![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Why isn't the title of this article Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting?
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is the school's name, isn't it? Geo Swan ( talk) 22:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.::Not per WP:COMMONNAME. Very common to omit the first name of the person a school is named for. Legacypac ( talk) 23:50, 27 February 2018 (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.
special:diff/827928770 the previous discussion #allegedly Jewish real mom was closed, however I do not believe we evaluated this source published specifically about this, showing that it is being singled out as a notable controversy.
In one post about his biological mother, Cruz said: "My real mom was a Jew. I am glad I never met her," according to CNN. He also said that he hated Jews because he believed they wanted to destroy the world.
The JTA via INN has established a connection here between antsemitism and the mother question, enough to make it the leading line of their article. I believe this is grounds for re-opening the discussion on whether or not to include that based on this new evidence which nobody brought up in the previous discussion and I only just learned of. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, INN and/or JTA (whoever made the headline) are taking an unreliable, unverified statement Cruz made about his birth mother (whom I'm not sure he ever met, being adopted at birth), and turning it into a click-bait headline. Cruz's purported comments about his mother are mentioned in passing, not the subject of the article, which itself is primarily a rehashing of various troubling remarks, which are already mentioned in this article. While this doesn't quite follow Betteridge's law of headlines, we certainly shouldn't take Cruz at his word, and would need additional coverage of this issue, otherwise we're lending undue weight to a very small perspective. We don't want to follow the model of right-wing trolls who fanned conspiracies like "Was Cruz a Dreamer?" "Was Cruz a registered democrat in Antifa?" Note that despite his (adoptive) last name, we don't even have credible sources about his ethnicity (not that it matters). --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
This image from this February 24 tweet by BrowardSheriff contains the following:
Presently the pages on students present on campus during the shooting but AFAIK who were not shot by the gunman are placed in the category Category:American_shooting_survivors and the description for it reads:
The description of its parent Category:Shooting survivors reads:
The description of its parent Category:Shooting victims reads:
While I can see that there sources which refer to Hogg/Gonzalez/Kasky as "survivor" or "survivors", I do not see any mention presently on any of the 3 articles about them sustaining a gunshot injury, so 0/3 appear to fall under our present description of shooting victims / shooting survivors / American shooting survivors simply by being present in a school where a shooting took place.
Nor does the trio appear to full under the Broward Sheriff's definition, where "33 victims" narrowly refers to people who were shot and not more broadly to the larger number of students who evacuated the school without injuries. Where "16 survivors" refers more narrowly to those who survived injuries and not more broadly to those who survived being present on a campus where a shooting took place.
I am proposing we remove all three students from this category, and that we not refer to them as survivors in the article body, out of respect for those who survived gunshot injuries. This defers to our own category descriptions, and to the Broward County Sherrif's Department description which only classifies those who survived injuries as survivors, and not every student on campus that day.
This consideration extend to David Hogg (activist) and Emma González and Cameron Kasky articles, as well as Template:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting which lists all 3 of them as "survivors". ScratchMarshall ( talk) 18:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Is this grounds for us to change the guidelines for the categories? Or possibly to introduce subcategories? Like for example Category:Unshot shooting victims or Category:Unshot shooting survivors? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay well, unless someone wants to move to alter the descriptions in the categories, I have removed the 3 of them from the category (left it commented-out with a note about why to inform anyone thinking to restore it) and placed them under Category:Crime witnesses instead. We should probably pursue fixing this contradiction though between our category definitions and our usage within articles. Would WikiProject Crime be the place to have that discussion? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 21:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The three with articles were not shot but everyone that was in that school are survivors. For example everyone that was on the Titanic but did did drown survived regardless of injuries or not. The sherriff's release refers to those that survived gunshot wounds vs those that did not. One guy I really feel for is the student who was mistaken for the shooter (same size, look and clothing) and survived being taken down by SWAT. He was held for several hours at gunpoint. Saw him speaking out about gun control with passion only possible after nearly being gunned down by the shooter and then police. Legacypac ( talk) 01:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
There has been a significant amount of churning around the sentence preceding the list in the Victims section. Let's see if we can settle this and move on. I think the following is a complete list of the various versions we've seen, in ascending word count sequence.
1 – The dead were:
2 – The victims who died were:
3 – The dead were identified as:
4 – The names of the dead, along with their ages, were:
5 – A list of the names and ages of the dead follows:
Other – [roll your own] and explain why none of the above will do
The dead wereinstead of 'the dead are' or
The names of the dead, along with their ages, wereinstead of 'The names of the dead, along with their ages, are'. The dead have not ceased to be, nor will they cease to be, dead. Similarly, the names and ages of the victims will not change. So, why the past tense? If there is a reason for the past tense, then option 1. Otherwise option 1, but written in present tense.
victimin that particular form. Additionally
diedis past tense, so it's consistent. That decision makes little sense with the other options; e.g. option 3 should, I would think, be 'The dead have been identified as' as opposed to
were identified. Their identities have been confirmed. Present continuous.
were identifiedright before you start identifying them. It's redundant. Similarly, the list of names and ages does not need to be told to the reader before they start reading the names and ages of the victims. It's readily apparent what the information being presented is. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
deaddoes that sufficiently well enough. Victims would be more useful for distinguishing between dead victims and dead perpetrators. It's presented well enough in previous sentences that there were survivors. You don't need to make the distinction every time you mention victims. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Just keep listing the names. They are more important than the killer and people are looking for the info. Has there been no victims there would be no article. Legacypac ( talk) 20:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Just leave it out until consensus is reached. If in doubt, ask for the discussion be closed at WP:ANRFC. - Mr X 🖋 02:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Since Cruz said himself that he had a jewish biological mother why is that not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.211.19 ( talk) 15:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There are numerous issues with this article starting with the statement the FBI received tips bot could not identify Cruz. Shortly after the incident the FBI director admitted that agents failed to follow proper protocol and didn't even forward the information to the Local FBI offices or Local LEO's.
In total LEO's responded to 45 calls dealing with Cruz prior to this incident including numerous felonies for which he could have at anytime been arrested. Had either the local LEO's or FBI done their duty this chooting would have been averted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.212.165 ( talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
~~~~
? Thanks.
Bus stop (
talk) 12:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)I know we have discussed this number multiple times, but I am seeing in a recent statement from Broward Sheriff's Office, 33 victims (17 murdered, 16 survivors). [2] We have 14 listed as injuries an no mention of the other two, which are described as victims, so not the shooter. Most current news stories only mention the dead, and a lot of the early ones were preliminary reports. WikiVirus C (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I support using that ref and updating the page.—so he acted on his own consensus of 1, which is a pretty remarkable interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS in my opinion. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I have added in [3] as a reference and changed injured count from 14/15/16 in article, to all saying 16. Also changed the lead from 15 taken to hospital, which I believe was still reference the 14 and Cruz temporary visit, to just 16 injured. This reference uses phrase wounded, but I used injured since that is also applicable for wounded anyways. WikiVirus C (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the count to 17 wounded/injured in all instances after today's indictment. Indictment also said they were all shot, so no more confusion there. WikiVirus C (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I missed whenever it was added, but there is a note that says he was never expelled in reference to Cruz. I've read the cited source [4] and it says he wasn't expelled from the Broward Public School system, but explicitly says he was banished from Stoneman Douglas and transferred to an alternative school. Is this not the same thing as saying was expelled from that specific school and forced to transferred to another? Legally they can't prevent him from getting an education, but they can and did kick him out of this one individual school. Even early reports that say he was expelled, said he was placed into alternative schools, so it wasn't really that people were suggesting that he had been kicked completely out of the school system, which the report is debunking. I don't feel the note is needed, and we can just say former student who was banned/banished(even expelled works imho) specifically from Stoneman Douglas. WikiVirus C (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Cruz was not expelled from this school, as the source article referenced in the entry clearly states. I went to delete the word but can't edit because I don't have 500 edits yet. EvidenceFairy ( talk) 04:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I recommend adding Template:See_also to the section, with links to the overarching False flag, Crisis actor, George_Soros#Conspiracy_theories, etc. Whichever the more experienced contributors deem worthy. Gwenhope ( talk) 10:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
An article has recently been created on Fred Guttenberg, father of one of the slain students. There will probably be another AFD discussion. That is all. --Animalparty! ( talk) 05:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I recently removed several documents from External links, as they are now out-of-date, primary sources, directed to Broward County students and largely irrelevant to anyone else. Similarly, the YouTube address from the Principal, is an address primarily to the students of Stoneman Douglas High School. The FBI seeking info link is currently dead link, and likely outdated. Per WP:ELYES, acceptable external links include "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject." and per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, we should generally avoid linking to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." These guidelines aside, I think External links, if any, should prioritize links that have broad rather than narrow audience, and those likely to continue to be relevant for the foreseeable future. I propose the two existing links add very little, and can be omitted without significantly reducing understanding of the subject. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Should this paragraph:
School surveillance camera footage revealed Cruz as the suspected perpetrator. He was recognized by a staffer before he entered the building and was also recognized by witnesses during the attack.
be moved above the text describing his arrest? Presumably he was identified as the shooter before he was arrested. AdA&D ★ 20:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I almost reverted this edit per Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 5#Victims list introduction sentence. This is what the section looked like when that discussion started. But, due to other copy editing that changed the context, the edit makes sense and is consistent with the "don't waste words" principle that was affirmed in that discussion. I hope we can accept this new edit without reopening the issue of those few words. (I won't hold my breath, however.) ― Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I've made
these changes. I assume there will be naysayers. I don't see the importance of the flower markings on the pavement. I favor photographs of hospital interiors that relate to these shootings. I think two is not too many. They are harsh. I felt the presidential one was gentler, so I moved it up in the article. I think very highly of the Sheriff Scott Israel photo.
Bus stop (
talk) 02:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with
this edit. I accidentally included the name.
Bus stop (
talk) 03:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
sufficient discussion with sufficiently open minds? How pollyannish of me. Bus stop ( talk) 22:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
We are not necessarily writing about the leader of the free world.Or about the sheriff of Broward County. I would suggest that each editor take the time to express their position clearly and completely, then perhaps a little back-and-forth, and then move on. I reiterate/elaborate: While your initial argument and that little back-and-forth may influence new arrivals, you are very unlikely to change anybody's mind by continuing with them for the reasons I gave (point me to several cases in the past year where your continued debate has swayed anybody to your viewpoint). The longer a discussion gets, the fewer new arrivals there will be, and the less likely the new arrivals will read any of the existing discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This image, depicting the shooter being arrested by police in Florida shortly after the attack, was removed earlier today. The remover did so because there is another image of the shooter further down the page. That alone is not good justification for removal. Articles are allowed to have multiple images of the same subject. Indeed, it's encouraged by our manual of style to strive for a variety of images that depict the same subject in different contexts.
The remover also thinks it adds no informational value. This image should be included on the basis that it documents first-hand a significant event in this shooting. The image serves as an illustrative aid to understanding how the arrest was handled. It also portrays other factors that can't be objectively conveyed over text, such as the attacker's reaction to his arrest. AdA&D ★ 20:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The remover did so because there is another image of the shooter further down the page.is a gross misrepresentation of my argument, seizing on the last words of my edit summary and ignoring the rest. That's called strawmanning and it's widely discouraged in Wikipedia discussions.
images should add informational value, this is an image of a completely routine felony takedown...
The image serves as an illustrative aid to understanding how the arrest was handled. It also portrays other factors that can't be objectively conveyed over text, such as the attacker's reaction to his arrest.
...of an individual whose likeness we already have
The remover did so because there is another image of the shooter further down the page. That alone is not good justification for removal. Articles are allowed to have multiple images of the same subject. Indeed, it's encouraged by our manual of style to strive for a variety of images that depict the same subject in different contexts.
the remover also thinks it adds no informational value. AdA&D ★ 21:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
all completely miss the central point of a shootingbut this is not entirely true. A photograph of a visit from Trump to a victim in the hospital is more on-topic than a photograph of an arrest of a shooter without incident. There is a photo of Broward County sheriff Scott Israel visiting the 15 year old shooting victim Anthony Borges in the hospital which I really feel would be constructive to our article's purpose. That photo can be seen for instance here. The photographs of hospital interiors and visits from the president or the Broward County sheriff serve a very special purpose. These photographs are truly the aftermath of the shooting. I don't think they "completely miss the central point of a shooting". Bus stop ( talk) 09:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
context. The image provides distortion. The article is not about an innocent-looking boy. He looks harmless in that photograph. Depicted is a person overpowered and under control. We have no image of the person in the act of aiming and shooting. Therefore, in my opinion, no image of him should be in the article. The mugshot has its virtues, in this article. The mugshot is a straightforward photograph of the person's face. Such a picture is a standard representation of a likeness of a human being; we know what he looks like, from the mugshot. The image of him on the ground at the moment of arrest, by contrast, is cartoonish. It almost looks posed. There is inadvertent lightheartedness in the awkward contortion of the handcuffed person on the ground. There is a slapstick quality that is incompatible with the reality of the event that he was instrumental in bringing about. The inclusion of this image in this article would be in poor taste. Bus stop ( talk) 02:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it's important to add Lori Alhadeff's (the mother of one the victims Alyssa Alhadeff) demands to the President in the Aftermath section of the article. These were widely discussed in the media and there seems to be an another layer of advocacy for immediate actions to improve better school safety nationwide, regardless of the outcome(s) gun control debate. -- Flowell15 ( talk) 10:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Distressed parent...lost her daughter...implored...suggested...predictably patheticCan we do it in a way that doesn't sound like we're writing for a teen magazine? Also WP:EUPHEMISM? GMG talk 12:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It is shortsighted an reactionary to try to force in every quote or response from every survivor or grieving parent. Will readers today or in 5 years need to know the name Lori Alhadeff? I suspect not, but that probably wont stop someone from writing an article for her and everyone else interviewed or quoted by CNN. --Animalparty! ( talk) 15:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you think it's relevant to the article to include her organization Make Schools Safe?-- Flowell15 ( talk) 12:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
See recent trespassing arrest at school [10]. Is it needed in article? If so, where? It was a trespassing violation, $25 bail, he said he wanted to visit to reflect on shooting. School official have asked him to keep away. WikiVirus C (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The stories of people saying that certain survivors of the shootings are "crisis actors" should be referred to as "conspiracy theories" rather than "false" or "fake". While you and I might personally think the theories are outrageous, they are by definition "conspiracy theories", as there is no definite, fool-proof way one can dismiss them as "fake", as unhappy as this may make some people.
For this article to stay unbiased and be factually correct, all referrals of the "crisis actors" accusations should be labeled "conspiracy theories" rather than subjectively calling them "false". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.73.156 ( talk) 20:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
You say "if you want to ask 'why aged' and don't want to go find the answer in the TP archives, then start another TP thread - but edit summaries are not for discussion" [11]. Where is the discussion? I looked. I did not find it. Thank you. Bus stop ( talk) 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
that simply reopens the whole issue resolved in the aforementioned thread. There was little purpose to that thread in its entirety. And the minor point concerning the word "aged" is not something that has to be retained in the article at this point. Bus stop ( talk) 05:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The seventeen people who were killed? I'm sure that everybody can do the simple math required. I'd propose
Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were:or if you must insult the reader's intelligence
Seventeen people – fourteen students and three staff members – were killed. They were:. Mr rnddude ( talk) 12:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were:Bus stop ( talk) 13:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't have to discuss until you say I've discussed enough. But you seem to have boundless time and energy to "discuss" when there is no issue at all. This is not a real problem. It is a made-up problem. You claim that there has been "a significant amount of churning around the sentence preceding the list in the Victims section". So what? Does it matter? It is not an important sentence. Is it? Bus stop ( talk) 17:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
a far simpler solution would be to just remove "aged" from the list. [12] Mr rnddude also suggests, and I endorse, the wording
Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were:[13]. Mandruss favors concision and this string of words is actually shorter than what is in the article presently, so I hope we can move forward. Bus stop ( talk) 14:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I think this edit bears a bit of explanation. Corin may be notable in Wikipedia's eyes if the BLP article created today survives AfD. But she's still a minor figure with respect to the shooting that is the subject of this article—her connection is through Cruz, that she tutored him for awhile—and that was my rationale for the removal of her name here. That we already name some of the student activists is not justification for naming her in my view, especially outside the context of student activism. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
At one point he was tutored by a fellow classmate- Who the fuck cares? What a random and utterly trivial detail to include... even in the context which was previously given as to who the tutor is. Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Am I the only editor who thinks the false title form is overused and that "eliminating two unnecessary commas" is not a good rationale for using it? Always doing this the same way does not produce good writing in my opinion. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It's clear enough to me that the purpose of this content is to show that Trump supporters shoot up high schools. If not that, what is the relevance to this shooting? ― Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
is not disputed, after I disputed it, shows that your understanding of dispute resolution is sorely lacking. No, we don't start RfCs to get editors to abide by commonly accepted best practices. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Tomwsulcer: these two sentences have been stable in the article for some time:
An email from the school administration had circulated among teachers, warning that he had made threats against other students. This led the school to ban him from wearing a backpack on campus
Now you have inserted this WaPo "quote" between the two sentences:
for example, one student reported that Cruz told a friend of hers that he would be "excited to gut her like a fish and play with her dead body."
Now the text reads thus:
An email from the school administration had circulated among teachers, warning that he had made threats against other students; for example, one student reported that Cruz told a friend of hers that he would be "excited to gut her like a fish and play with her dead body." This led the school to ban him from wearing a backpack on campus
Although the quote for WaPo is properly sourced, inserting here is incorrect. It now appears that the threat was stated in the emails that the teachers circulated, and that this threat led to the backpack ban. This is NOT what was stated in the WaPo article. The WaPo article reports ONE person saying that a friend told her something. Nothing about emails and/or backpacks. Per my edit summary when I reverted, this information should not be inserted at this point in the article. It is totally misleading to do this. If you are going to report this, put it somewhere else, in its own sentence. There's a whole paragraph with student quotes.
I hope this is clearer to you now. Please revert your revert of my revert!! Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!
Naomi Wadler is a hopeless stub and proposed for deletion, but some of the references there could be used here. – 84.46.53.50 ( talk) 19:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
merge to}}
RfC: Should the article mention that Nikolas Cruz wore a "Make America Great Again" hat?-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I, for one, believe it is high time for such a category. Just off the top of my head, we have Las Vegas, Charlottesville, Stoneman Douglas, Charleston, and many more. Sadly, this category likely will continue to expand and already has enough members to justify this useful category for people seeking to connect the dots between Trump's ulltra-violent, white nationalist rhetoric and its consequences 47.16.198.16 ( talk) 18:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC).
Dylann Roof, James Alex Fields, Stephen Paddock, Nikolas Cruz ...how many more must die at the hands of these Trumpians before we understand the harvest which Trump has sown? 47.16.198.16 ( talk) 19:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
In addition to what's already been written, and personal views aside, a salient guideline is Overcategorization. We don't create capricious or trivial categories or those that promote only a certain point of view. We categorize by defining characteristics: those that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. We don't have a category for "musicians inspired by Jimi Hendrix" (no matter how verifiable) nor intersecting categories like "Films made by Obama supporters" or "Libertarian violinists". --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The Fix NICS Act of 2017 in the lede for this article about an event in 2018 is odd. Apparently it is related to the Sutherland Springs church shooting. – 84.46.53.49 ( talk) 07:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Anchors are used to serve incoming section links to former section headings. AFAIK they are not meant to be used as "aliases" for a section—we have no need for that since we can use piped links to create whatever linktext we want. That section has never been headed "Nikolas Jacob Cruz" to my knowledge, certainly not long enough that there is a significant chance of an existing incoming link. Therefore we don't need an anchor for "Nikolas Jacob Cruz". All we need is "Suspect". Thank you. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
By your argument, could we also remove "Suspect" if we make sure to remove all incoming links with anchors for that term?Yes. (More accurately, all incoming links to the "Suspect" heading.) I would have done exactly that instead of adding the "Suspect" anchor, except I didn't know how to find all of them.
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Why isn't the title of this article Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting?
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is the school's name, isn't it? Geo Swan ( talk) 22:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.::Not per WP:COMMONNAME. Very common to omit the first name of the person a school is named for. Legacypac ( talk) 23:50, 27 February 2018 (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.
special:diff/827928770 the previous discussion #allegedly Jewish real mom was closed, however I do not believe we evaluated this source published specifically about this, showing that it is being singled out as a notable controversy.
In one post about his biological mother, Cruz said: "My real mom was a Jew. I am glad I never met her," according to CNN. He also said that he hated Jews because he believed they wanted to destroy the world.
The JTA via INN has established a connection here between antsemitism and the mother question, enough to make it the leading line of their article. I believe this is grounds for re-opening the discussion on whether or not to include that based on this new evidence which nobody brought up in the previous discussion and I only just learned of. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, INN and/or JTA (whoever made the headline) are taking an unreliable, unverified statement Cruz made about his birth mother (whom I'm not sure he ever met, being adopted at birth), and turning it into a click-bait headline. Cruz's purported comments about his mother are mentioned in passing, not the subject of the article, which itself is primarily a rehashing of various troubling remarks, which are already mentioned in this article. While this doesn't quite follow Betteridge's law of headlines, we certainly shouldn't take Cruz at his word, and would need additional coverage of this issue, otherwise we're lending undue weight to a very small perspective. We don't want to follow the model of right-wing trolls who fanned conspiracies like "Was Cruz a Dreamer?" "Was Cruz a registered democrat in Antifa?" Note that despite his (adoptive) last name, we don't even have credible sources about his ethnicity (not that it matters). --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
This image from this February 24 tweet by BrowardSheriff contains the following:
Presently the pages on students present on campus during the shooting but AFAIK who were not shot by the gunman are placed in the category Category:American_shooting_survivors and the description for it reads:
The description of its parent Category:Shooting survivors reads:
The description of its parent Category:Shooting victims reads:
While I can see that there sources which refer to Hogg/Gonzalez/Kasky as "survivor" or "survivors", I do not see any mention presently on any of the 3 articles about them sustaining a gunshot injury, so 0/3 appear to fall under our present description of shooting victims / shooting survivors / American shooting survivors simply by being present in a school where a shooting took place.
Nor does the trio appear to full under the Broward Sheriff's definition, where "33 victims" narrowly refers to people who were shot and not more broadly to the larger number of students who evacuated the school without injuries. Where "16 survivors" refers more narrowly to those who survived injuries and not more broadly to those who survived being present on a campus where a shooting took place.
I am proposing we remove all three students from this category, and that we not refer to them as survivors in the article body, out of respect for those who survived gunshot injuries. This defers to our own category descriptions, and to the Broward County Sherrif's Department description which only classifies those who survived injuries as survivors, and not every student on campus that day.
This consideration extend to David Hogg (activist) and Emma González and Cameron Kasky articles, as well as Template:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting which lists all 3 of them as "survivors". ScratchMarshall ( talk) 18:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Is this grounds for us to change the guidelines for the categories? Or possibly to introduce subcategories? Like for example Category:Unshot shooting victims or Category:Unshot shooting survivors? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay well, unless someone wants to move to alter the descriptions in the categories, I have removed the 3 of them from the category (left it commented-out with a note about why to inform anyone thinking to restore it) and placed them under Category:Crime witnesses instead. We should probably pursue fixing this contradiction though between our category definitions and our usage within articles. Would WikiProject Crime be the place to have that discussion? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 21:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The three with articles were not shot but everyone that was in that school are survivors. For example everyone that was on the Titanic but did did drown survived regardless of injuries or not. The sherriff's release refers to those that survived gunshot wounds vs those that did not. One guy I really feel for is the student who was mistaken for the shooter (same size, look and clothing) and survived being taken down by SWAT. He was held for several hours at gunpoint. Saw him speaking out about gun control with passion only possible after nearly being gunned down by the shooter and then police. Legacypac ( talk) 01:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
There has been a significant amount of churning around the sentence preceding the list in the Victims section. Let's see if we can settle this and move on. I think the following is a complete list of the various versions we've seen, in ascending word count sequence.
1 – The dead were:
2 – The victims who died were:
3 – The dead were identified as:
4 – The names of the dead, along with their ages, were:
5 – A list of the names and ages of the dead follows:
Other – [roll your own] and explain why none of the above will do
The dead wereinstead of 'the dead are' or
The names of the dead, along with their ages, wereinstead of 'The names of the dead, along with their ages, are'. The dead have not ceased to be, nor will they cease to be, dead. Similarly, the names and ages of the victims will not change. So, why the past tense? If there is a reason for the past tense, then option 1. Otherwise option 1, but written in present tense.
victimin that particular form. Additionally
diedis past tense, so it's consistent. That decision makes little sense with the other options; e.g. option 3 should, I would think, be 'The dead have been identified as' as opposed to
were identified. Their identities have been confirmed. Present continuous.
were identifiedright before you start identifying them. It's redundant. Similarly, the list of names and ages does not need to be told to the reader before they start reading the names and ages of the victims. It's readily apparent what the information being presented is. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
deaddoes that sufficiently well enough. Victims would be more useful for distinguishing between dead victims and dead perpetrators. It's presented well enough in previous sentences that there were survivors. You don't need to make the distinction every time you mention victims. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Just keep listing the names. They are more important than the killer and people are looking for the info. Has there been no victims there would be no article. Legacypac ( talk) 20:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Just leave it out until consensus is reached. If in doubt, ask for the discussion be closed at WP:ANRFC. - Mr X 🖋 02:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Since Cruz said himself that he had a jewish biological mother why is that not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.211.19 ( talk) 15:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There are numerous issues with this article starting with the statement the FBI received tips bot could not identify Cruz. Shortly after the incident the FBI director admitted that agents failed to follow proper protocol and didn't even forward the information to the Local FBI offices or Local LEO's.
In total LEO's responded to 45 calls dealing with Cruz prior to this incident including numerous felonies for which he could have at anytime been arrested. Had either the local LEO's or FBI done their duty this chooting would have been averted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.212.165 ( talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
~~~~
? Thanks.
Bus stop (
talk) 12:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)I know we have discussed this number multiple times, but I am seeing in a recent statement from Broward Sheriff's Office, 33 victims (17 murdered, 16 survivors). [2] We have 14 listed as injuries an no mention of the other two, which are described as victims, so not the shooter. Most current news stories only mention the dead, and a lot of the early ones were preliminary reports. WikiVirus C (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I support using that ref and updating the page.—so he acted on his own consensus of 1, which is a pretty remarkable interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS in my opinion. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I have added in [3] as a reference and changed injured count from 14/15/16 in article, to all saying 16. Also changed the lead from 15 taken to hospital, which I believe was still reference the 14 and Cruz temporary visit, to just 16 injured. This reference uses phrase wounded, but I used injured since that is also applicable for wounded anyways. WikiVirus C (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the count to 17 wounded/injured in all instances after today's indictment. Indictment also said they were all shot, so no more confusion there. WikiVirus C (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I missed whenever it was added, but there is a note that says he was never expelled in reference to Cruz. I've read the cited source [4] and it says he wasn't expelled from the Broward Public School system, but explicitly says he was banished from Stoneman Douglas and transferred to an alternative school. Is this not the same thing as saying was expelled from that specific school and forced to transferred to another? Legally they can't prevent him from getting an education, but they can and did kick him out of this one individual school. Even early reports that say he was expelled, said he was placed into alternative schools, so it wasn't really that people were suggesting that he had been kicked completely out of the school system, which the report is debunking. I don't feel the note is needed, and we can just say former student who was banned/banished(even expelled works imho) specifically from Stoneman Douglas. WikiVirus C (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Cruz was not expelled from this school, as the source article referenced in the entry clearly states. I went to delete the word but can't edit because I don't have 500 edits yet. EvidenceFairy ( talk) 04:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I recommend adding Template:See_also to the section, with links to the overarching False flag, Crisis actor, George_Soros#Conspiracy_theories, etc. Whichever the more experienced contributors deem worthy. Gwenhope ( talk) 10:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
An article has recently been created on Fred Guttenberg, father of one of the slain students. There will probably be another AFD discussion. That is all. --Animalparty! ( talk) 05:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I recently removed several documents from External links, as they are now out-of-date, primary sources, directed to Broward County students and largely irrelevant to anyone else. Similarly, the YouTube address from the Principal, is an address primarily to the students of Stoneman Douglas High School. The FBI seeking info link is currently dead link, and likely outdated. Per WP:ELYES, acceptable external links include "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject." and per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, we should generally avoid linking to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." These guidelines aside, I think External links, if any, should prioritize links that have broad rather than narrow audience, and those likely to continue to be relevant for the foreseeable future. I propose the two existing links add very little, and can be omitted without significantly reducing understanding of the subject. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Should this paragraph:
School surveillance camera footage revealed Cruz as the suspected perpetrator. He was recognized by a staffer before he entered the building and was also recognized by witnesses during the attack.
be moved above the text describing his arrest? Presumably he was identified as the shooter before he was arrested. AdA&D ★ 20:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I almost reverted this edit per Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 5#Victims list introduction sentence. This is what the section looked like when that discussion started. But, due to other copy editing that changed the context, the edit makes sense and is consistent with the "don't waste words" principle that was affirmed in that discussion. I hope we can accept this new edit without reopening the issue of those few words. (I won't hold my breath, however.) ― Mandruss ☎ 03:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I've made
these changes. I assume there will be naysayers. I don't see the importance of the flower markings on the pavement. I favor photographs of hospital interiors that relate to these shootings. I think two is not too many. They are harsh. I felt the presidential one was gentler, so I moved it up in the article. I think very highly of the Sheriff Scott Israel photo.
Bus stop (
talk) 02:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with
this edit. I accidentally included the name.
Bus stop (
talk) 03:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
sufficient discussion with sufficiently open minds? How pollyannish of me. Bus stop ( talk) 22:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
We are not necessarily writing about the leader of the free world.Or about the sheriff of Broward County. I would suggest that each editor take the time to express their position clearly and completely, then perhaps a little back-and-forth, and then move on. I reiterate/elaborate: While your initial argument and that little back-and-forth may influence new arrivals, you are very unlikely to change anybody's mind by continuing with them for the reasons I gave (point me to several cases in the past year where your continued debate has swayed anybody to your viewpoint). The longer a discussion gets, the fewer new arrivals there will be, and the less likely the new arrivals will read any of the existing discussion. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This image, depicting the shooter being arrested by police in Florida shortly after the attack, was removed earlier today. The remover did so because there is another image of the shooter further down the page. That alone is not good justification for removal. Articles are allowed to have multiple images of the same subject. Indeed, it's encouraged by our manual of style to strive for a variety of images that depict the same subject in different contexts.
The remover also thinks it adds no informational value. This image should be included on the basis that it documents first-hand a significant event in this shooting. The image serves as an illustrative aid to understanding how the arrest was handled. It also portrays other factors that can't be objectively conveyed over text, such as the attacker's reaction to his arrest. AdA&D ★ 20:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The remover did so because there is another image of the shooter further down the page.is a gross misrepresentation of my argument, seizing on the last words of my edit summary and ignoring the rest. That's called strawmanning and it's widely discouraged in Wikipedia discussions.
images should add informational value, this is an image of a completely routine felony takedown...
The image serves as an illustrative aid to understanding how the arrest was handled. It also portrays other factors that can't be objectively conveyed over text, such as the attacker's reaction to his arrest.
...of an individual whose likeness we already have
The remover did so because there is another image of the shooter further down the page. That alone is not good justification for removal. Articles are allowed to have multiple images of the same subject. Indeed, it's encouraged by our manual of style to strive for a variety of images that depict the same subject in different contexts.
the remover also thinks it adds no informational value. AdA&D ★ 21:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
all completely miss the central point of a shootingbut this is not entirely true. A photograph of a visit from Trump to a victim in the hospital is more on-topic than a photograph of an arrest of a shooter without incident. There is a photo of Broward County sheriff Scott Israel visiting the 15 year old shooting victim Anthony Borges in the hospital which I really feel would be constructive to our article's purpose. That photo can be seen for instance here. The photographs of hospital interiors and visits from the president or the Broward County sheriff serve a very special purpose. These photographs are truly the aftermath of the shooting. I don't think they "completely miss the central point of a shooting". Bus stop ( talk) 09:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
context. The image provides distortion. The article is not about an innocent-looking boy. He looks harmless in that photograph. Depicted is a person overpowered and under control. We have no image of the person in the act of aiming and shooting. Therefore, in my opinion, no image of him should be in the article. The mugshot has its virtues, in this article. The mugshot is a straightforward photograph of the person's face. Such a picture is a standard representation of a likeness of a human being; we know what he looks like, from the mugshot. The image of him on the ground at the moment of arrest, by contrast, is cartoonish. It almost looks posed. There is inadvertent lightheartedness in the awkward contortion of the handcuffed person on the ground. There is a slapstick quality that is incompatible with the reality of the event that he was instrumental in bringing about. The inclusion of this image in this article would be in poor taste. Bus stop ( talk) 02:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it's important to add Lori Alhadeff's (the mother of one the victims Alyssa Alhadeff) demands to the President in the Aftermath section of the article. These were widely discussed in the media and there seems to be an another layer of advocacy for immediate actions to improve better school safety nationwide, regardless of the outcome(s) gun control debate. -- Flowell15 ( talk) 10:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Distressed parent...lost her daughter...implored...suggested...predictably patheticCan we do it in a way that doesn't sound like we're writing for a teen magazine? Also WP:EUPHEMISM? GMG talk 12:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It is shortsighted an reactionary to try to force in every quote or response from every survivor or grieving parent. Will readers today or in 5 years need to know the name Lori Alhadeff? I suspect not, but that probably wont stop someone from writing an article for her and everyone else interviewed or quoted by CNN. --Animalparty! ( talk) 15:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you think it's relevant to the article to include her organization Make Schools Safe?-- Flowell15 ( talk) 12:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
See recent trespassing arrest at school [10]. Is it needed in article? If so, where? It was a trespassing violation, $25 bail, he said he wanted to visit to reflect on shooting. School official have asked him to keep away. WikiVirus C (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The stories of people saying that certain survivors of the shootings are "crisis actors" should be referred to as "conspiracy theories" rather than "false" or "fake". While you and I might personally think the theories are outrageous, they are by definition "conspiracy theories", as there is no definite, fool-proof way one can dismiss them as "fake", as unhappy as this may make some people.
For this article to stay unbiased and be factually correct, all referrals of the "crisis actors" accusations should be labeled "conspiracy theories" rather than subjectively calling them "false". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.73.156 ( talk) 20:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
You say "if you want to ask 'why aged' and don't want to go find the answer in the TP archives, then start another TP thread - but edit summaries are not for discussion" [11]. Where is the discussion? I looked. I did not find it. Thank you. Bus stop ( talk) 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
that simply reopens the whole issue resolved in the aforementioned thread. There was little purpose to that thread in its entirety. And the minor point concerning the word "aged" is not something that has to be retained in the article at this point. Bus stop ( talk) 05:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The seventeen people who were killed? I'm sure that everybody can do the simple math required. I'd propose
Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were:or if you must insult the reader's intelligence
Seventeen people – fourteen students and three staff members – were killed. They were:. Mr rnddude ( talk) 12:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were:Bus stop ( talk) 13:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't have to discuss until you say I've discussed enough. But you seem to have boundless time and energy to "discuss" when there is no issue at all. This is not a real problem. It is a made-up problem. You claim that there has been "a significant amount of churning around the sentence preceding the list in the Victims section". So what? Does it matter? It is not an important sentence. Is it? Bus stop ( talk) 17:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
a far simpler solution would be to just remove "aged" from the list. [12] Mr rnddude also suggests, and I endorse, the wording
Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were:[13]. Mandruss favors concision and this string of words is actually shorter than what is in the article presently, so I hope we can move forward. Bus stop ( talk) 14:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I think this edit bears a bit of explanation. Corin may be notable in Wikipedia's eyes if the BLP article created today survives AfD. But she's still a minor figure with respect to the shooting that is the subject of this article—her connection is through Cruz, that she tutored him for awhile—and that was my rationale for the removal of her name here. That we already name some of the student activists is not justification for naming her in my view, especially outside the context of student activism. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
At one point he was tutored by a fellow classmate- Who the fuck cares? What a random and utterly trivial detail to include... even in the context which was previously given as to who the tutor is. Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Am I the only editor who thinks the false title form is overused and that "eliminating two unnecessary commas" is not a good rationale for using it? Always doing this the same way does not produce good writing in my opinion. ― Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It's clear enough to me that the purpose of this content is to show that Trump supporters shoot up high schools. If not that, what is the relevance to this shooting? ― Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
is not disputed, after I disputed it, shows that your understanding of dispute resolution is sorely lacking. No, we don't start RfCs to get editors to abide by commonly accepted best practices. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Tomwsulcer: these two sentences have been stable in the article for some time:
An email from the school administration had circulated among teachers, warning that he had made threats against other students. This led the school to ban him from wearing a backpack on campus
Now you have inserted this WaPo "quote" between the two sentences:
for example, one student reported that Cruz told a friend of hers that he would be "excited to gut her like a fish and play with her dead body."
Now the text reads thus:
An email from the school administration had circulated among teachers, warning that he had made threats against other students; for example, one student reported that Cruz told a friend of hers that he would be "excited to gut her like a fish and play with her dead body." This led the school to ban him from wearing a backpack on campus
Although the quote for WaPo is properly sourced, inserting here is incorrect. It now appears that the threat was stated in the emails that the teachers circulated, and that this threat led to the backpack ban. This is NOT what was stated in the WaPo article. The WaPo article reports ONE person saying that a friend told her something. Nothing about emails and/or backpacks. Per my edit summary when I reverted, this information should not be inserted at this point in the article. It is totally misleading to do this. If you are going to report this, put it somewhere else, in its own sentence. There's a whole paragraph with student quotes.
I hope this is clearer to you now. Please revert your revert of my revert!! Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!
Naomi Wadler is a hopeless stub and proposed for deletion, but some of the references there could be used here. – 84.46.53.50 ( talk) 19:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
merge to}}
RfC: Should the article mention that Nikolas Cruz wore a "Make America Great Again" hat?-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I, for one, believe it is high time for such a category. Just off the top of my head, we have Las Vegas, Charlottesville, Stoneman Douglas, Charleston, and many more. Sadly, this category likely will continue to expand and already has enough members to justify this useful category for people seeking to connect the dots between Trump's ulltra-violent, white nationalist rhetoric and its consequences 47.16.198.16 ( talk) 18:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC).
Dylann Roof, James Alex Fields, Stephen Paddock, Nikolas Cruz ...how many more must die at the hands of these Trumpians before we understand the harvest which Trump has sown? 47.16.198.16 ( talk) 19:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
In addition to what's already been written, and personal views aside, a salient guideline is Overcategorization. We don't create capricious or trivial categories or those that promote only a certain point of view. We categorize by defining characteristics: those that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. We don't have a category for "musicians inspired by Jimi Hendrix" (no matter how verifiable) nor intersecting categories like "Films made by Obama supporters" or "Libertarian violinists". --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The Fix NICS Act of 2017 in the lede for this article about an event in 2018 is odd. Apparently it is related to the Sutherland Springs church shooting. – 84.46.53.49 ( talk) 07:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Anchors are used to serve incoming section links to former section headings. AFAIK they are not meant to be used as "aliases" for a section—we have no need for that since we can use piped links to create whatever linktext we want. That section has never been headed "Nikolas Jacob Cruz" to my knowledge, certainly not long enough that there is a significant chance of an existing incoming link. Therefore we don't need an anchor for "Nikolas Jacob Cruz". All we need is "Suspect". Thank you. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
By your argument, could we also remove "Suspect" if we make sure to remove all incoming links with anchors for that term?Yes. (More accurately, all incoming links to the "Suspect" heading.) I would have done exactly that instead of adding the "Suspect" anchor, except I didn't know how to find all of them.