![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Apologies if I'm doing this wrong - this is my first time posting on a Talk page Anyways, perhaps it may be worth mentioning somewhere that this is the deadliest U.S. mass shooting where the perpetrator is still alive? [1] I noticed that the Orlando nightclub shooting has a similar mention in its first paragraph: "It remains the deadliest U.S. mass shooting in which the perpetrator did not commit suicide.". It's a somewhat interesting factoid that occurred to me as I was just watching the arraignment of the perpetrator and thought "woah, you actually don't see arraignments very often in these kinds of cases because they're always dead.." Edasaki ( talk) 06:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It is not clear that the FBI "mishandled" anything.
Characterizing their involvement as mishandling implies that there was something they should have done that they did not. The FBI investigates potentially dangerous people all the time. There are many young men with guns and troubled lives agitating online. They do not have a legal right to arrest or otherwise detain people on the basis of the information they appear to have been provided with so far.
Perhaps "FBI involvement" would be an appropriate title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C54E:F100:3185:A9ED:C0C:6594 ( talk) 12:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
(and maybe I am, but I'm not)is a self-contradictory statement. Just sayin'.
I've seen some reporting on this. For example:
Some students believed there was a second shooter at the school, but the Broward Sheriff's Office has given no indication that was the case.
I actually didn't know multiple students were claiming this, I had just watched this interview where one of the seniors made the claim. Not aware of any other video interviews where the second shooter theory is presented, so guessing Bradenton's plurality derives from non-videoed interviews.
This clip has a reporter from KHOU (Matt Musil) commenting on the above senior who mentions @55s "she thinks there was a second shooter, that's the first we've heard of that, but she believes there was actually a second shooter, we'll see if that comes about or not". ScratchMarshall ( talk) 07:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Have we EVER had a shooting where some people didn't claim there was a second shooter? MelanieN alt ( talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Pandering to conspiracy theorists is not something encyclopedias should ever do. If the authorities confirm evidence of a second shooter, the cite from credible sources. If not, then such suspicions belong in a distinctly separate entry. However, not only is there not enough moment to even accept such a a new article, but security camera footage in the school has already confirmed that the suspect acted alone. Clepsydrae ( talk) 20:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No way we include this as factual (or anything close to it) information. However, we should probably have either a section or (depending on how events unfold) an article on Florida school shooting conspiracy theories. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
That should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Alex of Canada ( talk) 11:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He was jewish 58.173.115.85 ( talk) 06:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This needs to be listed as Stoneman Douglas School Massacre not "shooting" The13thWASP ( talk) 15:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The article has a grammatical error. Currently it reads "antisemitic," which should be "anti-Semitic." "Anti-immigration" should probably be "xenophobic," but either way, it needs to be followed by a word like "views." Otherwise it's an adjective with no noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephkugelmass ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
How much detail are we going to put in from the Emma Gonzalez speech? This question is governed by WP policies, particulary WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT:
The Gonzalez speech, both the full speech and lengthy excerpts, got massive media coverage. Her viewpoint should be represented in the article in proportion to its prominence in the published, reliable sources. Gonzalez' speech got more coverage than any other section in the entry.
To reduce it to "Student and survivor Emma González was noted for her impassioned speech rebuking "thoughts and prayers" from the government and the President.... She has since emerged as one of the teenage leaders of a protest movement against gun violence in the United States..." does not represent her viewpoint in proportion to its prominence in published WP:RS.
Furthermore, the summaries of the students' positions -- including Gonzalez -- are not as articulate or well-argued as the original statements from the students themselves. You've edited out the voices of the students. Stoneman Douglas attracted some of the best students in Florida. They were taking an AP Government class, taught by some of the best teachers in Florida, in which they studied gun control. As part of the class, they had three debates on gun conrol -- which is why Gonzalez was able to give such a striking, informed, well-argued speech.
There are no Wikipedia editors here (including myself) who can summarize or paraphrase the words of these students as well as they expressed them themselves. You've taken their words and turned them into a word salad of snippits and quotes. You missed their main points, and weakened their arguments. They didn't simply "vocally condemn... U.S. lawmakers who have received political contributions from the National Rifle Association." They demanded lawmakers refuse contributions from the NRA, and they said they would support primary campaigns to challenge those lawmakers in the primaries.
You missed other main points. Let me ask you: What do you think were the main points of Gonzalez' speech?
This was written by somebody who didn't even understand Gonzalez' speech, where she laid out these issues so clearly.
You've reduced their whole argument to two paragraphs that don't even quote the students directly. Instead, you quote politicians and officials. That was exactly what the students were complaining about: the news media quoted politicians and officials, but not the students themselves. Read the entry. Find the quotes. See who it quotes. You've used Wikipedia to quote the establishment and the authorities -- the worst flaw of journalism -- rather than the people themselves. You've failed.
I think we should restore the Gonzalez block quotes. That's what block quotes are for. You shouldn't delete them unless you think that you can express Gonzalez' ideas more clearly and concisely than she can herself. And if you believe that, you're deluded about your writing abilities. -- Nbauman ( talk) 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The "gun control debate" section is really only giving one side of the "debate". It's not giving the conservative, pro-gun perspective. For instance, you could discuss Trump's tweets immediately after the shooting. Alternatively you could mention this pro-gun editorial written in the National Review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7753:9B00:9DA3:45AC:3D71:B475 ( talk) 21:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I removed this content with this edit as the claims appear to have been unsubstantiated. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Just for comparison, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting Still notes that the Islamic State claimed the shooter was theirs, even though this proved to be false. Murchison-Eye ( talk) 00:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories grow in darkness, but shrink to absurdity when exposed to the light. We have sections on conspiracy theories in every major mass shooting recently and this is, sadly, no exception. More sources forthcoming. -- Green C 03:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
So the guy's actions weren't "remotely heroic" because he got shot and killed before he could help. That's some remarkable reasoning. I'm not a big fan of these memorials, but that's no rationale for removing one. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The Victims section has two people who died opening doors and one who shielded. These are understandable as potential life-savers. But it also had a man who ran into the fire with presumably good intentions (per his wife), which apparently only cost him his own life. Removed him as a non-factor, which
seemed somewhat controversial, so I'm opening the floor showing up a minute late. Aye? Nay?
InedibleHulk
(talk)
00:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Meaning to defend people before you die just makes you sympathetic and kind- so what you're saying is, 99% of students at the school are unsympathetic and unkind. Well... Cruz might be doing society a favour in that case. Mr rnddude ( talk) 02:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good.- for example: sacrificing their self-concern for survival, for the greater good of saving others. Mr rnddude ( talk)
Vox actually says: "Hogg, a student journalist, took out his cellphone and began recording his classmates — a gun control plea in sickening real time." It doesn't exactly say that he was hiding in the closet from the shooter. Watching the video (which there are several edited versions of that have been released by various reliable sources) it's not clear that this is during the shooting. No gun shots are heard. Aside from the interview noise there is a murmur of others talking in the background, there is not evidence that people are hiding, it seems more likely the event was over at this point.
The video linked in the Vox article is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=E8luXbglTaw
It includes an extended comment from a woman, however the video is blank for her extended comment, audio only.
The same audio is included in this International Business Times (Newsweek Group.) video report of the event, with a slightly longer introduction. That is located here:
The entire first part is the same, but there is additional audio at the cut where the Vox-linked video goes black. That audio includes the reporter (presumably David Hogg) giving the time and date for the recording, as well as the subject of the interview/statement. ("This is Alex View, this recording was taken at 9:32 on Feb. 14, 2018"...)
So the article's claim (echoing Vox's claim) that the video (linked at Vox) was taken "in real time" must be presumed false, for at least the longer part of the video that begins with the blackout at about :30 in the Vox linked version and :57 on the IBT broadcast version.
It appears that most of that was recorded at 9:32 PM, about seven hours after the event, not at all "in real time". Perhaps the first 30 seconds were earlier, but there is no claim or date made on the tape, and since Vox is clearly confused I suggest we remove this claim, or possibly the link altogether until the actual facts around its creation are verified.
Is "storyful" a reliable source? Is Vox?
ZeroXero ( talk) 03:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Should Cruz be categorized as an American person of Jewish descent because he once wrote "My real mom was a Jew" in an Instagram chat? See this edit of the redirect page.- Mr X 🖋 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Is the sentence Although no motivations have been offered by prosecutors or police, white supremacist gang leader Jordan Jereb alleges Cruz held a hatred of Jews and women really approriate for the lead in sentence? While I have no problem noting that he may have held these views in the suspect section, thus far no official source has suggested that he was actually targeting jews or women. This persons speculation on what his motive may have been is no more relevant than my own speculation. Murchison-Eye ( talk) 22:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@ MichiganWoodShop:, please discuss why this should be in lead here before reverting again. There has been no kind of reason given here or in edit comments for it to be in lead while not following MOS:LEAD(The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies...Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.). Please discuss with the rest of us. WikiVirus C (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The i newpaper in uk states ..."It emerged yesterday (16 Feb(my insert)) that he had trained with a white supremacist group, The Republic of Florida, and the group's leader Jordan Jereb said he was "part of our organisation" [1] This information should now be re added to the article IMO. Edmund Patrick – confer 11:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
Damaged the psyche of 239 murderers. Bereaved children in schools. During the last 5 years in the US. Are there any mature technologies? Makers? Toxins? Klein pigeon ( talk) 14:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
In the victims section of the article, I would add more information about exactly who each victim was. Eric Levenson's CNN article would be an extremely helpful source for this. I would specifically include the quote about Scott Beigel made by one of his students. "Mr. Biegel was my hero and he still will forever be my hero. I will never forget the actions that he took for me and for fellow students in the classroom, I am alive today because of him" (Levenson, 2018).
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). Levenson, Eric. “These Are The Victims of the Florida School Shooting.” CNN (2018).
Sydorloff (
talk)
15:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Under the section of Nikolas Cruz I would add more information in regards to the early childhood and adolescences of Nikolas Cruz. This information would provide the reader with valid information demonstrating why Cruz took such horrific actions. Specifically I would add a quote taken from a New York Times article from Cruz's childhood neighbor. "He had emotional problems and I believe he was diagnosed with autism. He had trouble controlling his temper. He broke things. He would do that sometimes at our house when he lost his temper. But he always was very apologetic” (Fausset, 2018). This quote shows how Cruz's behavior was effecting other individuals even at an early age. It also links Cruz's detrimental actions towards his disturbed mental state.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). Fausset, Richard. “Nikolas Cruz, Florida Shooting Suspect, Showed ‘Every Red Flag’.” New York Times (2018).
Sydorloff (
talk)
15:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There are a few sources that mention where the rifle was purchased, and some that go into detail about the gun shop (Sunrise Tactical Supply) closing its business. [9] [10] [11] [12] I think something about this should be included in the article, but I'm not sure where.- Mr X 🖋 04:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
https://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/sunrise-tactical-supply-coral-springs 131.111.184.102 ( talk) 16:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The gun made the shooting.Please, let's try to avoid aphorisms. Gun purchase is background. It could just as easily be argued that Cruz made the shooting so we should move some of his background to the Shooting section. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.Do you have any evidence that it's harmless? The current state of police presence protecting their lives and property speak directly to this harm. -- DHeyward ( talk) 09:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
CNN reports local law enforcement say a .223 caliber, AR-15 style firearm was used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.13.162.112 ( talk) 01:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It would have to be a sporting rifle in the AR-15 style- as opposed to a true AR-15 which is an automatic military assault rifle, which the subject would not have been able to get his hands on, unless we're to say the subject involved is extremely rich. 108.201.29.108 ( talk) 03:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Re: [13] [14] [15], any consensus here is very weak at best. I'll add my support for AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle, per sources, barring unlikely sources for "modern sporting rifle". If there is a significant MOS:EGG case, somebody needs to take the redirect to WP:RFD. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Re: this edit, yes, the article is named Modern sporting rifle, but I think most of the coverage uses "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle" or some variation of it. I think that using [[Modern sporting rifle|AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle]] is going to be less confusing to readers. Feedback? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Any reference to the weapon or style of weapon or anything ELSE describing it (other than "Unknown; Firearm") should be REMOVED until a clear and unambiguous statement from the Sheriff Office (or other LE) is made. "AR-style" is an extremely political term, solely meant to cause panic and fear. None of the claims about type can be in any way verified; They all reference "law enforcement source" that may not exist (and yes, the media HAS been caught making up sources- extensively). Neither can we trust them to understand what they are talking about themselves; There's the infamous "AR-15 watermelon" video to start with. And last but not least... We really can't trust them to report the story honestly. That's just the way it is. Until the police (sheriff's) make a statement, any reference to type of weapon MUST be removed; To do otherwise is to deliberately and intentionally confuse and incite panic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100c:b227:d544:707a:e424:849:c8df ( talk) 14:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Multiple sources have now identified the weapon as a Smith & Wesson M&P15. The sources do appear to be copies of each other, but there isn't much to say in identifying the model. Our article on Modern sporting rifles could use a little more building, but its fairly solid. Good lesson learned here - all of the early sources were all derived from the exact same source (a clip from the sheriff's announcement) , when the sheriff was either using the genericized term, or just misinformed/mistaken. — xaosflux Talk 04:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Columbia Journalism Review had an article https://www.cjr.org/analysis/parkland-school-shooting.php about The Eagle Eye http://eagleeye.news/category/news/ , the school newspaper at Stoneman Douglas High School (or MSD as they call it). At least one of the photographers said that they encourage any and all news sources to use their work. So it might be a good source of photos for Wikipedia. -- Nbauman ( talk) 16:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I've seen in several of the interviews with students there that they thought at first it was a drill because there was some kind of drill scheduled that way. I can't think of what existing section to put this in. Possibly aftermath? A pre-scheduled drill would actually be a prelude though, so perhaps it should have a new section? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 04:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
It says that he allegedly was sympathetic with "Syrian terrorists" granted his Islamophobic views and remarks this is rather interesting nonetheless. Perhaps he was pro PKK/YPG or even Hezbollah as it is unlikely to be that he would support Islamist oriented groups like ISIS or some FSA factions or Nusra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of ones views of the PKK/YPG, to a typical High school student Im sure the YPG would look like terrorists as I doubt most teenagers outside Syria would really know the difference between the various fighters, it's not just Fox news who said this there was an interview with a girl who was an acquaintance of his who said he admired 'Syrian Terrorists' without naming a specific group. I believe his interest in the Syrian conflict such as possible support for Kurdish, Pro-Government militias, or even though unlikely Syrian Opposition groups could be an ideological description that leads to something much deeper about himself. Also given his Anti-Semetic views it could be assumed as mentioned he liked Hezbollah or SSNP but his Islamophobic views would not allow him to support Islamist oriented groups such as ISIS or Tahrir Al Sham, nonetheless however as stated this provides further insight into his mind and possible motivations and alignments while also providing the full picture of the story of Nikolas Cruz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
How is that relevant to the topic of his admiration for Syrian armed groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk with that being said, it is clear that it is very unlikely for her knowledge regarding factions in Syria to be in depth. However she still referenced it as it made an impact on her to the point that she would mention it in an interview on television. This might show a sign ideological inconsistencies that could be a result of self-hatred that in itself is motivated by antisemitic and racist sentiments. It could also be an indicator to violent obsessions and tendencies as his interest in Syrian groups is likely not motivated by political or religious motivations but rather psychopathic based ideals and low-self esteem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Marjory to the name Change title from Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Bobmalone729 ( talk) 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Bobmalone729 ( talk) 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
We had small student walk outs locally covered in Wednesday's paper 21 Feb 2018. The students at the city high school were quoted as saying they wanted social media threats taken seriously, security beefed up, maybe metal detectors at entrances. They complained that some school entrances are left unlocked when most entrances require the students to swipe their student ID cards to open.
A walk out student at another school was quoted as saying: "I was trying not to make it about gun control necessarily." 2013 two students at his school who were obsessed with Columbine were thwarted while planning an attack to kill as many students and faculty as possible; a parent and a mental health specialist alerted the authorities.
The local walk-out students apparently were focussed on indentifying threats and beefing up school security. Identifying actors with motive and denying them the opportunity to act. The current news media and social media campaigns focus on "students for gun control"; they even declare they don't want police in schools turning schools into "armed camps" with no guns in schools, especially police.
The city high school (2,200 students) has two School Resource Officers SROs. The four high schools in the county have had SROs since 1997. They do more than just act as armed guards; they do all sorts of in-school public safety programs. But they do act as armed guards.
30 Aug 2010 Sullivan South in-school SRO Carolyn Gudger engaged an armed intruder Thomas Cowan who had the prinicipal at gun point. Cowan demanded her gun and access to the fire alarm system. She held him in a stand-off until other deputies arrived and entered in minutes. It ended with Cowan dead. (I note: Cruz started his rampage by using the fire alarm to fill the halls with targets.) -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 09:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
(Redacted)
Moving this to talk for the time being. Possible that this got separated from the actual source at some point. But while the article does mention these two, it doesn't seem to contain any of these further details (and neither does the article the article links to). Also both are presumably still living at the moment, so this should be fixed or removed, including this section from the talk. GMG talk 15:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
How much detail are we going to put in the gun advocacy section? At least 5 articles I have seen been created due to responses or planned responses to this event, do we really need every bit of detail here. For instances as it is right now there is a paragraph and a half mostly about Emma Gonzalez and two block quotes from her. Some triming overall on specifics could be done since most of this information can go into their respective articles, particularly the 2018 gun violence protest one. A good summary is fine, but if every protest or rally that gets coverage, or every walk out planned at individual schools gets added in, it's gonna become a lot. WikiVirus C (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This is not a fringe theory or topic.Is it your understanding that all non-fringe viewpoints should be given equal weight? ― Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
you are editing this entry according to your own personal views, rather than according to WP policies and guidelinesis a fairly clear violation of WP:AGF. You can't make such a statement absent "clear evidence", and that's absent no matter how you perceive the situation. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I say yes. Not only would detaining Floridans for being vaguely disturbing online affect vaguely disturbing Floridans as much as taking their guns away, it's probably more likely to become law (like this one did on the day of the shooting). Jeff Sessions is already loosely onboard, so maybe even beyond Florida. If we're going to mention know-nothing kids with their even vaguer pipe dreams, we should give at least some weight to a full-grown sheriff and attorney general. MrX says no. What say you, a jury of our peers? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Related topic: I don't see how his proposal fits into a 'Gun control debate' section.-- Pharos ( talk) 03:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I've recently felt that, with the 3RR restriction, there aren't enough competent editors still actively working this article to deal with the stream of incompetent ones. I would like to request extended confirmed protection, but I would settle for semi-protection. Comments? ― Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
A recent edit to this article now described JROTC as "NRA-funded". I'm not disputing that JROTC receives funding from the NRA. However, it seems that the placement of this in the Cruz section could cause readers to infer negative thoughts on the NRA. In the Victims section, where JROTC is first mentioned, we don't mention the NRA funding, which could cause some readers to infer positive thoughts on the NRA. In an effort to remain neutral, I have removed the "NRA-funded" adjective. GoingBatty ( talk) 17:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
|
To clarify: I just feel we need significant RS to talk about NRA funding of JROTC in the context of this shooting. I mean discuss it, not just mention it in passing as that source does. If we have that, and I would think more than one source would be needed, we should discuss the relationship briefly instead of just the vague "NRA-funded". ― Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Category:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting to the list of categories. Veldscott ( talk) 00:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Content about responding Broward deputies who failed to enter has been added and removed several times, per this in the CNN source: "Sources cautioned that tapes are currently being reviewed and official accounts could ultimately differ from recollections of officers on the scene." This is based solely on comments by arriving Coral Springs officers. I think this is weak and we should wait. Latest add is here and I'm impotent. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW that last add included background information that is out of place in the Shooting section. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I went looking for a second source and found only this in the New York Post. Not only is the Post generally a weak source, but they only echo CNN. The New York Times reported yesterday that "The Broward County Sheriff’s Office said it was investigating whether other deputies from the department did not go into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to engage the gunman." This now seems even weaker to me than it did before, I think that addition of that content on the basis of one source was a bit irresponsible, and it's unfortunate that people are so focused on political issues that we can't get some participation on this. ― Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I have made this series of edits. ― Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Quite a few sources are reporting a major backlash against the NRA as a reaction to the shooting, including boycotts. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] It may be worth a couple of sentences here. What do others think?- Mr X 🖋 12:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Due to incredibly ample scientific evidence for notoriety's association with copycat murderers, I suggest that the name of the self-confessed perpetrator in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting be removed from this article. In addition, I suggest that the image of that living person be removed thusly protecting other American children from future copycat murderers. Freedom of speech can be fully maintained without making people notorious for murder; there is no rational justification for correlating individual names with heinous crimes. I will watch this page and due my best to learn the rules of your community. Is your community interested in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, reason, scientific evidence, enlightenment and rational thinking or is it an extremely radical propaganda organization aiming to hurt and kill children by arming other children against them with military-grade weapons and delusions of fame for committing heinous crimes? If it is the latter, Wikipedia has no place in civil society, whatever its political affiliation may be left, right or as a genuinely non-partisan group of civilian journalists for the common good. KirstenStoffa ( talk) 22:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
~~~~
.
Bus stop (
talk)
22:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe that we should mention the ROTC students which places them above their classmates that we do not have information on. Gandydancer ( talk) 18:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I notice that the article mentions both of their involvement in the aftermath, but hasn't actually highlighted upon the attacks Hogg has made against Trump personally, or Hogg's defense of the FBI, or Hogg having a parental connection to the FBI. I think this is worth mentioning if we're going to talk about Hogg and his involvement in the push against the government. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 04:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Followup comment: I don't think being against any particular presidential incarnation of government (ie the Trump government) makes one against the country. I did not insinuate that Hoff was Anti-American. Being anti-Trump is not un-American just like being anti-Obama is not un-American. My point is simply that he spoke against Trump rather than against FBI. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 05:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
Apologies if I'm doing this wrong - this is my first time posting on a Talk page Anyways, perhaps it may be worth mentioning somewhere that this is the deadliest U.S. mass shooting where the perpetrator is still alive? [1] I noticed that the Orlando nightclub shooting has a similar mention in its first paragraph: "It remains the deadliest U.S. mass shooting in which the perpetrator did not commit suicide.". It's a somewhat interesting factoid that occurred to me as I was just watching the arraignment of the perpetrator and thought "woah, you actually don't see arraignments very often in these kinds of cases because they're always dead.." Edasaki ( talk) 06:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It is not clear that the FBI "mishandled" anything.
Characterizing their involvement as mishandling implies that there was something they should have done that they did not. The FBI investigates potentially dangerous people all the time. There are many young men with guns and troubled lives agitating online. They do not have a legal right to arrest or otherwise detain people on the basis of the information they appear to have been provided with so far.
Perhaps "FBI involvement" would be an appropriate title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C54E:F100:3185:A9ED:C0C:6594 ( talk) 12:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
(and maybe I am, but I'm not)is a self-contradictory statement. Just sayin'.
I've seen some reporting on this. For example:
Some students believed there was a second shooter at the school, but the Broward Sheriff's Office has given no indication that was the case.
I actually didn't know multiple students were claiming this, I had just watched this interview where one of the seniors made the claim. Not aware of any other video interviews where the second shooter theory is presented, so guessing Bradenton's plurality derives from non-videoed interviews.
This clip has a reporter from KHOU (Matt Musil) commenting on the above senior who mentions @55s "she thinks there was a second shooter, that's the first we've heard of that, but she believes there was actually a second shooter, we'll see if that comes about or not". ScratchMarshall ( talk) 07:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Have we EVER had a shooting where some people didn't claim there was a second shooter? MelanieN alt ( talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Pandering to conspiracy theorists is not something encyclopedias should ever do. If the authorities confirm evidence of a second shooter, the cite from credible sources. If not, then such suspicions belong in a distinctly separate entry. However, not only is there not enough moment to even accept such a a new article, but security camera footage in the school has already confirmed that the suspect acted alone. Clepsydrae ( talk) 20:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No way we include this as factual (or anything close to it) information. However, we should probably have either a section or (depending on how events unfold) an article on Florida school shooting conspiracy theories. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
That should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Alex of Canada ( talk) 11:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He was jewish 58.173.115.85 ( talk) 06:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This needs to be listed as Stoneman Douglas School Massacre not "shooting" The13thWASP ( talk) 15:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The article has a grammatical error. Currently it reads "antisemitic," which should be "anti-Semitic." "Anti-immigration" should probably be "xenophobic," but either way, it needs to be followed by a word like "views." Otherwise it's an adjective with no noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephkugelmass ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
How much detail are we going to put in from the Emma Gonzalez speech? This question is governed by WP policies, particulary WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT:
The Gonzalez speech, both the full speech and lengthy excerpts, got massive media coverage. Her viewpoint should be represented in the article in proportion to its prominence in the published, reliable sources. Gonzalez' speech got more coverage than any other section in the entry.
To reduce it to "Student and survivor Emma González was noted for her impassioned speech rebuking "thoughts and prayers" from the government and the President.... She has since emerged as one of the teenage leaders of a protest movement against gun violence in the United States..." does not represent her viewpoint in proportion to its prominence in published WP:RS.
Furthermore, the summaries of the students' positions -- including Gonzalez -- are not as articulate or well-argued as the original statements from the students themselves. You've edited out the voices of the students. Stoneman Douglas attracted some of the best students in Florida. They were taking an AP Government class, taught by some of the best teachers in Florida, in which they studied gun control. As part of the class, they had three debates on gun conrol -- which is why Gonzalez was able to give such a striking, informed, well-argued speech.
There are no Wikipedia editors here (including myself) who can summarize or paraphrase the words of these students as well as they expressed them themselves. You've taken their words and turned them into a word salad of snippits and quotes. You missed their main points, and weakened their arguments. They didn't simply "vocally condemn... U.S. lawmakers who have received political contributions from the National Rifle Association." They demanded lawmakers refuse contributions from the NRA, and they said they would support primary campaigns to challenge those lawmakers in the primaries.
You missed other main points. Let me ask you: What do you think were the main points of Gonzalez' speech?
This was written by somebody who didn't even understand Gonzalez' speech, where she laid out these issues so clearly.
You've reduced their whole argument to two paragraphs that don't even quote the students directly. Instead, you quote politicians and officials. That was exactly what the students were complaining about: the news media quoted politicians and officials, but not the students themselves. Read the entry. Find the quotes. See who it quotes. You've used Wikipedia to quote the establishment and the authorities -- the worst flaw of journalism -- rather than the people themselves. You've failed.
I think we should restore the Gonzalez block quotes. That's what block quotes are for. You shouldn't delete them unless you think that you can express Gonzalez' ideas more clearly and concisely than she can herself. And if you believe that, you're deluded about your writing abilities. -- Nbauman ( talk) 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The "gun control debate" section is really only giving one side of the "debate". It's not giving the conservative, pro-gun perspective. For instance, you could discuss Trump's tweets immediately after the shooting. Alternatively you could mention this pro-gun editorial written in the National Review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7753:9B00:9DA3:45AC:3D71:B475 ( talk) 21:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I removed this content with this edit as the claims appear to have been unsubstantiated. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Just for comparison, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting Still notes that the Islamic State claimed the shooter was theirs, even though this proved to be false. Murchison-Eye ( talk) 00:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories grow in darkness, but shrink to absurdity when exposed to the light. We have sections on conspiracy theories in every major mass shooting recently and this is, sadly, no exception. More sources forthcoming. -- Green C 03:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
So the guy's actions weren't "remotely heroic" because he got shot and killed before he could help. That's some remarkable reasoning. I'm not a big fan of these memorials, but that's no rationale for removing one. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The Victims section has two people who died opening doors and one who shielded. These are understandable as potential life-savers. But it also had a man who ran into the fire with presumably good intentions (per his wife), which apparently only cost him his own life. Removed him as a non-factor, which
seemed somewhat controversial, so I'm opening the floor showing up a minute late. Aye? Nay?
InedibleHulk
(talk)
00:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Meaning to defend people before you die just makes you sympathetic and kind- so what you're saying is, 99% of students at the school are unsympathetic and unkind. Well... Cruz might be doing society a favour in that case. Mr rnddude ( talk) 02:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good.- for example: sacrificing their self-concern for survival, for the greater good of saving others. Mr rnddude ( talk)
Vox actually says: "Hogg, a student journalist, took out his cellphone and began recording his classmates — a gun control plea in sickening real time." It doesn't exactly say that he was hiding in the closet from the shooter. Watching the video (which there are several edited versions of that have been released by various reliable sources) it's not clear that this is during the shooting. No gun shots are heard. Aside from the interview noise there is a murmur of others talking in the background, there is not evidence that people are hiding, it seems more likely the event was over at this point.
The video linked in the Vox article is here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=E8luXbglTaw
It includes an extended comment from a woman, however the video is blank for her extended comment, audio only.
The same audio is included in this International Business Times (Newsweek Group.) video report of the event, with a slightly longer introduction. That is located here:
The entire first part is the same, but there is additional audio at the cut where the Vox-linked video goes black. That audio includes the reporter (presumably David Hogg) giving the time and date for the recording, as well as the subject of the interview/statement. ("This is Alex View, this recording was taken at 9:32 on Feb. 14, 2018"...)
So the article's claim (echoing Vox's claim) that the video (linked at Vox) was taken "in real time" must be presumed false, for at least the longer part of the video that begins with the blackout at about :30 in the Vox linked version and :57 on the IBT broadcast version.
It appears that most of that was recorded at 9:32 PM, about seven hours after the event, not at all "in real time". Perhaps the first 30 seconds were earlier, but there is no claim or date made on the tape, and since Vox is clearly confused I suggest we remove this claim, or possibly the link altogether until the actual facts around its creation are verified.
Is "storyful" a reliable source? Is Vox?
ZeroXero ( talk) 03:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Should Cruz be categorized as an American person of Jewish descent because he once wrote "My real mom was a Jew" in an Instagram chat? See this edit of the redirect page.- Mr X 🖋 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Is the sentence Although no motivations have been offered by prosecutors or police, white supremacist gang leader Jordan Jereb alleges Cruz held a hatred of Jews and women really approriate for the lead in sentence? While I have no problem noting that he may have held these views in the suspect section, thus far no official source has suggested that he was actually targeting jews or women. This persons speculation on what his motive may have been is no more relevant than my own speculation. Murchison-Eye ( talk) 22:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@ MichiganWoodShop:, please discuss why this should be in lead here before reverting again. There has been no kind of reason given here or in edit comments for it to be in lead while not following MOS:LEAD(The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies...Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.). Please discuss with the rest of us. WikiVirus C (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The i newpaper in uk states ..."It emerged yesterday (16 Feb(my insert)) that he had trained with a white supremacist group, The Republic of Florida, and the group's leader Jordan Jereb said he was "part of our organisation" [1] This information should now be re added to the article IMO. Edmund Patrick – confer 11:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
Damaged the psyche of 239 murderers. Bereaved children in schools. During the last 5 years in the US. Are there any mature technologies? Makers? Toxins? Klein pigeon ( talk) 14:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
In the victims section of the article, I would add more information about exactly who each victim was. Eric Levenson's CNN article would be an extremely helpful source for this. I would specifically include the quote about Scott Beigel made by one of his students. "Mr. Biegel was my hero and he still will forever be my hero. I will never forget the actions that he took for me and for fellow students in the classroom, I am alive today because of him" (Levenson, 2018).
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). Levenson, Eric. “These Are The Victims of the Florida School Shooting.” CNN (2018).
Sydorloff (
talk)
15:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Under the section of Nikolas Cruz I would add more information in regards to the early childhood and adolescences of Nikolas Cruz. This information would provide the reader with valid information demonstrating why Cruz took such horrific actions. Specifically I would add a quote taken from a New York Times article from Cruz's childhood neighbor. "He had emotional problems and I believe he was diagnosed with autism. He had trouble controlling his temper. He broke things. He would do that sometimes at our house when he lost his temper. But he always was very apologetic” (Fausset, 2018). This quote shows how Cruz's behavior was effecting other individuals even at an early age. It also links Cruz's detrimental actions towards his disturbed mental state.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). Fausset, Richard. “Nikolas Cruz, Florida Shooting Suspect, Showed ‘Every Red Flag’.” New York Times (2018).
Sydorloff (
talk)
15:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
There are a few sources that mention where the rifle was purchased, and some that go into detail about the gun shop (Sunrise Tactical Supply) closing its business. [9] [10] [11] [12] I think something about this should be included in the article, but I'm not sure where.- Mr X 🖋 04:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
https://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/sunrise-tactical-supply-coral-springs 131.111.184.102 ( talk) 16:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The gun made the shooting.Please, let's try to avoid aphorisms. Gun purchase is background. It could just as easily be argued that Cruz made the shooting so we should move some of his background to the Shooting section. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.Do you have any evidence that it's harmless? The current state of police presence protecting their lives and property speak directly to this harm. -- DHeyward ( talk) 09:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
CNN reports local law enforcement say a .223 caliber, AR-15 style firearm was used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.13.162.112 ( talk) 01:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It would have to be a sporting rifle in the AR-15 style- as opposed to a true AR-15 which is an automatic military assault rifle, which the subject would not have been able to get his hands on, unless we're to say the subject involved is extremely rich. 108.201.29.108 ( talk) 03:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Re: [13] [14] [15], any consensus here is very weak at best. I'll add my support for AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle, per sources, barring unlikely sources for "modern sporting rifle". If there is a significant MOS:EGG case, somebody needs to take the redirect to WP:RFD. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Re: this edit, yes, the article is named Modern sporting rifle, but I think most of the coverage uses "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle" or some variation of it. I think that using [[Modern sporting rifle|AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle]] is going to be less confusing to readers. Feedback? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Any reference to the weapon or style of weapon or anything ELSE describing it (other than "Unknown; Firearm") should be REMOVED until a clear and unambiguous statement from the Sheriff Office (or other LE) is made. "AR-style" is an extremely political term, solely meant to cause panic and fear. None of the claims about type can be in any way verified; They all reference "law enforcement source" that may not exist (and yes, the media HAS been caught making up sources- extensively). Neither can we trust them to understand what they are talking about themselves; There's the infamous "AR-15 watermelon" video to start with. And last but not least... We really can't trust them to report the story honestly. That's just the way it is. Until the police (sheriff's) make a statement, any reference to type of weapon MUST be removed; To do otherwise is to deliberately and intentionally confuse and incite panic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100c:b227:d544:707a:e424:849:c8df ( talk) 14:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Multiple sources have now identified the weapon as a Smith & Wesson M&P15. The sources do appear to be copies of each other, but there isn't much to say in identifying the model. Our article on Modern sporting rifles could use a little more building, but its fairly solid. Good lesson learned here - all of the early sources were all derived from the exact same source (a clip from the sheriff's announcement) , when the sheriff was either using the genericized term, or just misinformed/mistaken. — xaosflux Talk 04:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Columbia Journalism Review had an article https://www.cjr.org/analysis/parkland-school-shooting.php about The Eagle Eye http://eagleeye.news/category/news/ , the school newspaper at Stoneman Douglas High School (or MSD as they call it). At least one of the photographers said that they encourage any and all news sources to use their work. So it might be a good source of photos for Wikipedia. -- Nbauman ( talk) 16:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I've seen in several of the interviews with students there that they thought at first it was a drill because there was some kind of drill scheduled that way. I can't think of what existing section to put this in. Possibly aftermath? A pre-scheduled drill would actually be a prelude though, so perhaps it should have a new section? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 04:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
It says that he allegedly was sympathetic with "Syrian terrorists" granted his Islamophobic views and remarks this is rather interesting nonetheless. Perhaps he was pro PKK/YPG or even Hezbollah as it is unlikely to be that he would support Islamist oriented groups like ISIS or some FSA factions or Nusra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of ones views of the PKK/YPG, to a typical High school student Im sure the YPG would look like terrorists as I doubt most teenagers outside Syria would really know the difference between the various fighters, it's not just Fox news who said this there was an interview with a girl who was an acquaintance of his who said he admired 'Syrian Terrorists' without naming a specific group. I believe his interest in the Syrian conflict such as possible support for Kurdish, Pro-Government militias, or even though unlikely Syrian Opposition groups could be an ideological description that leads to something much deeper about himself. Also given his Anti-Semetic views it could be assumed as mentioned he liked Hezbollah or SSNP but his Islamophobic views would not allow him to support Islamist oriented groups such as ISIS or Tahrir Al Sham, nonetheless however as stated this provides further insight into his mind and possible motivations and alignments while also providing the full picture of the story of Nikolas Cruz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
How is that relevant to the topic of his admiration for Syrian armed groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk with that being said, it is clear that it is very unlikely for her knowledge regarding factions in Syria to be in depth. However she still referenced it as it made an impact on her to the point that she would mention it in an interview on television. This might show a sign ideological inconsistencies that could be a result of self-hatred that in itself is motivated by antisemitic and racist sentiments. It could also be an indicator to violent obsessions and tendencies as his interest in Syrian groups is likely not motivated by political or religious motivations but rather psychopathic based ideals and low-self esteem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Marjory to the name Change title from Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Bobmalone729 ( talk) 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Bobmalone729 ( talk) 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
We had small student walk outs locally covered in Wednesday's paper 21 Feb 2018. The students at the city high school were quoted as saying they wanted social media threats taken seriously, security beefed up, maybe metal detectors at entrances. They complained that some school entrances are left unlocked when most entrances require the students to swipe their student ID cards to open.
A walk out student at another school was quoted as saying: "I was trying not to make it about gun control necessarily." 2013 two students at his school who were obsessed with Columbine were thwarted while planning an attack to kill as many students and faculty as possible; a parent and a mental health specialist alerted the authorities.
The local walk-out students apparently were focussed on indentifying threats and beefing up school security. Identifying actors with motive and denying them the opportunity to act. The current news media and social media campaigns focus on "students for gun control"; they even declare they don't want police in schools turning schools into "armed camps" with no guns in schools, especially police.
The city high school (2,200 students) has two School Resource Officers SROs. The four high schools in the county have had SROs since 1997. They do more than just act as armed guards; they do all sorts of in-school public safety programs. But they do act as armed guards.
30 Aug 2010 Sullivan South in-school SRO Carolyn Gudger engaged an armed intruder Thomas Cowan who had the prinicipal at gun point. Cowan demanded her gun and access to the fire alarm system. She held him in a stand-off until other deputies arrived and entered in minutes. It ended with Cowan dead. (I note: Cruz started his rampage by using the fire alarm to fill the halls with targets.) -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 09:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
(Redacted)
Moving this to talk for the time being. Possible that this got separated from the actual source at some point. But while the article does mention these two, it doesn't seem to contain any of these further details (and neither does the article the article links to). Also both are presumably still living at the moment, so this should be fixed or removed, including this section from the talk. GMG talk 15:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
How much detail are we going to put in the gun advocacy section? At least 5 articles I have seen been created due to responses or planned responses to this event, do we really need every bit of detail here. For instances as it is right now there is a paragraph and a half mostly about Emma Gonzalez and two block quotes from her. Some triming overall on specifics could be done since most of this information can go into their respective articles, particularly the 2018 gun violence protest one. A good summary is fine, but if every protest or rally that gets coverage, or every walk out planned at individual schools gets added in, it's gonna become a lot. WikiVirus C (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This is not a fringe theory or topic.Is it your understanding that all non-fringe viewpoints should be given equal weight? ― Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
you are editing this entry according to your own personal views, rather than according to WP policies and guidelinesis a fairly clear violation of WP:AGF. You can't make such a statement absent "clear evidence", and that's absent no matter how you perceive the situation. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I say yes. Not only would detaining Floridans for being vaguely disturbing online affect vaguely disturbing Floridans as much as taking their guns away, it's probably more likely to become law (like this one did on the day of the shooting). Jeff Sessions is already loosely onboard, so maybe even beyond Florida. If we're going to mention know-nothing kids with their even vaguer pipe dreams, we should give at least some weight to a full-grown sheriff and attorney general. MrX says no. What say you, a jury of our peers? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Related topic: I don't see how his proposal fits into a 'Gun control debate' section.-- Pharos ( talk) 03:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I've recently felt that, with the 3RR restriction, there aren't enough competent editors still actively working this article to deal with the stream of incompetent ones. I would like to request extended confirmed protection, but I would settle for semi-protection. Comments? ― Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
A recent edit to this article now described JROTC as "NRA-funded". I'm not disputing that JROTC receives funding from the NRA. However, it seems that the placement of this in the Cruz section could cause readers to infer negative thoughts on the NRA. In the Victims section, where JROTC is first mentioned, we don't mention the NRA funding, which could cause some readers to infer positive thoughts on the NRA. In an effort to remain neutral, I have removed the "NRA-funded" adjective. GoingBatty ( talk) 17:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
|
To clarify: I just feel we need significant RS to talk about NRA funding of JROTC in the context of this shooting. I mean discuss it, not just mention it in passing as that source does. If we have that, and I would think more than one source would be needed, we should discuss the relationship briefly instead of just the vague "NRA-funded". ― Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Category:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting to the list of categories. Veldscott ( talk) 00:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Content about responding Broward deputies who failed to enter has been added and removed several times, per this in the CNN source: "Sources cautioned that tapes are currently being reviewed and official accounts could ultimately differ from recollections of officers on the scene." This is based solely on comments by arriving Coral Springs officers. I think this is weak and we should wait. Latest add is here and I'm impotent. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW that last add included background information that is out of place in the Shooting section. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I went looking for a second source and found only this in the New York Post. Not only is the Post generally a weak source, but they only echo CNN. The New York Times reported yesterday that "The Broward County Sheriff’s Office said it was investigating whether other deputies from the department did not go into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to engage the gunman." This now seems even weaker to me than it did before, I think that addition of that content on the basis of one source was a bit irresponsible, and it's unfortunate that people are so focused on political issues that we can't get some participation on this. ― Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I have made this series of edits. ― Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Quite a few sources are reporting a major backlash against the NRA as a reaction to the shooting, including boycotts. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] It may be worth a couple of sentences here. What do others think?- Mr X 🖋 12:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Due to incredibly ample scientific evidence for notoriety's association with copycat murderers, I suggest that the name of the self-confessed perpetrator in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting be removed from this article. In addition, I suggest that the image of that living person be removed thusly protecting other American children from future copycat murderers. Freedom of speech can be fully maintained without making people notorious for murder; there is no rational justification for correlating individual names with heinous crimes. I will watch this page and due my best to learn the rules of your community. Is your community interested in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, reason, scientific evidence, enlightenment and rational thinking or is it an extremely radical propaganda organization aiming to hurt and kill children by arming other children against them with military-grade weapons and delusions of fame for committing heinous crimes? If it is the latter, Wikipedia has no place in civil society, whatever its political affiliation may be left, right or as a genuinely non-partisan group of civilian journalists for the common good. KirstenStoffa ( talk) 22:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
~~~~
.
Bus stop (
talk)
22:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe that we should mention the ROTC students which places them above their classmates that we do not have information on. Gandydancer ( talk) 18:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I notice that the article mentions both of their involvement in the aftermath, but hasn't actually highlighted upon the attacks Hogg has made against Trump personally, or Hogg's defense of the FBI, or Hogg having a parental connection to the FBI. I think this is worth mentioning if we're going to talk about Hogg and his involvement in the push against the government. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 04:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Followup comment: I don't think being against any particular presidential incarnation of government (ie the Trump government) makes one against the country. I did not insinuate that Hoff was Anti-American. Being anti-Trump is not un-American just like being anti-Obama is not un-American. My point is simply that he spoke against Trump rather than against FBI. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 05:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)