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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Here's an op-ed from the NYT by Emma Gonzalez about how she wrote her "We call B.S." speech:
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 /info/en/?search=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)
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.
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.
[d]o not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourselfper WP:OR. The CNN source you cited isn't secondary, because it does not
provides an author's own thinking based on primary sourcesand thus does not contain
an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sourcesalso 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.
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)
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)
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)
... 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"the current article title is fine", but why? Bus stop ( talk) 17:01, 21 April 2019 (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. |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 | |
Education | Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (no diploma) |
Occupation | Dollar Tree employee |
Criminal status | Incarcerated |
Parent(s) | Brenda Woodword (biological mother)
[1] 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)
References
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)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 18:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)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)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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)
I support this MitochondriaIsThePowerhouse ( talk) 22:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
Nikolas Cruz update 2600:8806:3403:5F00:E512:1795:9D3B:C013 ( talk) 00:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 01:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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)This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmVvUei6-tY - Nov 2, 2022
Section: Legal proceedings - 2022
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
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change February 14 2018 to February 14, 2018. 75.144.185.89 ( talk) 19:31, 2 March 2023 (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. |
For consistency, please change Sun-Sentinel to Sun Sentinel. 75.144.185.89 ( talk) 16:49, 28 March 2023 (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. |
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)
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. [1] 2600:1702:5225:C010:299A:9CFD:6B34:5C5A ( talk) 20:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
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, mello hi! ( 投稿) 03:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
[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. [a]
how many Parkland shootings have sufficient notability for a WP article, you are liable to get an answer like:
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Here's an op-ed from the NYT by Emma Gonzalez about how she wrote her "We call B.S." speech:
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 /info/en/?search=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)
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.
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.
[d]o not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourselfper WP:OR. The CNN source you cited isn't secondary, because it does not
provides an author's own thinking based on primary sourcesand thus does not contain
an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sourcesalso 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.
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)
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)
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)
... 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"the current article title is fine", but why? Bus stop ( talk) 17:01, 21 April 2019 (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. |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 | |
Education | Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (no diploma) |
Occupation | Dollar Tree employee |
Criminal status | Incarcerated |
Parent(s) | Brenda Woodword (biological mother)
[1] 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)
References
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)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 18:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)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)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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)
I support this MitochondriaIsThePowerhouse ( talk) 22:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
Nikolas Cruz update 2600:8806:3403:5F00:E512:1795:9D3B:C013 ( talk) 00:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 01:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
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)This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmVvUei6-tY - Nov 2, 2022
Section: Legal proceedings - 2022
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
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)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change February 14 2018 to February 14, 2018. 75.144.185.89 ( talk) 19:31, 2 March 2023 (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. |
For consistency, please change Sun-Sentinel to Sun Sentinel. 75.144.185.89 ( talk) 16:49, 28 March 2023 (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. |
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)
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. [1] 2600:1702:5225:C010:299A:9CFD:6B34:5C5A ( talk) 20:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
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, mello hi! ( 投稿) 03:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
[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. [a]
how many Parkland shootings have sufficient notability for a WP article, you are liable to get an answer like: