a life sentence with a 20-year minimum mandatory sentence under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 32 for the attempted murder in the first degree of Stacy Lippel the court imposes a life sentence with a 20-year minimum mandatory prison sentence under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 33 for the attempted murder of Anthony Borges the court imposes a life sentence with a mandatory life sentence under Florida's 10-20 life statute
Count 34 for the attempted murder in the first degree of Kyle Laman the court imposes a life sentence with a minimum mandatory of life in prison under Florida's 10-20 life statute
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiinix00 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

comma

Please change February 14 2018 to February 14, 2018. 75.144.185.89 (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Wording

For consistency, please change Sun-Sentinel to Sun Sentinel. 75.144.185.89 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The spelling Sun-Sentinel has been used in the citations, but it doesn't seem to be in the text of the article. Sun Sentinel is the preferred spelling since 2008, although the web address is still https://www.sun-sentinel.com/ and the Wikipedia article is titled Sun-Sentinel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

On November 30, 2018, the Sun-Sentinel reported that Broward County Public Schools, which runs Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, had spent about $185,000 attempting to obscure its role in not preventing the massacre.

The sentence above this one shows what the edit request is referring to. Thank you! 75.144.185.89 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Done: This was in the article text, the Sun-Sentinel spelling is still in the "work" field in quite a few of the citations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sentence

On August 20, 2022, the Sun Sentinel released drawings written by Cruz in prison, which he had created in May.

Change one sentence to the sentence above. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Confining

So the main question here is, once information serves as follows in the near future to come, where is Nikolas Cruz going to be confining his sentence at? The last time I've seen an article on where he was is his Broward County Jail departure and his arrival at the South Florida Reception Center in unincorporated Doral on November 4, 2022. He could still be in there today despite him waiting for the prison he's going to be taken to, but it was unclear yet for sure. 2600:1702:5225:C010:299A:9CFD:6B34:5C5A (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

State won't say what prison he is in. Where is the Parkland school shooter? The state won’t say - Sun-Sentinel (Jan. 4 2023). His jailed location not being publicly known probably doesn't need to be in the article imo. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed before. His name does not show up on online "find an inmate" tools. It isn't 100% important to know which prison he is being held in, but the authorities have declined to make this public knowledge.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move 29 March 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved to Parkland high school shooting. There is a rough consensus to add "Parkland" to the title to make it more recognizable. There is some concern that removing "school" would make the title too imprecise, so the new title should retain that word. The original proposal is opposed on imprecission grounds, but there are two alternative proposals that fit the bill: Parkland high school shooting and Parkland school shooting. I chose the more precise but less concise title. Per WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE a new move request can be started at any time to change to the other acceptable title. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting → Parkland shooting – After many years, it seems this is the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident, and I think it's time to move this article as was suggested back in 2019. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy pings for prior participants in the last move discussion, and one individual who prompted making this proposal today: @Unreal7, Anne drew Andrew and Drew, Mandruss, Bus stop, Netoholic, WikiVirusC, WWGB, QueerFilmNerd, Mr rnddude, and Nythar: —Locke Cole • t • c 06:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Locke Cole: perhaps "school" shooting or "high school" shooting could be added for specificity? — Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not ultra scientific, and if someone has additional datapoints worth considering I'm all ears, but Google Scholar gives these results (sorted by result counts): "parkland shooting" (1,380 hits), "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" (560 hits), "parkland school shooting" (534 hits), "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" (302 hits), "parkland high school shooting" (114 hits). I'm not against it, but to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME we'd want some evidence that a name with "school" or "high school" was in wider use. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Since the query "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" is contained in (and thus also returns results for) the other query "Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting", for an accurate count you'd want to either search for the first query excluding the second query, or just take the difference — either of which will result in 268 hits. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:E07E:FFB:80F2:8234 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: The proposed new title does not make clear that this was a school shooting, which goes against the normal way of titling school shootings on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: "Parkland school shooting" is a possibility, but the current suggestion is too vague. Wikipedia article titles have their own set of guidelines, and echoing a Google search is not one of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Ianmacm I could support that, I think the current title is definitely not even close to what this event is commonly referred to as, and your and @Nythar's proposal is definitely a step in the right direction. @Unreal7, L'Mainerque, Xaosflux, and WikiVirusC: Would you support Parkland school shooting? And if you would, could you modify your !vote to just indicate the bolded name. I appreciate your time considering this option. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm with either "Parkland school shooting" or "Parkland high school shooting" -- depends on what the others think. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am for "Parkland high school shooting" personally, but I am neutral on "Parkland school shooting". - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 11:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  My oppose was only for one's that don't include school, so I am not against this option. I still prefer current title though. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose any option that doesn't mention school or high school. I feel the current name is fine and still recognizable. I'm not for changing to a name that would need to probably be changed or at least reevaluated if another shooting happened in Parkland. Obviously same thing would need to be considered if another shooting happened at same school. Today news sources might use Parkland shooting, 5 years from now they may use Florida high school shooting, but current title works now, couple years ago or couple years from now. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose taking out "school" from the title doesn't seem to make this better. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  To follow up on comment below, I think the current name is fine. It accurately says that something happened (a shooting) and where it happened. If this was a shooting in a non-specific area of that city, the proposed name would make more sense - but it was limited to this specific location. Example from another article, despite it being the only bombing in that city, the Boston Marathon bombing was specific to that event and that area of that city - calling it the Boston bombing would also be overly vague. The city name is present in the lede of the article, and as a redirect, and the primary article on that school also identifies where it is geographically. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Goddamn! That's quite a vague suggestion. How about something like "2018 Parkland high school shooting" or "Parkland high school shooting" if we really want to add Parkland in there? In all seriousness though, I am content with the current title compared to this broad suggestion. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Striking, new opinion. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 20:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment for opposers: From WP:COMMONNAME [Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.

• This is what the Google Scholar data above is meant to address. "Parkland shooting" is by far the most common name. I don't object to "Parkland school shooting", but then we're not following COMMONNAME. Also, y'all do know you can propose a different name right? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• See WP:GOOGLE; Wikipedia is not bound by what external search engines say. In particular, Wikipedia article titles need to define the scope of an article and provide a disambig with other similar titles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  That just means in our quest to determine the COMMONNAME, search results are not always definitive especially since they’re not limited to usage in reliable sources. I don’t see how that applies here. Certainly no one is arguing that the current title is more commonly used than the proposed title, and the Google results are misleading due to usage beyond RS. В²C ☎ 21:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that Parkland rather than Stoneman Douglas should be in the title, due to it being shorter & far more commonly used in reference to this shooting. Parkland shooting or Parkland school shooting would be better titles than the current one. The year shouldn't be in the title because it easily fits the WP:NOYEAR criteria. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Much confusion has existed over this subject. I personally would add something like .....and the 17 if it would not skew the search.

Yet when I search for this i use either Parkland or MSDSTRONG. LastofThemany (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Frankly I do not understand the objections. The proposed name is concise and unambiguous and in common use. The current name is neither concise nor in common use, on the evidence above. Andrewa (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. As noted below, the clearly misinformed objections here need to be dismissed in evaluating consensus. —В²C ☎ 20:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral on current discussion. I am more open to moving the article to something like Parkland school shooting where the word school is used. – The Grid (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Do you know of any policy basis that guides us to trump COMMONNAME in order to include “school” in the title? Or is this merely a WP:JDLI personal preference? —В²C ☎ 20:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

I think the current title is to-the-point and descriptive of the event. I think maybe if we really wanted to, we could just mention that this shooting is oftentimes referred to as simply "Parkland shooting" in the introduction sentence of the article? A good example we could refer to is the "September 11 attacks" article, whose introduction sentence notes that this event is commonly just known as "9/11". 128.239.205.148 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered the Wikipedia article title policy? How does it relate to this opinion of yours? Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Upon seeing the article title policy and the other comments here, I would like to change my view on this from "oppose" to "comment."

If we really would like to emphasize the word "Parkland" in the title of the article, perhaps we could say something like "Parkland school shooting" or "Parkland high school shooting?" At least briefly convey the rather important and distinct notion that the shooting happened at a school? Personally, I think this would satisfy both sides of this debate. 128.239.205.148 (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It makes sense to call a historic event by the name most remembered and most associated with it. Shir-El too 21:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment

Another thing I would like to mention is that at least on wikipedia, I looked at several other mass shooting articles, and it is not uncommon for major mass shootings to have the city/town name, followed by the type of venue where the shooting happened, followed by "shooting." For instance, "Orlando nightclub shooting" or "Sutherland Springs church shooting." Saying something like "Parkland high school shooting" or "Parkland school shooting," therefore, would have clear precedents to refer to if needed. 128.239.205.148 (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support based on policy, specifically WP:CONCISE and WP:UCRN. The news media has overwhelmingly cemented that as the most common name for the event, and although I too would prefer the fact that it was a school shooting to be included in the title, neutrality should prevail and we should not editorialize our titles. ASUKITE 20:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what you mean here by editorialize, but it seems that it may be a relevant point. What opinion is being expressed by the current title? Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  None in particular, to be honest. I was making a general point I've been wanting to use but this is perhaps the wrong occasion. I still do believe neutrality is a good reason to focus on common names, however. ASUKITE 12:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree that neutrality is a good reason to focus on common names. Andrewa (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

And these clear precedents have no relevance, as they are based on the common names of those particular shootings. Or at least, the precedent that should be followed here is to do likewise. Andrewa (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Titles meet the RECOGNIZABILITY WP:CRITERIA if the topic is recognized by anyone familiar with the subject. The proposed title certainly meets that hurdle, as well as the others, including COMMONNAME. Most of the opposition seems to be under the impression that the title should specify the topic even with no other contextual information. That’s simply not the case, and never has been. Our primary goal with titles is to accurately reflect the COMMONNAME. Only when there is ambiguity with other uses of the same name may we add additional information to the title (like the year, or “school”), and that’s simply not the case here. I urge the closer to boldly dismiss the weight of the misinformed opposition accordingly in their determination of community WP:CONSENSUS here. —В²C ☎ 20:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed, given the dozen or so potential meanings of Parkland. BD2412 T 01:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  Seriously? The proposal is not to move this to Parkland. It's to move it to Parkland shooting. How many Parkland shootings have sufficient notability for a WP article? Hint: Parkland shooting already redirects here. You know better, BD2412. What's up? --В²C ☎ 04:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Born2cycle: Yes, seriously. If you challenge someone like me on the question of how many Parkland shootings have sufficient notability for a WP article, you are liable to get an answer like:

  2009 Lakewood shooting refers to the shooting of Lakewood, Washington, police officers that actually occurred in Parkland, Washington (and is referred to in the text of the article as the "Parkland shooting").

  List of school shootings in the United States (2000–present)#200s also includes a May 16, 2001 Parkland, Washington, shooting of a music instructor at Pacific Lutheran University.

  Cheers! BD2412 T 13:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per BD2412. Not averse to using "high school" as natural disambiguation of the incident, as in Parkland high school shooting. Natural dabbing does not violate COMMONNAME, imho. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Parkland high school shooting - More concise than the current title, but less vague than the proposed title. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 20:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Parkland high school shooting has also been offered. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose given the multiple shootings at multiple Parklands. How sad the flow of these articles doesn't stop. It would need to be 2018 Parkland, Florida school shooting to help readers locate. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see the point of changing the title in the first place. Redirects will do fine. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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