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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Change under shooting section mentions he used multiple small capacity magazines, citing the Miami Herald where "Sen. Lauren Book, D-Plantation" says that he used only 10 round magazines after visiting the school as larger magazines would not fit in his duffle bag. I recommend not using this as fact and waiting for an official report on the incident as she is not an expert in any way. The reason I doubt the use of only 10 round mags for the AR is numerous, but the biggest factor is one of the students videos during the massacre records at least 25 round in quick succession, with no break in fire. So he had to use magazines with more than 10 rounds, at least 1. She also describes that “weapon and bullets were not high quality and were breaking apart", and that the gun jammed. I can only guess that she means that the gun malfunctioned and that maybe he had some magazine and ammunition indued failures, not the actual weapon breaking apart while firing.
I'm guessing that he had some 10 rounders along with some 30 rounders, and had one 10 round in the rifle to fit it in the duffle bag he supposedly put the rifle in. I cannot imagine that the relatively small 30 round Stanag magazines would not fit within the large space of the duffle a M&P-15 would fit in (although the bag may not have been of great depth, meaning he could not have been able to zip it up with a 30 rounder inserted into the rifle, it doesn't mean he could not fit extra mags along the profile of the rifle or is small pockets on the side of the bag that is commonly found on duffle bags). But this is only my educated guess. Glm.moulton ( talk) 18:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
One should also note that the pictures of Cruz's rifle he took himself has a 30 round magazine inserted into the rifle. While it may technically not be disproven 100% as some 10 round mags can have the shape and appearance of a larger capacity one (due to pinning), I believe this is also good evidence for skepticism of Book's expertise, or evidence for her lack of expertise. Although the change has been made, this is good evidence for the future of this page and the mention of magazine capacity. Glm.moulton ( talk) 17:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep the original text. This is a horrible example of editors doing their own WP:OR. Incredibly, people are questioning the WP:RS based, for example, on their own opinion of a video. In other articles, people's opinions after watching a video are usually dismissed with prejudice. Also, people are attacking what's being reported by a WP:RS based on their own opinions after looking at photos published long before the shooting, because people have seen old photos of the perp with long magazines! Not to mention that to do that one must actively and selectively ignore that the WP:RS specifically said the shooter was forced to use small magazines because of a backpack size constraint... a more selective and biased WP:OR is rarely seen. XavierItzm ( talk) 05:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
That's weak sourcing for the use of wiki voice for a point connected to the ongoing political debateand there's nothing wrong with deferring this until there is an official report that will very likely clear it up. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You know very well that you don't have to use the Wiki's voice at all.That is not what you said eariler. What you said was, "Keep the original text." And I'm sure you know that we don't include everything reported in a reliable source, it is not that simple.
I've accepted several edits that remove the word "suspected". At this point there is no doubt Cruz did it. Even his defense admits it. Legacypac ( talk) 04:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
According to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Legal proceedings, Cruz was arraigned on 15 February and again on 13 March, both sourced. Is this possible? ― Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The prosecutor said the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cruz knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons when he burglarized the school and committed an especially heinous or cruel capital felony without the pretense of moral or legal justification.
Do we need this sentence? Seems to me it's a bunch of arcane legal jargon, probably a close paraphrase of the relevant part of the criminal code. Particularly the reference to burglary, which to most people means breaking into a building and stealing something. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure "qualification" is the best word there. Side benefit, this gets that problematic burglary terminology out of wiki voice and into a quotation. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)The prosecutor said the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a qualification for the death penalty: that Cruz "[sourced excerpt from the criminal code]".
― Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)He was arraigned on March 13, and the prosecution filed notice of their intent to seek the death penalty. They said they can prove five of the aggravating factors that qualify a murder for the death penalty in Florida.
Per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, he probably should be mentioned in this article but does not justify a stand-alone article. So Why 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't that included in the police report and that that it was Margate, Florida as his birthplace.? Shouldn't that be further specified? -- LLcentury ( talk) 20:25, 8 April 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.
No activity for 5 days, so I have requested an uninvolved close. [6] ― Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The list of the dead's names and ages was disputed, discussed, and lacks talk page consensus. The previous discussion went to archive with an 8–8 tie. The view at #No consensus for victims list [later archived] is that the list has acquired de facto consensus, in effect, and now requires a consensus to remove it.
Oppose inclusion of the victims list
Support inclusion of the victims list
"I ask myself whether I would want my name in such a list, or whether I would want my sister's name in such a list, and myself answers with a resounding "F no" to both questions."Obviously no one would want their name or their sister's name on such a list. Are you really providing a reason for omitting the victim's list? Your reason is obfuscatory. We should exclude information if a clear argument can be made that the inclusion of such information is objectionable. Bus stop ( talk) 15:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Obviously no one would want their name or their sister's name on such a list.I think that, to everyone but you, it's crystal clear that I meant I would not want our names on the list if we had been killed in this shooting. To interpret that as meaning that I wouldn't want either of us to be killed in this shooting is pretty blatant strawmanning—you are not interested in actually hearing what people are saying—and I'm not going to engage such tactics. There are no "clear" arguments on either side. The only thing "clear" is that you are unwilling or unable to hear the points made by me and Mr rnddude just above, or much of anything for that matter; so a continuation of this dialogue is not constructive. Good day. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
hear the points. I am objecting to the obfuscation. I think the onus is on you to articulate a case for this material to be considered objectionable. If it is objectionable, it should be omitted. But your argument is merely the weak argument that the inclusion of this information doesn't provide material that is useful to the reader. Many journalistic outlets provide this information. I understand that our purpose may vary from that of a journalistic outlet. But should that translate into our willfully omitting information what quite arguably is relevant to an article on this subject? Bus stop ( talk) 16:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood. I can change the names, or invent them myself, and they will not impact on your understanding of the event. To your second statement: Mandruss covers it well enough. To your third statement: NOTEVERYTHING is a policy in and of itself, moreover I've coupled it with ONUS... quite obviously. Mr rnddude ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The question is whether the inclusion of the names of the deceased constitutes some kind of impropriety. That may be your question, but that's not the question in front of the community. It also summarily ignores either of the policies I've linked. Impropriety is not the only reason to exclude material. You obviously don't agree with my or Mandruss' points, and your points aren't convincing to either of us. Mr rnddude ( talk) 16:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Does it help me get to grips with the subject matter?I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that. The subject matter is plainly obvious. There is nothing in the article that modifies the fact that a 19 year old male used a firearm to kill and maim many people in a school. Almost everything in the article is extraneous to those basic facts. Are the names of the victims more extraneous to the basic facts than for instance that it took place in what is called the freshman building? We provide many pieces of information simply because they are relevant facts. Must we? No. We are not required to include all relevant information. You are asking if information is helping you to get to grips with the subject matter. Nothing is going to help us to get to grips with the subject matter. Maybe the shooter will reveal a motive, or psychological analysis will result in a theory. The names of the victims obviously cannot help us to get to grips with the subject matter. You are eminently entitled to argue for keeping the victims names out of the article. But inclusion/exclusion of the names of the victims shouldn't be decided on the basis that they do or do not help us to get to grips with the subject matter. Bus stop ( talk) 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@
Mandruss: You should consider taking your issue to
WP:PUMP or start a
WP:RfC on the matter. If this has to go to
WP:ARBCOM then so be it. Personally I feel that there are lots of other things on Wikipedia that need the attention more but this is an issue that has popped up way too many times. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
|
the list of victims constitutes a memorial.It does not. If we were memorializing these deceased individuals we would be "remembering" them. Memorialization involves the presentation of brief vignettes excerpted from their lives. A key part of memorialization is remembrance. Included here are names and ages—only. Whether you have other reasons not to want the names listed—it is not memorialization. Bus stop ( talk) 13:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Mandruss has gone way overboard on WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. If it happens again we should discuss a topic ban. Legacypac ( talk) 21:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Just as a heads up, I'm going to work on a close tonight. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Why are all the dates in this article wrapped in {{ nowrap}} templates? I don't think I've ever seen this in any other wikipedia page. Is there a reason for this other than aesthetics? Is there a guideline or policy that supports this? My preference is to remove them entirely since it makes editing more difficult if you aren't familiar with the template. - Paul T +/ C 18:24, 11 April 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.
What should the heading of this section be? I've tried my best to represent all viable options below. If you think I've missed any, feel free to add it. AdA&D ★ 14:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Prior/current Discussions: On the section title "Nikolas Cruz", Improper use of the word SUSPECT in Section header
1: Nikolas Cruz
2: Perpetrator
3: Shooter
4: Gunman
5: Attacker
6: Suspect
Nikolas Cruz is ambiguous, and could refer to any number of people related to the shooting.Maybe, but a very reasonable first guess is the perpetrator of the shooting. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
'perpetrator' implies legal guilt? Whether he's found to be culpable, nobody doubts that it was a crime that was perpetrated. AdA&D ★ 00:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Added in a few links to previous or current discussion on the section name to the top of RfC. Don't think any relevant lengthy discussion are in any archives. Part of the reason it was changed to his name, was because some people had issue with it saying just suspect because he confessed to police. We can't use that confession to change it to shooter or attacker per BLPCRIME, and would need a guilty plea or other type of conviction.
Also was an RfC already necessary at this point? Couldn't we have just done a local survey or was the 4-4 (or whatever count) from previous discussion enough to determine we need outside input. I feel like we have enough contributors here where it could have been resolved fine. WikiVirus C (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
So many terms! "Mass murderer" is as good as any. "Suspect" amd variables of that are too soft. Legacypac ( talk) 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME is totally not applicable. He's been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder, he is a public figure as his name has been widely broadcast in connection with the most discussed crime this year. None of that even remotely suggests we need to consider protecting his name. Legacypac ( talk) 20:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. That is regardless of how famous or well known they are. "Mass murderer" would be wholly out of line with our policies. Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This is due for auto-archive soon, so this comment will serve to keep it here for at least another 3 days ({{
DNAU}}
is another option). The only way I know of to fairly and objectively weigh "consensus" with such complex !voting is using arithmetic, dividing !votes for multiples equally among them. If someone !votes for two options, each option gets 0.5. Using this system, and counting Bus stop's !vote as -1 for 1, I get: 1=3, 2=1.5, 6A=1.5, 3=1.25, 6=1.25, 4=0.25, 5=0.25. No majority, but a clear plurality and I think a majority will be unlikely no matter how long we leave this up. A run-off between the top two or three will be an option, if people feel it's worth the effort. ―
Mandruss
☎
21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The last wounded victim to remain hospitalized, 15-year-old Anthony Borges, was released from the hospital on April 4. Dubbed "the real Iron Man", Borges used his body to barricade the door of a classroom where twenty students were inside. He was shot five times.[49][50] Upon his release from the hospital, Borges' family's lawyer read a statement from the boy: "I know I’ve been called Iron Man. And while I’m honored to be called this, I am not. I’m a 15-year-old who’s been shot five times, while Broward Sheriff’s deputies waited outside and decided that they weren’t going to come in the building." Referring to Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel and School Superintendent Robert Runcie, Borges continued: "I want to thank you for visiting me in the hospital. But I want to say that both of you failed us, students and parents and teachers alike, on so many levels." Borges' family has filed notice with the local court of their intention to sue authorities for judgement to cover costs related to his recovery.
I have two issues with this paragraph. First, we are now devoting almost as much space to the wounded Borges as to all 17 dead combined, and I call that a weight and balance problem. Second, do we really want to include a quote that misstates the facts as we know them? Our best information is that the only cop outside during the shooting was Peterson, he was only there for about two minutes—it was over that fast—and he has given an explanation that is not false on its face. It is far from established that Peterson, let alone plural "deputies", "waited outside and decided that they weren’t going to come in the building." I know the article tells the rest of the story later, in the "Officer response" section, but are we going to assume readers read that far? If our purpose is to inform readers, is that quote worth leaving some number of readers with the wrong impression of the police response, one of the key issues in the story? Not in my view. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The last wounded victim to remain hospitalized, 15-year-old Anthony Borges, was released from the hospital on April 4. Dubbed "the real Iron Man", Borges used his body to barricade the door of a classroom where twenty students were inside. He was shot five times.[49][50] Upon his release from the hospital, Borges' issued a statement criticizing the actions of Broward Sheriff’s deputies as well as Sheriff Scott Israel and School Superintendent Robert Runcie. His family has filed notice with the local court of their intention to sue authorities for judgement to cover costs related to his recovery.
As an aside, not sure his name needs to be bolded per WP:R#PLA. I left it since another editor reverted me. -- Malerooster ( talk) 01:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
User Mandruss has twice deleted the following content at the very bottom of section "Suspect":
«Some victims chose to refer to the suspect as "18-1958" (his criminal case number) rather than use his name.
[1]
[2]»
As the content is well sourced, this looks like a personal opinion by Mandruss, whose justification for expunging the content is "unencyclopedic, trivial news". Maybe there is a new Wikipedia initiative to save 1000 bytes of server space I am unaware of.
XavierItzm (
talk)
18:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Pollack doesn't use Cruz's name but refers to him by the criminal case number "18-1958"
Just to clarify, I'll be referring to the shooter exclusively by his case number, 18-1958, for the duration of this thread in respect of the families wishes not to give any attention to his name.
You are invited to participate in this RfC, which is about whether to include certain content about NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch being heckled offstage at a CNN town hall meeting on gun policy. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps 1-2 democrats should get a word in as well? Assuming any have said anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
User Jackstig16 ( talk · contribs) added the following to the conspiracy theories section. I removed it immediately as it seems contentious. Please review to see if any of it can be used. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 19:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Conspiracy Theories A wide variety of conspiracy theories were circulated after the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High. Students were accused of being crisis actors, and were the victims of false claims and hoaxes surrounding the events following the shooting, such as the March for Our Lives David Hogg Student Activist David Hogg was accused of being a crisis actor. The report stems from a year-old news clip from CBS Los Angeles in which Hogg was interviewed about a confrontation he witnessed between a friend of his and a lifeguard. The incident was posted a year later by a youtube user going by the name of ‘mike m.’ with the caption ‘Daivd Hogg the Actor…’ The video would become the #1 ‘Trending’ video on the site, [1] before youtube removed it for violating its policies. [2] Benjamin Kelly, the district secretary for Florida State Representative Shawn Harrison (R) released a statement to the Tampa Bay Times claiming students David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez were “not students here but actors who travel to various crisis when they happen. [3]Kelly was fired shortly after Emma Gonzalez- Photoshop Controversy Student-activist Emma Gonzalez was the victim of another conspiracy theory involving a photoshopped picture. The original image appearing in Teen Vogue magazine depicted Gonzalez ripping up a shooting target. An online media outlet, Gab, tweeted a doctored version of this photo depicting Gonzalez ripping The Declaration of Independence. Gab later backtracked and stated that the image was “obviously parody/satire”. [4] March for Our Lives Another group of conspiracy theories arose immediately after the world-wide March for Our Lives held on March 24th, 2018. The Tea Party Command Center, a conservative blog, claimed to have found a ‘smoking gun,’ in the form of an advertisement posted on craigslist that indicated proof that left-leaning political contributor George Soros was paying protestors $300 to March in Los Angeles. The ad in question was, in fact, for indepentent contractors to sell merchandise at the event in Los Angeles. The ad indicated that those interested could make between $120-$300 based off a percentage commission of sales. [5] [6] The media outlet infowars also posted a 10 minute video to youtube indicating they had proof that George Soros and his charitable/activist organizations funded busses for activists to and from various marches. ‘Bots’ Involvement on Social Media In the wake of the shooting, a number of ‘bots’ took to social media to influence the public on political issues. [7]Botcheck.me, which analyzes 1500 known ‘political propaganda bots’ found that in the wake of the shooting, the most used two word phrases were School shooting, gun control, high school, Florida school. The top hashtags from the last 24 hours include Parkland, guncontrol, and guncontrolnow. [8]References
|
I thought I'd raise this one, since I removed the word "expelled" which was accompanied by what seemed a contradictory citation, and it has been put back in. I suppose, insomuch that Cruz was indeed forcibly removed from Stoneman Douglas, but not from the County Schools system, it is reasonable to apply the word "expelled" in this context. However, for me there are two reasons why the use of the word is misleading and should be avoided. First, the government is explicit that students are not expelled from the schools system, simply transferred to a different school if it's deemed appropriate. Given there is a global audience, the word could cause confusion in areas where expulsion means just that, expulsion from school, not just a school. Second, the word expulsion carries an implication of permanency, but here there is no permanency to a removal which can be reversed, and indeed was in the case of Cruz who was returned to the same school at least once.
For these reasons I think that the word "expelled" should be avoided where another word could be used. I would prefer the word "removed".
Makercomms ( talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Bohbye: could you specify which section has too much detail, and/or on what subject matter, that way editors can address or discuss which issue you have. WikiVirus C (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
In the officer response section we just describe him as the School Resource Officer(SRO), but the section has a hatnote saying Scot Peterson redirects here. He isn't named anywhere in article, and I believe at some point we decided(or at least discussed) to leave him unnamed. But it seems pointless to leave him unnamed in text and have a hatnote that has his full name there. I also am not even sure we need a redirect for him, especially with him only referred to as SRO in the article. The redirect for him had 117 views [9] in the last 30 days, 45 of them occurring on the day the redirect was adjusted towards the section. Any opinions on this? WikiVirus C (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
WP is not a memorial. The recently added section on the graduation is not relevant to the case. Some of the survivors will graduate in 2019. Will you then add another section on yet another graduation? What if anyone graduates in 2020? Maybe someone will graduate in 2021. My personal congratulations to the graduates, but it is maudlin and unencyclopaedic to have this section. XavierItzm ( talk) 08:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I renamed the section from “Suspect” to “Nikolas Cruz”, but I don’t know if it should be called “Perpetrator” or something similar. Is this a good title based on the content of the section? - Nick Gurr 7777 ( talk) 21:03, 9 June 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.
To prevent an edit war on the biography of Nik Cruz, I think a new article should be created discussing his life, and a little info about the shooting, similar to Columbine High School massacre and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. This was a major shooting, with more deaths than Columbine, so in my opinion, the perpetrator deserves his own page. - Nick Gurr 7777 ( talk) 02:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The official Stoneman Douglas Victims' Fund was created by Broward Education Foundation on the evening of February 14, 2018, and in partnership with GoFundMe and the National Compassion Fund, raised $10.5M for victims' families, survivors and those impacted by the horrific tragedy. Broward Education Foundation coalesced the Stoneman Douglas Victims' Fund Steering Committee, led by Senator George S. LeMieux and comprised of 18 prominent business, civic and community leaders to determine the distribution and allocation of funds. Pejayryan ( talk) 23:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
....he was spotted and recognized by a staff member, who radioed a colleague....The first staff member claimed his training called for only reporting threats; his colleague hid in a closet.... At about 2:21, the same staff member heard gunfire and activated a code red lockdown.
Bit confusing. Which staff member heard the activated code red? Moriori ( talk) 02:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
BBC News characterized Republican politicians' reactions as focusing on mental health issues while dodging debate on gun control, with the reasoning that it was either "too political or too soon". citation needed
to
BBC News characterized Republican politicians' reactions as focusing on mental health issues while dodging debate on gun control, with the reasoning that it was either "too political or too soon".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43079170|title=Florida shooting: Two Americas speak in aftermath|date=15 February 2018|author=Anthony Zurcher}}</ref>
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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Change under shooting section mentions he used multiple small capacity magazines, citing the Miami Herald where "Sen. Lauren Book, D-Plantation" says that he used only 10 round magazines after visiting the school as larger magazines would not fit in his duffle bag. I recommend not using this as fact and waiting for an official report on the incident as she is not an expert in any way. The reason I doubt the use of only 10 round mags for the AR is numerous, but the biggest factor is one of the students videos during the massacre records at least 25 round in quick succession, with no break in fire. So he had to use magazines with more than 10 rounds, at least 1. She also describes that “weapon and bullets were not high quality and were breaking apart", and that the gun jammed. I can only guess that she means that the gun malfunctioned and that maybe he had some magazine and ammunition indued failures, not the actual weapon breaking apart while firing.
I'm guessing that he had some 10 rounders along with some 30 rounders, and had one 10 round in the rifle to fit it in the duffle bag he supposedly put the rifle in. I cannot imagine that the relatively small 30 round Stanag magazines would not fit within the large space of the duffle a M&P-15 would fit in (although the bag may not have been of great depth, meaning he could not have been able to zip it up with a 30 rounder inserted into the rifle, it doesn't mean he could not fit extra mags along the profile of the rifle or is small pockets on the side of the bag that is commonly found on duffle bags). But this is only my educated guess. Glm.moulton ( talk) 18:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
One should also note that the pictures of Cruz's rifle he took himself has a 30 round magazine inserted into the rifle. While it may technically not be disproven 100% as some 10 round mags can have the shape and appearance of a larger capacity one (due to pinning), I believe this is also good evidence for skepticism of Book's expertise, or evidence for her lack of expertise. Although the change has been made, this is good evidence for the future of this page and the mention of magazine capacity. Glm.moulton ( talk) 17:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep the original text. This is a horrible example of editors doing their own WP:OR. Incredibly, people are questioning the WP:RS based, for example, on their own opinion of a video. In other articles, people's opinions after watching a video are usually dismissed with prejudice. Also, people are attacking what's being reported by a WP:RS based on their own opinions after looking at photos published long before the shooting, because people have seen old photos of the perp with long magazines! Not to mention that to do that one must actively and selectively ignore that the WP:RS specifically said the shooter was forced to use small magazines because of a backpack size constraint... a more selective and biased WP:OR is rarely seen. XavierItzm ( talk) 05:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
That's weak sourcing for the use of wiki voice for a point connected to the ongoing political debateand there's nothing wrong with deferring this until there is an official report that will very likely clear it up. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You know very well that you don't have to use the Wiki's voice at all.That is not what you said eariler. What you said was, "Keep the original text." And I'm sure you know that we don't include everything reported in a reliable source, it is not that simple.
I've accepted several edits that remove the word "suspected". At this point there is no doubt Cruz did it. Even his defense admits it. Legacypac ( talk) 04:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
According to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting#Legal proceedings, Cruz was arraigned on 15 February and again on 13 March, both sourced. Is this possible? ― Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The prosecutor said the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Cruz knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons when he burglarized the school and committed an especially heinous or cruel capital felony without the pretense of moral or legal justification.
Do we need this sentence? Seems to me it's a bunch of arcane legal jargon, probably a close paraphrase of the relevant part of the criminal code. Particularly the reference to burglary, which to most people means breaking into a building and stealing something. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure "qualification" is the best word there. Side benefit, this gets that problematic burglary terminology out of wiki voice and into a quotation. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)The prosecutor said the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a qualification for the death penalty: that Cruz "[sourced excerpt from the criminal code]".
― Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)He was arraigned on March 13, and the prosecution filed notice of their intent to seek the death penalty. They said they can prove five of the aggravating factors that qualify a murder for the death penalty in Florida.
Per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, he probably should be mentioned in this article but does not justify a stand-alone article. So Why 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't that included in the police report and that that it was Margate, Florida as his birthplace.? Shouldn't that be further specified? -- LLcentury ( talk) 20:25, 8 April 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.
No activity for 5 days, so I have requested an uninvolved close. [6] ― Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The list of the dead's names and ages was disputed, discussed, and lacks talk page consensus. The previous discussion went to archive with an 8–8 tie. The view at #No consensus for victims list [later archived] is that the list has acquired de facto consensus, in effect, and now requires a consensus to remove it.
Oppose inclusion of the victims list
Support inclusion of the victims list
"I ask myself whether I would want my name in such a list, or whether I would want my sister's name in such a list, and myself answers with a resounding "F no" to both questions."Obviously no one would want their name or their sister's name on such a list. Are you really providing a reason for omitting the victim's list? Your reason is obfuscatory. We should exclude information if a clear argument can be made that the inclusion of such information is objectionable. Bus stop ( talk) 15:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Obviously no one would want their name or their sister's name on such a list.I think that, to everyone but you, it's crystal clear that I meant I would not want our names on the list if we had been killed in this shooting. To interpret that as meaning that I wouldn't want either of us to be killed in this shooting is pretty blatant strawmanning—you are not interested in actually hearing what people are saying—and I'm not going to engage such tactics. There are no "clear" arguments on either side. The only thing "clear" is that you are unwilling or unable to hear the points made by me and Mr rnddude just above, or much of anything for that matter; so a continuation of this dialogue is not constructive. Good day. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
hear the points. I am objecting to the obfuscation. I think the onus is on you to articulate a case for this material to be considered objectionable. If it is objectionable, it should be omitted. But your argument is merely the weak argument that the inclusion of this information doesn't provide material that is useful to the reader. Many journalistic outlets provide this information. I understand that our purpose may vary from that of a journalistic outlet. But should that translate into our willfully omitting information what quite arguably is relevant to an article on this subject? Bus stop ( talk) 16:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood. I can change the names, or invent them myself, and they will not impact on your understanding of the event. To your second statement: Mandruss covers it well enough. To your third statement: NOTEVERYTHING is a policy in and of itself, moreover I've coupled it with ONUS... quite obviously. Mr rnddude ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The question is whether the inclusion of the names of the deceased constitutes some kind of impropriety. That may be your question, but that's not the question in front of the community. It also summarily ignores either of the policies I've linked. Impropriety is not the only reason to exclude material. You obviously don't agree with my or Mandruss' points, and your points aren't convincing to either of us. Mr rnddude ( talk) 16:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Does it help me get to grips with the subject matter?I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that. The subject matter is plainly obvious. There is nothing in the article that modifies the fact that a 19 year old male used a firearm to kill and maim many people in a school. Almost everything in the article is extraneous to those basic facts. Are the names of the victims more extraneous to the basic facts than for instance that it took place in what is called the freshman building? We provide many pieces of information simply because they are relevant facts. Must we? No. We are not required to include all relevant information. You are asking if information is helping you to get to grips with the subject matter. Nothing is going to help us to get to grips with the subject matter. Maybe the shooter will reveal a motive, or psychological analysis will result in a theory. The names of the victims obviously cannot help us to get to grips with the subject matter. You are eminently entitled to argue for keeping the victims names out of the article. But inclusion/exclusion of the names of the victims shouldn't be decided on the basis that they do or do not help us to get to grips with the subject matter. Bus stop ( talk) 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@
Mandruss: You should consider taking your issue to
WP:PUMP or start a
WP:RfC on the matter. If this has to go to
WP:ARBCOM then so be it. Personally I feel that there are lots of other things on Wikipedia that need the attention more but this is an issue that has popped up way too many times. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
|
the list of victims constitutes a memorial.It does not. If we were memorializing these deceased individuals we would be "remembering" them. Memorialization involves the presentation of brief vignettes excerpted from their lives. A key part of memorialization is remembrance. Included here are names and ages—only. Whether you have other reasons not to want the names listed—it is not memorialization. Bus stop ( talk) 13:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Mandruss has gone way overboard on WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. If it happens again we should discuss a topic ban. Legacypac ( talk) 21:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
|
Just as a heads up, I'm going to work on a close tonight. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Why are all the dates in this article wrapped in {{ nowrap}} templates? I don't think I've ever seen this in any other wikipedia page. Is there a reason for this other than aesthetics? Is there a guideline or policy that supports this? My preference is to remove them entirely since it makes editing more difficult if you aren't familiar with the template. - Paul T +/ C 18:24, 11 April 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.
What should the heading of this section be? I've tried my best to represent all viable options below. If you think I've missed any, feel free to add it. AdA&D ★ 14:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Prior/current Discussions: On the section title "Nikolas Cruz", Improper use of the word SUSPECT in Section header
1: Nikolas Cruz
2: Perpetrator
3: Shooter
4: Gunman
5: Attacker
6: Suspect
Nikolas Cruz is ambiguous, and could refer to any number of people related to the shooting.Maybe, but a very reasonable first guess is the perpetrator of the shooting. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
'perpetrator' implies legal guilt? Whether he's found to be culpable, nobody doubts that it was a crime that was perpetrated. AdA&D ★ 00:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Added in a few links to previous or current discussion on the section name to the top of RfC. Don't think any relevant lengthy discussion are in any archives. Part of the reason it was changed to his name, was because some people had issue with it saying just suspect because he confessed to police. We can't use that confession to change it to shooter or attacker per BLPCRIME, and would need a guilty plea or other type of conviction.
Also was an RfC already necessary at this point? Couldn't we have just done a local survey or was the 4-4 (or whatever count) from previous discussion enough to determine we need outside input. I feel like we have enough contributors here where it could have been resolved fine. WikiVirus C (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
So many terms! "Mass murderer" is as good as any. "Suspect" amd variables of that are too soft. Legacypac ( talk) 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME is totally not applicable. He's been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder, he is a public figure as his name has been widely broadcast in connection with the most discussed crime this year. None of that even remotely suggests we need to consider protecting his name. Legacypac ( talk) 20:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. That is regardless of how famous or well known they are. "Mass murderer" would be wholly out of line with our policies. Mr rnddude ( talk) 04:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This is due for auto-archive soon, so this comment will serve to keep it here for at least another 3 days ({{
DNAU}}
is another option). The only way I know of to fairly and objectively weigh "consensus" with such complex !voting is using arithmetic, dividing !votes for multiples equally among them. If someone !votes for two options, each option gets 0.5. Using this system, and counting Bus stop's !vote as -1 for 1, I get: 1=3, 2=1.5, 6A=1.5, 3=1.25, 6=1.25, 4=0.25, 5=0.25. No majority, but a clear plurality and I think a majority will be unlikely no matter how long we leave this up. A run-off between the top two or three will be an option, if people feel it's worth the effort. ―
Mandruss
☎
21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The last wounded victim to remain hospitalized, 15-year-old Anthony Borges, was released from the hospital on April 4. Dubbed "the real Iron Man", Borges used his body to barricade the door of a classroom where twenty students were inside. He was shot five times.[49][50] Upon his release from the hospital, Borges' family's lawyer read a statement from the boy: "I know I’ve been called Iron Man. And while I’m honored to be called this, I am not. I’m a 15-year-old who’s been shot five times, while Broward Sheriff’s deputies waited outside and decided that they weren’t going to come in the building." Referring to Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel and School Superintendent Robert Runcie, Borges continued: "I want to thank you for visiting me in the hospital. But I want to say that both of you failed us, students and parents and teachers alike, on so many levels." Borges' family has filed notice with the local court of their intention to sue authorities for judgement to cover costs related to his recovery.
I have two issues with this paragraph. First, we are now devoting almost as much space to the wounded Borges as to all 17 dead combined, and I call that a weight and balance problem. Second, do we really want to include a quote that misstates the facts as we know them? Our best information is that the only cop outside during the shooting was Peterson, he was only there for about two minutes—it was over that fast—and he has given an explanation that is not false on its face. It is far from established that Peterson, let alone plural "deputies", "waited outside and decided that they weren’t going to come in the building." I know the article tells the rest of the story later, in the "Officer response" section, but are we going to assume readers read that far? If our purpose is to inform readers, is that quote worth leaving some number of readers with the wrong impression of the police response, one of the key issues in the story? Not in my view. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The last wounded victim to remain hospitalized, 15-year-old Anthony Borges, was released from the hospital on April 4. Dubbed "the real Iron Man", Borges used his body to barricade the door of a classroom where twenty students were inside. He was shot five times.[49][50] Upon his release from the hospital, Borges' issued a statement criticizing the actions of Broward Sheriff’s deputies as well as Sheriff Scott Israel and School Superintendent Robert Runcie. His family has filed notice with the local court of their intention to sue authorities for judgement to cover costs related to his recovery.
As an aside, not sure his name needs to be bolded per WP:R#PLA. I left it since another editor reverted me. -- Malerooster ( talk) 01:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
User Mandruss has twice deleted the following content at the very bottom of section "Suspect":
«Some victims chose to refer to the suspect as "18-1958" (his criminal case number) rather than use his name.
[1]
[2]»
As the content is well sourced, this looks like a personal opinion by Mandruss, whose justification for expunging the content is "unencyclopedic, trivial news". Maybe there is a new Wikipedia initiative to save 1000 bytes of server space I am unaware of.
XavierItzm (
talk)
18:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Pollack doesn't use Cruz's name but refers to him by the criminal case number "18-1958"
Just to clarify, I'll be referring to the shooter exclusively by his case number, 18-1958, for the duration of this thread in respect of the families wishes not to give any attention to his name.
You are invited to participate in this RfC, which is about whether to include certain content about NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch being heckled offstage at a CNN town hall meeting on gun policy. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps 1-2 democrats should get a word in as well? Assuming any have said anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
User Jackstig16 ( talk · contribs) added the following to the conspiracy theories section. I removed it immediately as it seems contentious. Please review to see if any of it can be used. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 19:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Conspiracy Theories A wide variety of conspiracy theories were circulated after the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High. Students were accused of being crisis actors, and were the victims of false claims and hoaxes surrounding the events following the shooting, such as the March for Our Lives David Hogg Student Activist David Hogg was accused of being a crisis actor. The report stems from a year-old news clip from CBS Los Angeles in which Hogg was interviewed about a confrontation he witnessed between a friend of his and a lifeguard. The incident was posted a year later by a youtube user going by the name of ‘mike m.’ with the caption ‘Daivd Hogg the Actor…’ The video would become the #1 ‘Trending’ video on the site, [1] before youtube removed it for violating its policies. [2] Benjamin Kelly, the district secretary for Florida State Representative Shawn Harrison (R) released a statement to the Tampa Bay Times claiming students David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez were “not students here but actors who travel to various crisis when they happen. [3]Kelly was fired shortly after Emma Gonzalez- Photoshop Controversy Student-activist Emma Gonzalez was the victim of another conspiracy theory involving a photoshopped picture. The original image appearing in Teen Vogue magazine depicted Gonzalez ripping up a shooting target. An online media outlet, Gab, tweeted a doctored version of this photo depicting Gonzalez ripping The Declaration of Independence. Gab later backtracked and stated that the image was “obviously parody/satire”. [4] March for Our Lives Another group of conspiracy theories arose immediately after the world-wide March for Our Lives held on March 24th, 2018. The Tea Party Command Center, a conservative blog, claimed to have found a ‘smoking gun,’ in the form of an advertisement posted on craigslist that indicated proof that left-leaning political contributor George Soros was paying protestors $300 to March in Los Angeles. The ad in question was, in fact, for indepentent contractors to sell merchandise at the event in Los Angeles. The ad indicated that those interested could make between $120-$300 based off a percentage commission of sales. [5] [6] The media outlet infowars also posted a 10 minute video to youtube indicating they had proof that George Soros and his charitable/activist organizations funded busses for activists to and from various marches. ‘Bots’ Involvement on Social Media In the wake of the shooting, a number of ‘bots’ took to social media to influence the public on political issues. [7]Botcheck.me, which analyzes 1500 known ‘political propaganda bots’ found that in the wake of the shooting, the most used two word phrases were School shooting, gun control, high school, Florida school. The top hashtags from the last 24 hours include Parkland, guncontrol, and guncontrolnow. [8]References
|
I thought I'd raise this one, since I removed the word "expelled" which was accompanied by what seemed a contradictory citation, and it has been put back in. I suppose, insomuch that Cruz was indeed forcibly removed from Stoneman Douglas, but not from the County Schools system, it is reasonable to apply the word "expelled" in this context. However, for me there are two reasons why the use of the word is misleading and should be avoided. First, the government is explicit that students are not expelled from the schools system, simply transferred to a different school if it's deemed appropriate. Given there is a global audience, the word could cause confusion in areas where expulsion means just that, expulsion from school, not just a school. Second, the word expulsion carries an implication of permanency, but here there is no permanency to a removal which can be reversed, and indeed was in the case of Cruz who was returned to the same school at least once.
For these reasons I think that the word "expelled" should be avoided where another word could be used. I would prefer the word "removed".
Makercomms ( talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Bohbye: could you specify which section has too much detail, and/or on what subject matter, that way editors can address or discuss which issue you have. WikiVirus C (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
In the officer response section we just describe him as the School Resource Officer(SRO), but the section has a hatnote saying Scot Peterson redirects here. He isn't named anywhere in article, and I believe at some point we decided(or at least discussed) to leave him unnamed. But it seems pointless to leave him unnamed in text and have a hatnote that has his full name there. I also am not even sure we need a redirect for him, especially with him only referred to as SRO in the article. The redirect for him had 117 views [9] in the last 30 days, 45 of them occurring on the day the redirect was adjusted towards the section. Any opinions on this? WikiVirus C (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
WP is not a memorial. The recently added section on the graduation is not relevant to the case. Some of the survivors will graduate in 2019. Will you then add another section on yet another graduation? What if anyone graduates in 2020? Maybe someone will graduate in 2021. My personal congratulations to the graduates, but it is maudlin and unencyclopaedic to have this section. XavierItzm ( talk) 08:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I renamed the section from “Suspect” to “Nikolas Cruz”, but I don’t know if it should be called “Perpetrator” or something similar. Is this a good title based on the content of the section? - Nick Gurr 7777 ( talk) 21:03, 9 June 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.
To prevent an edit war on the biography of Nik Cruz, I think a new article should be created discussing his life, and a little info about the shooting, similar to Columbine High School massacre and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. This was a major shooting, with more deaths than Columbine, so in my opinion, the perpetrator deserves his own page. - Nick Gurr 7777 ( talk) 02:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The official Stoneman Douglas Victims' Fund was created by Broward Education Foundation on the evening of February 14, 2018, and in partnership with GoFundMe and the National Compassion Fund, raised $10.5M for victims' families, survivors and those impacted by the horrific tragedy. Broward Education Foundation coalesced the Stoneman Douglas Victims' Fund Steering Committee, led by Senator George S. LeMieux and comprised of 18 prominent business, civic and community leaders to determine the distribution and allocation of funds. Pejayryan ( talk) 23:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
....he was spotted and recognized by a staff member, who radioed a colleague....The first staff member claimed his training called for only reporting threats; his colleague hid in a closet.... At about 2:21, the same staff member heard gunfire and activated a code red lockdown.
Bit confusing. Which staff member heard the activated code red? Moriori ( talk) 02:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
BBC News characterized Republican politicians' reactions as focusing on mental health issues while dodging debate on gun control, with the reasoning that it was either "too political or too soon". citation needed
to
BBC News characterized Republican politicians' reactions as focusing on mental health issues while dodging debate on gun control, with the reasoning that it was either "too political or too soon".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43079170|title=Florida shooting: Two Americas speak in aftermath|date=15 February 2018|author=Anthony Zurcher}}</ref>