This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Toree Thompson (article contribs).

Improper use of the word SUSPECT in Section header

Nikolas Cruz has already confessed to the murders. Once a criminal confesses to a crime, he or she is no longer considered to be a suspect. Someone has the idea that a person is a suspect until they are convicted. That is a false premise. The header for the Section "Suspect" should be changed to "Profile of a killer." Cruz is no longer a suspect in the crime. He is not even an alleged killer. He is the ACTUAL killer. Anthony22 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether he did it or not, we have policies on Wikipedia that are very strict when it comes to a living person. As I linked in my edit comment, refer to WP:BLPCRIME. Even news articles will use alleged, as it is standard procedure to do so until a conviction. It is mandatory on Wikipedia to do so or else it is a WP:BLP violation. We aren't trying to imply he didn't do it, but per policy it will be accused killer until conviction. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but ... "accused killer" is very different than "suspected killer" ... no? The former implies that the authorities have accused Cruz, but Cruz was not necessarily found guilty in the legal sense by a judge or jury. The latter implies that the authorities "think" (suspect) Cruz did the crime, but even that "fact" is not yet certain. No? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged or suspect works. Killer by itself does not. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change to "Attacker" as section header (since noone doubts he is the shooter) but it was reverted. I think this is better than something like "Perpetrator" that implies legal guilt. I think it's appropriate to reflect facts, while not prejudicing a trial verdict.--Pharos (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I told Pharos in my editsum, I reverted just because I thought this needed prior consensus, not because I was strongly opposed to "Attacker". So how about a little participation? As I generally prefer to err on the side of caution, I'm not in a big hurry to replace the word Suspect in that heading. I also tend to react negatively to rationales about bias, idiocy, and related evils. I personally don't see much need for any label at all in that heading, and I would be happy with something like "Nikolas Cruz". Otherwise, I'm ambivalent and would like to see some arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want to put 'attacker' or 'shooter' in a section title, BLP concerns. The present format of using the suspect's name as the section title seems best. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'Suspect' (or some other descriptor) is actually better than his name. 'Suspect' isn't ideal, but we don't use the names of attackers for section titles in other articles.--Pharos (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FBI

Following the FBI flub, Florida Governor Rick Scott called on the FBI Director to resign. Here is the aftermath:

The breakdown prompted a wave of recriminations from Florida officials, including Gov. Rick Scott who called on Wray to resign.

“The FBI’s failure to take action against this killer is unacceptable," Scott said. “Seventeen innocent people are dead and acknowledging a mistake isn’t going to cut it.

Notice that Scott referred to Cruz as a killer, not a suspect. It would have been absurd for Scott to call Cruz a "suspect." Anthony22 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perry? Perry is the former governor of Texas. Scott is the Governor of Florida (who you wikilinked). But he can use the word he wants in his statement, he doesn't have to follow Wikipedia guidelines. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no legal danger of naming him as the killer, now. Once he has confessed, Wiki is absolutely on totally safe ground - he's a public figure, now - all the newspapers are calling him the killer. The other evidence about him is also overwhelming. You can continue to hide your head in the sand about this and spout BLP but it really is no longer necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.16.173 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia rules and legality are two different things. I never claimed legal reasons. If you have issue with the policy, that's fine, we still have to follow it unless it is changed. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being a public figure means it is okay to list Cruz's name, but giving a confession does not put us on safe BLP ground to call someone a killer prior to a conviction resulting from the confession. People have been coerced into false confessions before, so our burden of proof is the conviction, not a confession which hasn't yet stood up to trial process. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is clear he did the shooting, then "perpetrator" would be fine. It is strange to say "the shooting took place" and then a sentence later "the suspected shooter". Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

allegedly Jewish real mom

This discussion is going all over the place, I am seeing a consensus though not to include that the mother is Jewish (real or fake). In my own opinion I feel this falls under WP:OFFTOPIC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe I've found the common denominator between all these shooters: they all have fictional Jewish mothers, as per random quotes attributed to no one.

Seriously, we went through this in 2011 with Jared Loughner (see this and this).

It was essentially the same quote then ("Loughner listed Mein Kampf as a favorite book in part to provoke his Jewish mother", 2011, versus "My real mom was a Jew. I am glad I never met her", 2018).

Of course, Loughner's mother's genealogy was (relatively) easy to find, and so it was possible to disprove this random claim and see that his mother isn't Jewish. Cruz is adopted, so the very clever angle here is that it's nearly impossible to find any genealogical information about his biological mother, henceforth, the totally unsourced quote is the default.

So, I shall be removing the claim from the article, as per the Loughner Rule, until someone can establish the names of Cruz's biological maternal grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Then there's WP:WEIGHT anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AHW, I'm all for requiring good sourcing for the quote but I'm not seeing how these are "essentially the same quote". On further analysis, if we have CNN making the claim, that seems notable enough to mention. Although CNN appears to have been the first to have reported this you can see a variety of other news outlets have picked up the Instagram quote:

I believe all of them attribute CNN properly for exposing the quote. I think this establishes the 'weight' Mandruss referred to. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning it along with his other racist comments is one thing, but I object to including it in the section on his early life, as there is no reliable information about his birth parents.--Pharos (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know it's not really the same quote, but it's
1. Jared Loughner was into anti-Semitic material so as to anger his Jewish mother.
and
2. Nikolas Cruz hates Jews and therefore, or because of, his Jewish, birth mother.
It sounds similar enough so as to suspect trolling by life, or whatever. Anyway, I don't mind being lawyerly about this: Cruz, in this absolutely verified quote that he doubtless did say, may not have been speaking literally. He could have just used "Jew" as a pejorative term (i.e. "stop being such a Jew", etc.) rather than giving us a biographical tidbit about his biological mother. BTW, this woman, whoever she is, had two children by two different fathers in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and then gave them up for adoption to an elderly couple because she couldn't take care of them. All of this... doesn't sound very Jewish. The Loughner source was Mother Jones magazine, a reliable source, and it was reprinted. I think this falls under the "fool me once..." principle. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is really stretching it with the arcane semantics. We have a reliable reference from CNN where he describes his birth mother as Jewish. If we're getting the antisemitism tidbit in there, then that is even more reason to mention his own self-professed Jewish background. It really must be a two for one deal, if the word "antisemitism" remains in the article, then "Jewish mother" must too.

It is not clear if his alleged private statements about Jews are any more relevant to the shooting itself (what the article is about, not just Cruz) than what he had for breakfast that day. Is there any evidence that he tried to specifically target Jews in this shooting? From the names of the victims, only a couple appear to be Jewish. Loughran is an Irish name, Wang is a Chinese name, Ramsay is a Scottish name, Montalto is an Italian name. Doesn't appear the attacker was selecting his victims based on race, let alone religious sect. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@All Hallow's Wraith: re special:diff/826776378 where you pruned a quote including "His birth mother was Mexican" in your summary, please do not introduce any original research here. If you have a source saying she was Mexican, feel free to add that, but do not remove the reliably sourced information about him referring to his mother as Jewish, per CNN. These are not mutually exclusive either, see Judaism in Mexico and List of Mexican Jews, so even if you can find a source saying she's Mexican that is not grounds to remove the Jewish info. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mexican thing was a "joke". And I don't mind stretching semantics. I haven't forgotten the Jared Loughner thing, and I'm not going to. Fool me once... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, some interesting information about Cruz's biological mother here. It says, among other things, that "only" Roger and Lynda Cruz knew of her identity. Not sure if that means Nikolas didn't. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the article written by Laurie Mizrahi and Max Jaeger said. It refers to "according to a source who took the picture but asked to remain anonymous" then "Only Lynda and Roger knew who the boys’ birth parents were, but Lynda said the boys’ biological mother was a “drug addict,” according to the source." then "She had Zachary involuntarily committed Friday, the source said." The ATTS at the end is simply Mizrahi and Jaeger reporting the claims of this anon. We have no grounds for establishing this anonymous source as reliably knowing whether or not Cruz knew anything about Lynda stating his mother was a drug addict, or anything else about her. If Lynda told the source at some point, who's to say whether or not Cruz overheard? ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is being being promoted by people like Paul Nehlen now, alongside other dubious claims.--Pharos (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, Nehlen, another tell-it-like-it-iser. Klebold was of one quarter Jewish descent, but Loughner, Lanza, Holmes, and Rodger (not Rodgers) are/were not Jewish at all. In fact, I don't know of any school shooters of Jewish ancestry other than Klebold. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the title of this section. The OP did his own personal research and claims Cruz's mother is not Jewish w/o any evidence other than the fact another loony perp (Loughner) imagined a Jewish mother. Now, we must go by what WP:RS say. And what CNN says is that Cruz wrote antisemitic stuff and the guy wrote his mother is Jewish. For all we know, what Cruz wrote is false (i.e., he is not antisemitic and he does not have a Jewish mother), or what Cruz wrote is true (yes, he is antisemitic and his mother is Jewish). What is a horrible case of cherrypicking is for editors to only pick what they like. Either do away with all of it, or put all of it in. XavierItzm (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change my title. Anyway, I was just going to chime in to say this new article has some interesting information, including that Cruz was raised Catholic. BTW, while they are not mass shooters, I haven't forgotten the cases of Michael Richards (see here) and Charlie Sheen (see here). In short, all I have to say is, "no". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "your" title. Section headings are community property. I've made the heading neutral per WP:TALKNEW bullet 4. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal of fictional, as that appears to be an attack ether on the credibility of Cruz or of CNN. I noticed AHW put in quotes afterward in special:diff/827737924 but that makes it sound like something someone said, when the quote is actually "my real mom was a Jew". I've prefixed Jewish with allegedly rather than quotes, so it doesn't look like we are quoting, and shortened mother to mom because that is what the CNN quote does. I have also added "real" because that is the adjective in the quote, to avoid confusion with Cruz' recently deceased adopted mother. 04:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
XavierItzm: In this editsum you compare his statement that his birth mother was Jewish to his statement that he is antisemitic. One is a statement of his own views, and I think he's a reliable primary source about his own views. The other is a statement about information that he can't be assumed to know. There's no indication I'm aware of that he knows the first thing about his birth mother. So you've drawn a false equivalence, and there is no basis for your argument that we have to include one because we include the other. If you propose to include this to show merely that he believes his birth mother was Jewish, I oppose that per weight and relevance. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The exact quote was "My real mom was a Jew. I am glad I never met her". If he wrote Jewish, it would be one thing, but he wrote Jew, which can be used to mean Jewish, or by others it is used as a derogatory term towards someone that is cheap, or someone that you just don't like. Antisemitics are a prime example of people who will use it in a derogatory way. We can clearly see he isn't a fan of his "real" mother, and calling her a Jew in a negative way while saying he is glad he never met her is very possible. Enough so that we can't say its exact meaning one way or another. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty silly. So he's not actually saying his real mom is Jewish by calling her "a Jew" but he does mean Jewish people when he says "I hate jews"? Please stop engaging in OR here. Unless we have a source claiming this weird double standard, the common meaning of Jew refers to Jewish people, especially in this context where CNN only talks about him being antisemetic and not about him being anti-cheapskate. Do you realize how silly it looks to others when assert he doesn't mean Jewish by "Jew" when referring to his mom, but does mean Jewish when he says "jews"? ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word jew in a negative meaner isn't something new, there are sources you can search for yourself. Jew (word)#Antisemitism, even talks about it. The word Jew has been used often enough in a disparaging manner by antisemites that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was frequently avoided altogether, and the term Hebrew was substituted instead (e.g. Young Men's Hebrew Association). Even today some people are wary of its use, and prefer to use "Jewish". Indeed, when used as an adjective (e.g. "Jew lawyer") or verb (e.g. "to jew someone"), the term Jew is purely pejorative. I am not asserting he means this here or that there, that is the whole point, we don't know how he was using it. This isn't OR since we aren't indicating this is the way he was using the word, but we don't know so we can't say either way. This is why we can't use the log from an Instagram chat to determine his birth mothers heritage. WikiVirusC(talk) 06:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a substantial difference between saying "I hate Jews" and saying "I hate Jews, and I hate that notorious Jewish real estate developer Donald Trump". One is just a personal prejudice, and one adds a factual claim. There are people who project hated categories onto people they dislike, even their own parents. Cruz has never met Donald Trump, and according to the same Instagram statement, he has never met his birth mother.--Pharos (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are not asserting that his mother actually is Jewish, only that he stated she was. If I said "I hate martians, my dad was a Martian, I'm glad I never met him" then it would be fine for you to say "Scratch expressed hatred toward martians and claimed to have a martian father". Both aspects of that sentence are equally sourced, because both are based on statements from me. That's exactly what this is here. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"NRA-funded" JROTC

A recent edit to this article now described JROTC as "NRA-funded". I'm not disputing that JROTC receives funding from the NRA. However, it seems that the placement of this in the Cruz section could cause readers to infer negative thoughts on the NRA. In the Victims section, where JROTC is first mentioned, we don't mention the NRA funding, which could cause some readers to infer positive thoughts on the NRA. In an effort to remain neutral, I have removed the "NRA-funded" adjective. GoingBatty (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well they funded JROTC to the tune of over $10,000 in just that one school, in one year. See: [1]. You don't think that the referenced fact of them paying to train a mass murderer to kill people is on topic???GliderMaven (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - there are many reasonable criticisms of the NRA, and positive things as well. I think we should not imply that the NRA paid to train Cruz - or Wang/Petty/Duque. GoingBatty (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BUT THEY DID PAY TO TRAIN CRUZ!GliderMaven (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't yell. You provided a reliable source that says that NRA gave money to the school's JROTC group. I don't want to imply that the NRA's intent was to train a mass murderer, just like I don't want to imply that the NRA giving money to JROTC was intended to help Wang/Petty/Duque to become better citizens and put others before themselves. GoingBatty (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not see anything in the article that states the NRA was paying the "air-rifle marksmanship team" to train to kill people. GoingBatty (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone else funded the JROTC, or just the NRA? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JROTC: "federal program sponsored by the United States Armed Forces". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Process discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you've removed it multiple times, apparently against multiple people, and I'm the one that's rever warring how exactly?GliderMaven (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Check the history, I removed it once (that's the R in WP:BRD). You reverted me, which is the second R in BRD. Oh wait, there is no second R in BRD. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NO I only made two edits. Where's the third one come from????GliderMaven (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:BRD? Here's how it works. You make a bold edit (B). I dispute it by reverting it (R). You either accept my rationale for disputing it or start a discussion (D). Instead, you re-reverted, which is technically WP:edit warring. We don't resolve edit disputes by re-reverts, and edit summaries are not for discussions. I'm sorry that other editors do this so often that you think it's normal, and that's not your fault. But now you know. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The NRA fund JROTC to the tune of millions of dollars per year, $10,000 in that one school.GliderMaven (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mandruss, I fail to see your point. So for you "funded" means "sponsored"? I don't find that very surprising given the meanings of those words. Are you proposing inserting "NRA-sponsored"? That's fine with me. But which assumption are you talking about, and why does that matter? Drmies (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm saying that I would read "NRA-funded" as JROTC is an NRA program. Whether that's a correct reading of the term or not is immaterial, what matters is whether I'm more or less typical in that interpretation. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I just feel we need significant RS to talk about NRA funding of JROTC in the context of this shooting. I mean discuss it, not just mention it in passing as that source does. If we have that, and I would think more than one source would be needed, we should discuss the relationship briefly instead of just the vague "NRA-funded". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hogg v Trump

I notice that the article mentions both of their involvement in the aftermath, but hasn't actually highlighted upon the attacks Hogg has made against Trump personally, or Hogg's defense of the FBI, or Hogg having a parental connection to the FBI. I think this is worth mentioning if we're going to talk about Hogg and his involvement in the push against the government. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Donald Trump, anti-Americanism and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for things like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
This isn't the article to chronicle the details of Hogg's life or his apparent connections to the FBI (which mostly seem fodder for conspiracy theorists). This talk page also isn't for snark about Hogg being "anti-American", however that's supposed to be connected (anti-Trump? pro-gun control? idk) FallingGravity 07:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do they call pushing against the government where you're from? Feel free to replace my link with the article on whatever it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
These details should not be covered here. I don't know what "defense of the FBI" or "push against the government" are supposed to mean.- MrX 🖋 13:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, either, to be clear. I just read what Scratch wrote and picked out three pertinent topics. Not calling Hogg, Trump or the FBI "un-American", if anyone's reading deeper into that. I don't even follow those storylines, which is how I know they're not shooting angles. If he was talking about The Un-Americans, The Full Blooded Italians, Henry O. Godwinn or Trump and his black friend reigning supreme, I'd know exactly what he meant. Read into those connections what you will, but they're merely tangential, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Followup comment: I don't think being against any particular presidential incarnation of government (ie the Trump government) makes one against the country. I did not insinuate that Hoff was Anti-American. Being anti-Trump is not un-American just like being anti-Obama is not un-American. My point is simply that he spoke against Trump rather than against FBI. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Sheriff’s Deputy ‘Never Went In’ During Florida Shooting

According to The New York Times:

The only armed security guard on campus during a deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school last week “never went in” to a building to try to take down the shooting suspect, Sheriff Scott Israel of Broward County said at a news conference on Thursday. Scot Peterson, a sheriff’s deputy, resigned on Thursday after Mr. Israel placed him under an internal affairs investigation for failing to meet the standards of the sheriff’s office.

Police protocol requires confronting shooting suspects as quickly as possible. Mr. Peterson should have “went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer,” Sheriff Israel said at a news conference in Fort Lauderdale.

Instead, the deputy remained outside the freshman building at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Feb. 14 for “upwards of four minutes” while the shooting suspect, Nikolas Cruz, was inside.

Surveillance video showed Mr. Peterson was doing “nothing,” Mr. Israel said.

Mr. Israel described himself as “devastated, sick to my stomach.”

“There are no words,” he said.

Sheriff Israel, flanked by two of his top aides, appeared emotional during the news conference where he described Mr. Peterson’s conduct. His eyes appeared to glisten, and his speech was sometimes halting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting.html

TheHoax (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was added in a short while ago [5], then moved up [6]. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a big deal. In the "Aftermath" section, we should talk about how Peterson failed to intervene and the Broward County Sheriff's investigation into his conduct. One sentence in an entire article is wholly inadequate. TheHoax (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's three sentences, not one, and I feel they cover the situation adequately without undue weight. I will oppose any expansion other than adding his name if there is a consensus to do so in the subsection below. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss Don't you oppose anything and everything anybody else does? TheHoax (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ask anybody. That's my function here, to make everybody's life as difficult as possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the school resource officer

The officer failed to engage the shooter, which was part of his job description as a cop and as a school resource officer. He later resigned, and was pretty much publicly shamed by his boss, the sheriff. We have related content in two sections. Do we add his name or omit the name per WP:BLPNAME? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it."
His name is on the New York Times and other newspapers. Sheriff Israel even mentioned him by name: "Scott Peterson was absolutely on campus for this entire event".
WP:BLPNAME does not apply. TheHoax (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we're calling out a guy for running into a gunfight without a gun, we may as well name the guy who had ran away from it with one. Don't go too harshly on him, of course, because he's still a living person and Cruz had the bigger gun. No loaded quotes, just the facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, February 23, 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any value in naming him in the article. We should leave it out.- MrX 🖋 01:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr The "issue" that Mandruss raised is whether including Peterson's name violate WP:BLPNAME or not and it doesn't. TheHoax (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know it doesn't violate policy, but I'm arguing that adding it does not improve the article.- MrX 🖋 01:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I felt it violated the spirit of BLPNAME, but I've stricken that since you say so. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It probably does violate the spirit of BLPNAME, and WP:NOTSCANDAL, and WP:NOTNEWS. The benefits of omitting his name outweigh the benefits of including it.- MrX 🖋 01:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Spirit" don't count. Could you imagine people just go to different pages and argue that something violate the "spirit" of Rule X, Y, Z ? TheHoax (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't imagine it till I saw it with my own eyes, back in '09. Since then, I've tried to imagine it, but it always feels like remembering all over again. It's not even just a Talk Page phrase anymore, it permeates everything from Sponsored post to Cunnilingus in Halacha. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, February 23, 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's ridiculous. "Spirit" doesn't count. Either something violates a rule or it doesn't. TheHoax (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're "violating the spirit" of your own rule about saying it again, 28 minutes later. I'm afraid it's spread to you, too. Good luck finding a cure! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, February 23, 2018 (UTC)
Omit There's no reason to name him. If his name is that widely published, people can look it up elsewhere if they want. Adding it would contribute nothing of value to the article and this man's role only comprises a small part of the shooting. -- Veggies (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Veggies I don't see why 'Broward Sheriff Scott Israel said that "[a school resource officer] was absolutely on campus for this entire event"' is better than 'Broward Sheriff Scott Israel said that "Scott Peterson was absolutely on campus for this entire event"' TheHoax (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Omit per MrX and Veggies. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we already know your objection. You don't have to say it again. TheHoax (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Omit - (1) Opens up BLPNAME, (2) reads the entire thing, (3) finds this recommendation: When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. While not explicitly required, it's a solid recommendation. Do we have any sources that aren't newspapers publishing this guys name? I don't see any particular reason to include his name. So I fall on the side of: leave as is. I am curious as to what he was armed with; a 9mm handgun? because pitching your handgun against an "AR-15 style rifle" isn't much of a fair fight. Still much better than [our fallen hero's] fist vs rifle, though. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His name was only released a few hours ago so obviously there aren't going to be other sources (other than the news) that has his name in it. There are no journal article with Nikolas Jacob Cruz's name in it even though we know his name since a week ago, yet we are not omitting his name. TheHoax (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We omitted it for longer than a few hours, though. Wouldn't hurt to make sure this isn't the Scott Peterson. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, February 23, 2018 (UTC)
I think San Quentin would have noticed his bunk was empty by now. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we've only know this guys name for a few hours, why the hell are we you rushing to include it??? Mr rnddude (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who's "we"? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Omit President Trump mentioned this. Scot Peterson's name is now well publicized. People have the right to know the fact that an armed and uniformed officer did nothing while teenagers and their teachers were gunned down in cold blood. JW19335762743 (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are omitting lots of names that are now well publicized. We already state that the deputy failed to enter, as well as some reaction to that; all we're omitting is his name. So your comment makes little sense, as well as being emotion-based instead of policy-based. This issue appears to be settled. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Peterson High School"? Is that a typo? I read "On September 23, 2016, a peer counselor notified Peterson High School of Cruz's suicide attempt and intent to buy a gun..." Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read that as a different school in Parkland or nearby, unrelated to this deputy. Remember, six transfers in 3 years, so he could have been attending Peterson at the time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see mention of "Peterson High School" in the 3 supporting sources. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you might be right. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping this clears it up. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this edit is acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If only the big guy had been outside the school instead of playing the American President on TV, so many live could have been saved. [7] Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

The current title isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. The large majority of media articles about it don't include Stoneman Douglas in their titles. The Columbine High School massacre is different in that respect, because it's commonly known by that name due to Columbine being the name of the settlement where it occurred. We don't include Pulse in the title of the Orlando nightclub shooting. We don't name the Beslan school siege the School Number One siege. Jim Michael (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still all for Florida school shooting, and even moreso if Never Again has its way. But also for waiting a week or two. The headlines haven't quite settled yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, February 23, 2018 (UTC)
Florida school massacre would make more sense, as it's not the only shooting that's happened at a Florida school. This school's name is unknown to people outside Florida and if you were talking about this mass shooting to anyone other than Floridians there's no way that you'd reference it by using the name of the school. Jim Michael (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody had called the other a school shooting online until I brought it up and it was yoinked as a redirect. It'll happen to your suggested link, too. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, February 23, 2018 (UTC)
Nathaniel Brazill's shooting of a teacher at his school happened in Florida, so it fits the description of Florida school shooting. There was only one victim, so it can't be described as a massacre - whereas this mass shooting easily has enough victims to be described as a massacre. It's bizarre that this article's title includes shooting rather than massacre, when fewer people were killed at Columbine High School and we do describe the mass shooting there as a massacre in its title. Jim Michael (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: not sure why you are saying "nobody". Oh wait, "online" is like your special:diff/825773842 "on the internet". The internet wasn't as massive as it is now back in 2000. I believe https://books.google.ca/books?id=84g6V0GXDzcC&pg=PA117#v=onepage&q=florida%20school%20shooting&f=false citation of Reuters is still good evidence to disambiguate. "Massacre" would be fine because 1 death isn't a massacre. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 1#Requested move 15 February 2018 for the "clear consensus" for the current title, now about 7+1⁄2 days old. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion lasted less than 19 hours before it was closed. Many readers would have been unaware of it at the time. Jim Michael (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: At least you have substantial experience, unlike most of the others who have dropped by to propose other moves with very flimsy rationales. If you feel it's important, I wouldn't oppose another RM now, but I think an RM would be needed to replace an RM.
I would take issue with This school's name is unknown to people outside Florida since I'm seeing "Stoneman Douglas" (or "Marjory Stoneman Douglas") all over RS. One or the other occurs 13 times in the article's current References section alone.
For current events, my interpretation of COMMONNAME is seen in this comment in the RM, and that's probably the position I would take in a new RM. It's unlikely this shooting is going to be widely known by any one name at all in a year, and that's my criterion. If history proves me wrong, there could be another RM after a year.
And finally, the problem with too much reliance on precedent is that it largely kills improvement. You can't have both consistency and evolution on things like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support Florida school massacre, because WP:TITLE calls for precision and recognizability. A scan of Category:School shootings in the United States shows that the current title is consistent with our standard practice. Besides that, with the nearly $¼ billion budget of the NRA and a legislature more concerned with porn that assault rifles, do you really think this will be the last shooting in a Florida school?- MrX 🖋 12:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because "assault rifles" (presumably you mean selective-fire and/or automatic rifles, and not semi-automatic rifles as that would mean almost every modern rifle in production) are already illegal for citizens to own in the U.S. with few exceptions (automatic rifles purchased before 1986 were excluded from the ban). It's been illegal in the U.S. to own automatic firearms since 1986 with FOPA brought in by non other than Ronald Reagan, and the later Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994–2004 didn't target assault rifles, only semi-automatic rifles that looked like assault rifles. I'm not an American and I know this basic shit (strike reason: not fair to call it that; misleading impression that I'm saying someone is stupid). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not be pedantic. Obviously I was referring to semi-automatic rifles/carbines, not automatic rifles. "Assault rifle" is not my term, but it is commonly used by the media and politicians to refer to these types of weapons.- MrX 🖋 13:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd postulate that you know this basic shit because you're not an American. Speaking as an American. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When the ban happened in 1994, the DOJ defined assault weapons as "semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."[8] ATF even used to describe it as the "semi-automatic assault weapons" ban.[9] So lets not act like there has been one clear definition forever and people are stupid for referring to any such weapon as assault. Not that any of this "basic shit" matters in a section about this article's title. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright it was unfair of me to call it "basic shit", and it's not about being stupid, it's just that I hear it so oft-repeated and it's not correct. It's a commonly misused term, sort of like point-blanc where point-blanc is actually the range at which adjustment for projectile drop is not needed, but is commonly used to just mean "short distance" usually a few feet from the target. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While whoever is misusing it or not, the ban became commonly known the assault weapon ban, so its going to forever be a common name for that category. The DOJ has(had?) a definition for "assault weapons", the military definition I've seen is for "assault rifles", i'm not sure if either have a definition for the other or not. The key difference in that DOJ definition between what you mentioned with every modern rifle in production, is the large magazines. But we all know we are referring to when talking about banning either way. It makes sense that that broad definition was used for weapons, and rifle has a more specific description, but doesn't make much sense to say semi-autos are assault weapons, but not assault rifles.
Personally when I hear rifle, I think of a hunting rifle, when I hear assault rifle I do think of M16/AK-47 or another fully automatic, I need to hear semi-automatic, before I think of AR-15s or the such, and in general I will just call it by the name of the gun. But knowing the names and difference probably comes from when I used to play COD. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WikiVirusC since you've brought it up: the reason why the DOJ has a definition for "assault weapons" and the military for "assault rifles" is that the former is a political term with nebulous meaning, and the latter is a technical term with specific meaning. Try reading (not being condescending, it really is a convoluted mess) title XI from the assault weapons ban. It's not just about "high capacity magazines" which means "can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition" – Glock 17 has a high capacity magazine and is a popular police firearm; it's also a handgun, so not subject to any such restriction. This is a far more complex issue than I can lay out in a single paragraph. I was initially responding to MrX's reference to assault rifles, and my point was that they are already banned. Though they've clarified that they meant semi-auto's. That was all. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your comparison with modern rifles. That definition was what the general description from DOJ was. The actual ban itself specified conditions for each type, rifles/pistols/shotguns. It also listed specific weapons in it as well, and some "pistols" like Tech-9s were banned, while other weren't. The general definition is to vague to enact as a law, they went into detail. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been re-reading this section, and I notice that I failed to properly define the terms. You had me lost when you said but doesn't make much sense to say semi-autos are assault weapons, but not assault rifles, I think I know why now. Assault rifles (military term) refers to select-fire capable and automatic fire rifles. The Colt AR-15 isn't select-fire capable, but the Armalite AR-15 and M16 are. I'd agree with you in principle that it makes little sense to call a rifle an assault weapon but not an assault rifle, but that's what the assault weapons ban did. I brought up modern rifles being semi-automatics because of this distinction.
Actually, I have to admit, I was wrong about the Glock 17; not the firearm, it was perfectly legal, but you couldn't get the 17 round magazine clips that were standard for it. Large capacity magazines were banned outright, except those that were already owned. The section of the ban referring to the firearms discussed features of the firearm and depended on the type (as you mention). I believe the Tec-9 was banned for having an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip (Section 110102, 30, C, i). Though I'm speculating on that. This is interesting to me, so I'm happy to discuss as much as wanted, though you're correct to say this hasn't got much to do with the article title. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep we both completely agree the naming/definitions that were done made for a lot of confusion, then again they were done about 25 years apart and not in relation to each other. The Tec-9 and all copies of it were named outright in the ban as illegal (110102, 30, A, viii), and yeah the the magazine outside pistol grip(along with its threaded barrel) was one of the potential conditions that would of made it illegal even if it wasn't named outright. But two of the conditions needed to be meet, so the manufacture just made a version without a threaded barrel or barrel shroud, and 10 round magazines. It still could take the 20-30 round magazines that were made from a Tec-9 though, and was still legal since it only had the magazine outside of grip and no other defining features. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is fine. Neutralitytalk 12:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see two problems with the current title: a) including the name of the school which is not well-known (yes, a significant minority of media articles have the name in their title, but the large majority don't) rather than the geographical location; b) using shooting rather than massacre is less precise and seems to be minimizing it. Jim Michael (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to see if there's enough support to make another RM worth the effort? I reiterate that I think an RM would be needed to replace an RM, and I think that's a fairly uncontroversial thing to say. A, say, 5–3 consensus in this thread would not replace that clear RM consensus, so I'm not sure what you're doing at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Early on in the Sandy Hooks reporting most "news article titles", which you seem to be focusing on, used Connecticut School shooting or somethign of the sort. See the sources in an early revision of Sandy Hooks. I can't think of anyone that would refer to it simply as Connecticut shooting anymore. Florida is way to big to simply have article called Florida school shooting, while Parkland High School shooting could work, but we had a recent move discussion where that option was brought up by a few, but majority felt current title was best. I don't think another discussion at this point is going to change the decision arrived at last week. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy Hook is a village that, prior to the massacre there, was unknown outside Connecticut. The early media reports didn't include Sandy Hook in the title because non-local readers hadn't have heard of it. The village's name became known solely because of the media coverage of the massacre. As the village's name became well-known from media coverage, it became used in the titles of media reports. Likewise, few people outside Scotland had heard of Dunblane before the massacre there - but the small Scottish town is now known to many millions of people in many countries solely because of the huge amount of media coverage of the massacre. This is highly unlikely to happen in regard to this massacre, because Stoneman Douglas isn't a settlement. Jim Michael (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes I understand, but I was just comparing why a lot of articles don't refer to the shooting as Douglas High School shooting in the article titles, since outside of South Florida no one would have heard of it. I still had no clue to just now that Sandy Hook was a village, I just knew it as the name of the school and obviously only after the shooting occurred there. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the addition that occurred during the edit conflict, I don't think I can say people found out about the village and now describe the shooting in reference to the village as opposed to the name of the school itself. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage of massacres have made previously little-known villages and small towns - including Sandy Hook, Columbine, Dunblane and Hungerford - known to millions of people who would otherwise have never heard of them. Sandy Hook Elementary School and Dunblane Primary School are named after the settlements they occurred in. The fact that the schools are named after their settlements means that the schools and settlements have become well-known. An ordinary school which isn't named after a settlement is unlikely to become well-known due to a massacre, because massacres are typically referred to by their geographical location. An example of this is the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego). Despite becoming very well-known due to a song being made about it, the name of the school is still unknown to the vast majority of people - because, like the subject of this article, it's named after a person rather than its location. If a massacre happened in a factory, restaurant or shop, it would be typically referred to by its geographical location rather than the name of the establishment or the company who owns it. Jim Michael (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This RECENT HORRIFIC EVENT only occurred NUMBER OF DAYS ago, and so it is unlikely that a discussion regarding the article title is going to be productive in any permanent way. This is the ORDINAL NUMBER time a discussion has come up during the short life of this article, and it is equally unlikely that a clearly most common name has emerged during this time period so as to decidedly change the result of previous discussions. Consider improving the content of the article, and delaying discussions about article names until more time has passed, especially since even if successful, the results of this discussion are likely to be undone by some future discussion anyway.

GMGtalk 13:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Let me know when that template is available. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the section title "Nikolas Cruz"

Hi I just edited the page to change the section title "Nikolas Cruz" to "Suspect" which got reverted. I believe that we should refrain giving those psychopaths a "shrine" including the eponymous section title which would help breed the sick thinking that "Fine, I'm gonna be just lie him, at least I'll forever famous" that is same as the "brokwn window effect". Even if that's not going to happen, please borrow some ideas from the WP:LTA page creation/editing policy and act accordingly. I'm basing my two cents of worth on the WP:COMMONSENSE and perhaps WP:DUE policies. Have a nice day!113.210.34.37 (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COMMONSENSE is obviously vague, and what editors consider to be common sense varies too widely for that to be of much use. For example I disagree that your edit makes common sense. WP:DUE hardly argues against that name in that section header, as it is about amount of RS coverage. The rest of your argument has no policy basis. I have no idea what your reference to WP:LTA means, or how that could possibly bear on this section heading. "Nikolas Cruz" was chosen precisely because it is free of any label, and that is policy-based reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am tending toward agreement with the IP. 'Suspect' isn't perfect, but a descriptor makes more sense than his name. It's odd to just have a name as the section header, and other articles of this type don't work like that. And if a reader is unfamiliar with the case and who the shooter is, and they are going through the table of contents, 'Suspect' or 'Attacker' or 'Shooter' is just more useful.--Pharos (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on all counts. If a reader makes it as far as the 3rd sentence of the lead, they know what "Nikolas Cruz" refers to. If they don't make it that far in the lead, they will know what "Nikolas Cruz" refers to upon reading the first sentence of the "Nikolas Cruz" section. If I ever cited COMMONSENSE, I would cite it for things like that. Local consensus at other articles has no bearing on this one, as no two cases are identical. As for the IP, their reasoning clearly comes from emotion, moral judgment of the perp, and a desire to use this encyclopedia to right great wrongs, and that is about as anti-policy as it gets. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By then your insistence to put his name as a section title would contradict the neutrality and fair-presentation policy in the long run. As Pharos pointed out it'll be certainly odd to see that the other articles 2017 Las Vegas shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting used descriptors while this one goes its own way. I'm on dynamic IP though. 113.210.1.212 (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in reply to Pharos, Local consensus at other articles has no bearing on this one, as no two cases are identical. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. But suspicions that we're putting the shooter into a more off-the-balance light by putting his name instead of descriptors and hence contradict the neutrality and fair-presentation policy intentional or not isn't going away regardless of the tad-bit-counterintuitational guidelines. The best way right now for us is to start an RFC and gauge the larger consensus. I hate the shooter, but I'm not going to edit-war over that as I've a busy life off wiki. To be fair rules can be ignored in suitable times per WP:IAR. Good Luck! 113.210.1.212 (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the shooter, but I'm not going to edit-war over that as I've a busy life off wiki. That's the wrong reason not to edit-war. See WP:EW for more information. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I forgot to add that going on what was the cyber equivalent of a brute fistfighting over the wording of a section title is just plain and simple childish. RfC should be initiated over this though IMO. Bye! 113.210.1.212 (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we see more disagreement among experienced editors on this question, I promise to start said RfC. As it stands now, the current section heading has a bit of talk page consensus and a lot of de facto consensus. Before you, exactly one editor had tried to change that very-high-visibility item—with no edit summary let alone talk page discussion—in the 5 days since the heading was changed from "Suspect". As of this moment there is no need or justification for an RfC. I'm sorry if this seems plain and simple childish to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Have a nice weekend! 113.210.1.212 (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A preferable section heading would be "Suspected shooter". This dovetails well with a first sentence in that section presently reading "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year-old former student at the school." At present the name is not only bolded in that first sentence but that name is serving as the title of the section heading. Too much emphasis is being placed on that name. A perfectly acceptable level of clarity would be achieved by titling that section "Suspected shooter". The IP raises a valid concern. Bus stop (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For some of the history of this issue, see #Improper use of the word SUSPECT in Section header. To summarize, an editor objected to "Suspect", another editor changed it to "Attacker", I tried to get more participation while suggesting "Nikolas Cruz". After 18 hours without a response, I decided to float a BOLD edit and the BOLD edit stuck. Until now. If we can now get the participation that I requested 6 days ago, I have no objection to rewinding the clock. I'll say that I see little improvement in "Suspected shooter" over "Suspect"—what else would the suspect be suspected of in an article about a shooting? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are righting a great wrong if we endeavor to understate the identity of someone likely implicated in a heinous crime. It is in good taste to avoid splashy displays of such a person's name. I don't mean to rob them of their humanity. But our value judgements are just beneath the surface. When given the choice we should opt for the low key presentation of such a person's name. Bus stop (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are righting a great wrong The IP's motivation was clearly RGW, saying "No free airtime on section title for despicable psychopaths like him" in the edit summary and using words like "psychopaths", "shrine", and "sick thinking" in this thread. I promise you I will always respond with extreme negativity to such things. Let's pretend the IP never happened and stop responding to my response to the utterly incompetent IP. Ok?
I don't think the concept of low-key presentation of a name applies to the largely obvious perp of a mass shooting, but I wouldn't strongly object to a return to "Suspect". ―Mandruss ☎ 11:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave the shooter's name in the section heading, for two reasons. There is zero doubt that he is the shooter, and his name has been repeated so frequently in news reports that it is immediately recognizable. If we do remove it, it should be for informational reasons, not emotional reasons.- MrX 🖋 12:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our primary concern here should be one of taste. It is in good taste to tone down mention of one who is universally regarded as having acted in a grossly depraved manner. The name is mentioned in bold in the first sentence of that section: "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year-old former student at the school." Does his name also have to be the section title? Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't have to be there, but there is case to made for that. In my view that case has a stronger connection to policy (not to say a clear connection) than an appeal to good taste. Actually I've never seen an appeal to good taste in going on 5 years. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the case for having the name serve as the section title in this instance? Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. It avoids the problem of calling him a mere suspect when it's all but certain that he is guilty of the crime. We are still using the word in prose but that doesn't automatically justify it in the table of contents; they are two different issues that don't need to be linked. 2. It avoids the problem of calling him the perpetrator or attacker or shooter when that would presuppose his guilt. 3. What MrX said above. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He happens to be the "Shooting suspect". In common parlance such a person can be called a "shooting suspect". Every reader of that language comprehends fully that there is good reason to consider that person to be the actual person who actually used a gun of his own volition to shoot other people. No meaning or nuanced significance is lost in substituting "Shooting suspect" for the birth name of the individual. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero case for "common parlance" related to mass shooters who survived, were identified by classmates and security cameras, and confessed. Name one. No, for "common parlance" let's make that at least three. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that the section title affirms guilt or casts doubt on guilt. It does neither. It identifies the section. The reader uses a handle to orient themselves within the article and that "handle" is the section title. It is a stylistic element. We are expected to use it in good taste. The content of the article conveys information about guilt and innocence. Prose such as is found in the first sentence of that section articulates factors applicable to this person's culpability. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry we couldn't agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns our discussion you should not be so concerned with whether the mass shooter was identified by classmates and security cameras, and confessed. I don't think that is the primary question that should determine what the section title should be. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As already said, there is no question about who murdered the students. Heading the section with " "Shooting suspect", as you suggest, suggests that he is only suspected of doing the shooting which is not factual. Best to use the name IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think using his name is violating any practices. In this situation, it would be better to use his name because he is still pending before a court. CookieMonster755✉ 16:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible section title might be "Presumed gunman". Again: his name is given in the first sentence of that section, and it is bolded. This article is about a school shooting. We don't have an article on the individual presumed to be the shooter. And conceptually it matters less who the individual is than that there are school shooters. The American debate about the Second Amendment concerns those cases in which guns are misused; this is not especially an article about Nikolas Cruz. Yet inexplicably we have a section title Nikolas Cruz and a first sentence in that section reading "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year-old former student." There is a misplaced emphasis on the name of the presumed gunman in this particular incident. He is not the only such gunman just as this is not the only such school shooting. We are writing an article that is part of an American phenomenon. It is sufficient to name him in the first sentence of that section. The section itself is adequately identified by the general, nonspecific terminology of "presumed gunman". Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name is bolded there because that is a redirect to that section. See MOS:BOLD. If you see "misplaced emphasis", go to WT:MOSTEXT and propose a change to the guideline. And conceptually it matters less who the individual is than that there are school shooters. Not in an article about a single school shooting. That is meta to this article and belongs at School shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are myopically arguing that this school shooting is not a part of all school shootings. And my concern is not with the bolded text in the first sentence. Perhaps I was not clear about that. We are not writing an article about Nikolas Cruz. No article exists on our site on Nikolas Cruz. There is only a redirect from "Nikolas Cruz". The purpose of "section heading" is adequately satisfied with a general reference such as "Presumed gunman". Why are you writing his name prominently, two times, in close proximity to one another? The section title gives his name. And the first sentence gives his name, bolded. I'm calling that overemphasis. Why isn't it overemphasis? Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear enough that neither of us is going to convince the other of the rightness of our thinking, and I know a pointless debate when I see one. Like so many other issues, policy does not give us a clear answer and it comes down to a vote. I make it 4–2 for status quo, and that doesn't count all the editors who have accepted the status quo for about a week. I'd drop stick in this situation, but of course you're free to continue with anybody who cares to continue with you. Unless the trend starts to swing in the other direction, I'm out of this. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting the section title corresponding to the section we are discussing is titled Perpetrator. Why would there be that distinction between that article and this article? We are naming him in bolded text in the first sentence and we are using his name as the section heading. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"suspect" is too light a word for no one questions he did the crime. "Perpetrator" might be fine, as is his name which is redirected at this section. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one questions he did the act. Whether that act was criminal depends on his lawyers' aptitude and the jury's understanding. Or his plea, if "guilty". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I don't know why we have the section heading as Nikolas Cruz. It's safe to assume that many of our readers will not know the name of the perpetrator off-hand when coming to this article. The heading as-is is unnecessarily vague. Who is Cruz? A victim? The shooter? Someone else related to the case? The heading should be something along the lines of Perpetrator. AdA&D ★ 03:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have now entered circularity; your point has already been made above and responded to.
The third sentence of the lead begins with: "The suspected perpetrator, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz". The first sentence of the section in question begins with: "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz". I believe that answers the reader's question, and that there are more important things to consider than saving readers a few seconds of wonderment about the topic of a section. But your !vote is noted and I now make it 4–3 for status quo, not counting all the editors who have accepted the status quo for about a week. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at articles of other mass shootings, the section is usually titled, as you said, Perpetrator.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Local consensus at other articles has no bearing on this one, as no two cases are identical. Likewise, we won't take our consensus here and go around applying it at other articles. And you may be missing the significance of your own word, "usually". The point is that there is no one-size-fits-all section heading for this. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference is that here the shooter is still alive. 'Suspect' is still valid, and there are several good alternatives that are also accurate, and do not confuse readers trying to navigate the article. It's wrong to assume everyone should have to fully digest the introduction to use the sections, and we shouldn't actively make browsing more difficult. Especially for non-Americans, who have not had the constant media exposure, it will definitely sow confusion to see this section heading out of context.--Pharos (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already counted your vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are we not even under the pretense of calling them !votes now? This is a discussion, they can reply whenever they want. AdA&D ★ 04:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) So is the your tally now at 4-4? That aside, my point had more to do with the table of contents which instead of having a “suspect” or “perpetrator” link, which would be easily identifiable to our readers, it has a persons name that is entirely unfamiliar to many. The table of contents is where my eyes at least are drawn to without necessarily reading through the lead. AdA&D ★ 04:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. And—as I said—I think there are more important things to consider in this decision. That it not the same as saying your point is unimportant; surely you can understand the notion of priorities and trade-offs. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity it is best to articulate information pertinent to the specific individual likely to be responsible for this school shooting in the first sentence of the paragraph but to use the section heading to use the general terminology as might be found at similar articles. Thus I argue for leaving the first sentence in the paragraph as is but changing the section heading from the individual's actual name to his role in carrying out this shooting. His role is not unlike the role of the young man who carried out the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I am listening carefully to hear someone present a convincing argument why the specific individual's name has to represent the section under discussion in this article. I am not hearing any good reason for that. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You remain unconvinced after thousands of words of discussion. Likewise everybody else in the discussion, including me. It's kind of pointless to point out that you're being open-minded in this, since people on the other side are also being open-minded, including me. You seem to be a subscriber to the idea that there is one correct answer to everything and it can be determined through debate. The fact is that there is no one correct answer to much of anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is your argument for wishing to have the section heading read "Nikolas Cruz", in light of the fact that the first sentence of that section reads "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year-old former student", including the bolding? Bus stop (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have already presented that argument above. It's still there for your review. Please stop asking me to repeat myself, just so you can repeat your rebuttal. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on a school shooting not unlike other school shooting articles. Consider if you will the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. Why wouldn't this article similarly title the corresponding section with the role that the person played in taking the lives of others? This could be "Presumed gunman" or "Perpetrator" or other terminology. Why are you apparently so insistent on using the individual's actual name as section heading in this article? That is what I am trying to understand. Bus stop (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SATISFY and my previous comment. I am going to try once again to put this circular debate behind me and move on with my life. Happy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major backlash against the NRA

Quite a few sources are reporting a major backlash against the NRA as a reaction to the shooting, including boycotts.[10][11][12][13][14] It may be worth a couple of sentences here. What do others think?- MrX 🖋 12:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but try editing Wikipedia's article National Rifle Association -- there are die-hard staunch NRA-types who will not allow much criticism, even of a neutral nature; like when I tried to add this single well-referenced and neutral sentence to the lede section here it got kicked out. So the article as of February February 24th is (in my view) a biased, non-neutral puff piece extolling how the NRA upholds civil rights. It's like the NRA has no idea how much the public is turning against them, how the NRA is increasingly seen as pushing a consumer product and a gun culture that encourages violence and mass shootings. The NRA article in my view is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, adding it to the lead of the NRA article is likely to get push back at this point since the NRA has a 146 year history. If the current anti-NRA movement gains any momentum, that would change things. I will add the NRA article to my watchlist, just for the fun of it.- MrX 🖋 13:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short reference to the article on the boycott in the section about mass shootings.--DarTar (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the question concerning this article, I agree that the #BoycottNRA initiative is national news (see sources above) and closely related to this particular school shooting. The NYT [15] says " In less than 24 hours, at least eight companies that had offered N.R.A. members discounts or special deals announced plans to separate or end affiliations with the organization, including Hertz, Enterprise and Avis Budget; SimpliSafe, which gave N.R.A. members two months of free home security monitoring; and North American and Allied Van Lines." WAPO [16] says "The decisions came as the names of companies with NRA associations began circulating widely on the Internet and social media under the #BoycottNRA hashtag after the deadly Valentine’s Day attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla." HouseOfChange (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't edit the story, so let me add two more sources here. Newsweek [17] suggests the movement began with a Feb. 20 story in ThinkProgress [18] listing the companies that have business ties to NRA. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC) See also 2018_NRA_boycott. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree that the article needs info on the NRA backlash. It is a major part of this shooting and may well go down in history as a turning point. (which would be nice...) Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need page protection?

I've recently felt that, with the 3RR restriction, there aren't enough competent editors still actively working this article to deal with the stream of incompetent ones. I would like to request extended confirmed protection, but I would settle for semi-protection. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection as a first measure. The disruption is relatively light, and the majority of it seems to be from IP editors who typically don't meet the threshold. If I recall correctly, ECP could only be pursued if semi fails to work. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) :Auto-confirmed semi-protection is warranted now. If there are still problems after that's implemented, extended confirmed protection can be requested.- MrX 🖋 13:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Requested 14 days semi.[19] ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. A half dozen IP edits in 24 hours (not all of which were reverted) is probably well within the acceptable limits of normal disruption that can be solved through editing, rather than needing protection. To justify protection, you're usually looking for something more on the level of several edits per hour, especially on an article as high profile as this. This is actually a pretty remarkably low level of disruption for a politically charged topic receiving about 100k page views per day, not to mention a current entry on the main page. GMGtalk 13:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impotent for the next 17 hours. Then I get one revert. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While yeah the protection just expired yesterday, the vandalism/unconstructive edits was a lot higher before it was protected the first time. Adding that with the fact that a lot of IPs probably left while it was protected and these half dozens could be just new ones, with the old ones have yet to return. Being that this is recent event, has political arguments involving it, and the contains BLP concerns, I feel keeping it semi-protected isn't a bad idea. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other deputies who failed to enter?

Content about responding Broward deputies who failed to enter has been added and removed several times, per this in the CNN source: "Sources cautioned that tapes are currently being reviewed and official accounts could ultimately differ from recollections of officers on the scene." This is based solely on comments by arriving Coral Springs officers. I think this is weak and we should wait. Latest add is here and I'm impotent. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW that last add included background information that is out of place in the Shooting section. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CNN talked extensively about it. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html
There should be a subsection in the aftermath that talks about the criticisms of both Scot Peterson and three other deputies who failed to enter. Maybe the section can be called "Criticism of delayed action". TheHoax (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, depending on how much space we can justify per WEIGHT and BALASP. For now I moved the background and reaction from Shooting to Aftermath, adding it to that related to Peterson.[20] ―Mandruss ☎ 09:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went looking for a second source and found only this in the New York Post. Not only is the Post generally a weak source, but they only echo CNN. The New York Times reported yesterday that "The Broward County Sheriff’s Office said it was investigating whether other deputies from the department did not go into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to engage the gunman." This now seems even weaker to me than it did before, I think that addition of that content on the basis of one source was a bit irresponsible, and it's unfortunate that people are so focused on political issues that we can't get some participation on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this series of edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it would be best to wait for more confirmation about this information before adding it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

Add Category:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting to the list of categories. Veldscott (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest some of the individuals who played a role in this incident would best be covered in standalone articles

I suggest some of the individuals who played a role in this incident would best be covered in standalone articles.

For most individuals, their wikipedia notability is established by adding up multiple notability factors. Believe it or not, when Captain Sullenberger landed his airliner on the Hudson River a bunch of well-meaning contributors worked hard to delete the new article on Sullenberger, arguing BLP1e. I suspected that Sullenberger had been notable, or at least on the cusp of notability, prior to the heroic landing, and worked to include references to the other notability factors in his article.

I believe that, when an individual has other notability factors, it is best to cover the main details of their lives, and the other notable events, in a standalone BLP, not in a large article on a major event. Sure, the article on a major event, like this shooting, could have subsections on individuals like Sheriff Scott Israel, but the main details of Israel's life belong in a standalone article.

A google new alert on Israel, restricted to news coverage prior to the most recent shooting, gets over 70,00 google hits. So he is clearly notable.

Scot Peterson, the Sheriff's Deputy who was stationed at the school, at the time of the shooting, also merits a standalone article, because, while not as notable as his former boss, he has multiple notability factors.

Nikolas Cruz, the alleged shooter, merits a standlone article as well, IMO. Arguably he is a BLP1E, but the BLP1E section of BLP explicitly offers the guy who shot Ronald Reagan, John Hinckley, as a guy known for a single event, who nevertheless merited a standalone article because his role was central to the assassination attempt.

One of the things overlooked by those who argue events like this should be covered in large articles, that cover multiple topics, is how many different reasons our readers may have for reading our articles. Consider Pererson. Sure, some readers may only want to know about his role in the shooting. But a reader might not really be interested in the shooting, and may want to read the articles about individuals described as scapegoats -- like Richard Jewell

Three teachers were killed. At least one of them is said to have proceeded to the sound of the gunfire, even though he was unarmed, in order to save students' lives. Comparisons have been made between the unarmed teacher rushing to the sound of the funs, and Peterson, who was captured on surveillance video, waiting for the shooting to end, even though he was armed. If the coach has other notability factors, does he merit a standalone article? Geo Swan (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be a well-meaning contributor working hard to delete most of these new articles, per BIO1E. Cruz has the "large role" and potential for a well-analyzed trial, incarceration and death. No victim can reasonably match his role's largeness here. Israel might warrant an article on his involvement with various crimes (including this one, of course). Peterson is a blip, having not attended. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, February 25, 2018 (UTC)
I feel like at some point there will be multiple articles of people involved with this incident. A lot of them may need time before they get enough coverage outside of the one event, which most of it so far is what we see. Isreal I agree could warrant an article even without considering this shooting. Sheriff of one of the largest sheriffs office in country. And with the size of Broward county, he ends up involved in a lot of stuff. Peterson, unless there is a high-profile lawsuit or something in the future against him, I can't see an article for him. Cruz will most likely end up with one. The coverage for the trial and potentially a death penalty will end up with even more coverage on him than we have now. There isn't a rush to do so, and eventually the media will get more detailed profile on him. As for the teachers, at the moment I don't see a potential for a standalones. None were considered notable before the shooting, and unless any get attention or coverage like Rachel Scott did, I think any details being here would be fine. WikiVirusC(talk) 03:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel Scott didn't just get attention, she became a bonafide posthumous author. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, February 25, 2018 (UTC)
I would !vote Delete at an AFD for Cruz, for the usual reasons that people !vote Delete in single-event perp AFDs. If you think Peterson passes notability requirements, I think notability requirements need to be clarified. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is far better to err on the side of having standalone articles in the early stages of interest in having such articles than at later points because material in a standalone article can expand without the constraint of material conforming to context within a more general article, in which WP:WEIGHT becomes an issue that can keep material out. Geo Swan makes a valid suggestion. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree it is better to err and have standalone articles early. If they aren't going to stick around, you might as well wait and see if they will stick, then create and hope it will past guidelines in future. There is no rush to get them out there. Redirects to here, and information in relevant subsections are fine, and when/if a separate article for an individual is warranted, there is no harm in creating it at that time. If worried about constraints of material, then a draft works for that perfectly. WikiVirusC(talk) 20:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It works, but it doesn't work perfectly. A draft is worked on in relative solitude, whereas an actual article receives contributions from a wider range of people. Bus stop (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, it's always easier (and lazier) to make a new article for every subtopic than to curate and edit a single good article. While some would gladly regurgitate every news hiccup until Cruz's last breath, a better option is to think from a historic perspective, removed from the day-to-day news coverage. Has anyone read a real encyclopedia lately? --Animalparty! (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a "real encyclopedia". Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant one created by professional writers and editors, unconcerned with breaking news and trivium. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard tales of such a creature. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, February 26, 2018 (UTC)
I'm with WikiVirusC and Animalparty!. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan:Thank you for taking the time to respond. I am not offended. I am simply of the opinion that Wikipedia isn't everything (which I admit is subjective), and that a lot of Wikipedia articles are poorly written. Given time (a month, a year) I hope someone performs a comprehensive rewrite per the WP:10 year test. Or, channeling Andy Warhol, perhaps one day we'll all be in Wikipedia. Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't say whether my guess as to what you meant by "curation" was correct.

    It doesn't seem like I got you to reconsider the value of covering multiple topics in a single article. Maybe next time.

    Your interest in commenting here may be exhausted, but I've got to tell you I see no obvious reason for you to mention WP:NOT, with regard to articles on Sheriff Scott Israel, Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, and killer Nicholas Cruz, when articles on them would measure up to GNG, BLP, and all other policies. Geo Swan (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive confiscation of Cruz's guns

One of the issues surrounding this incident is whether or not Cruz's guns could have been confiscated based on his earlier threats and behaviors. Here are some references:

Is this enough material to warrant inclusion in the article?--Nowa (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but since the idea wasn't floated in preceding sources or text, it seemed jarringly out of place here. Probably a place for it somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, February 26, 2018 (UTC)
How about a new section "Florida law on preemptive confiscation of firearms"?--Nowa (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ROTC

I don't believe that we should mention the ROTC students which places them above their classmates that we do not have information on. Gandydancer (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could be shortened a lot, the mention of the medals they were awarded should stay, but the details of Wang, his clothing, his burial and witness reports of him, are a bit overweighted, compared to the other ROTC members, the coach/teacher mentioned above it, and the rest of the victims.
Fifteen-year-old Peter Wang was last seen in his Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) uniform, holding open doors so others could get out more quickly. He was called a hero, and a White House petition was circulated calling for him to be buried with full military honors. He, Alaina Petty, and Martin Duque were all posthumously honored by the U.S. Army with the ROTC Medal for Heroism at their funerals, and Wang was buried in his JROTC Blues uniform. On February 20, he was awarded a rare posthumous admission to the United States Military Academy. Could be changed to:
Peter Wang, Alaina Petty, and Martin Duque were all posthumously honored by the U.S. Army with the ROTC Medal for Heroism at their funerals. Wang also was awarded a rare posthumous admission to the West Point. These two sentences could be added with the paragraph above instead of a new one. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree, I think that it is a bit much. Even perhaps: "Fifteen year old Peter Wang was last seen holding open doors so others could get out more quickly. He, Alaina Petty, and Martin Duque, both also ROTC members (wording), were all posthumously honored by the U.S. Army with the ROTC Medal for Heroism at their funerals. On February 20, Wang was awarded a rare posthumous admission to the United States Military Academy." I'm definitely not against mentioning his acts of heroism (as is done with the two teachers, but if we want to leave it out your edit suggestion seems fine!--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I probably should of left the description of the acts of heroism, although it would be nice to get details on the other two as well. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact he was in uniform should stay. I've yet to see why the other two students got metals but Peter Wang clearly ended up giving his own life to help save others. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)←[reply]
ROTC will wear regularly wear uniforms/apparel when at school. His clothes is significant even if it wasn't a rare thing for him to do? For a standalone I understand, but here? It just seems to be a lot of detail added in. I think what he did saving lives and the recognition he got afterwards with the posthumous medal and admission are the details needed. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. At the West Nickel Mines School shooting, they dressed formally, too. But it was normal for them, so we don't mention it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, February 26, 2018 (UTC)
Do we just want to keep it the way it's worded then? I also think they all got medals because they were all ROTC. As for OP, it's very common during shootings and events for certain people to be... singled out for acts of heroism, as with the football coach and the teacher. If we think that the description of Wang is fine, then we could just leave it. If any more information comes out about the other students, we could surely add it.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

REMOVE PHOTOGRAPH OF PERPETRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH NO NOTORIETY AND DO NOT REPLACE WITH ANY IMAGE.

REMOVE NAME OF PERPETRATOR EVERYWHERE IT OCCURS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NO NOTORIETY AND REPLACE WITH THE WORD "ACCUSED PERPETRATOR" OR "ACCUSED"

https://nonotoriety.com/

KirstenStoffa (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I agree. At the very least we should tone it down. No need for splashy section titles employing the name of the presumed gunman. See the discussion on this Talk page called On the section title "Nikolas Cruz". Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - nonotoriety.com does not set Wikipedia content policy. Please do not shout, per WP:SHOUT. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "KirstenStoffa" did not explicitly say that "nonotoriety.com" sets Wikipedia policy. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I am new to wikipedia, rational thinking supported by scientific evidence guides my thinking for how to reduce murders, gun deaths and protect and value human life. Where is Wikipedia on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirstenStoffa (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best answer to your question is at WP:RGW. Wikipedia's mission is to inform readers, not to reduce murders, gun deaths and protect and value human life. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is illogical. You are perfectly able to inform readers of a crime without correlating the perpetrator to it when all scientific evidence proves that this correlation leads to imitation by other perpetrators. If your intentions are journalistic and non-biased, you are defending a known bias in your reporting style. Can I just say again that your argument is illogical? It's illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirstenStoffa (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, the confessed gunman lives. There will be a trial or at least sentencing. He will continue to get press coverage for months to come. We routinely include photos of suspects on many pages. We have rightly steered clear of a seperate page just about him, though that is not always the case (see Boston Marathon bombing where the perps have a page) Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KirstenStoffa, I am going to offer my answer too. There are columnists, and other commentators, who have explicitly said something like: "These mass killers, and terrorists, are crazy! They are motivated by a search for crazy infamy for their crazy crimes. I've decided I will deny them some of that infamy be never including their name, when I cover their crimes."

    Journalists who follow this model are diverging from purely neutral coverage of those events.

    Nothing stops a group with deep pockets from buying their own servers, cloning the wikipedia's content, and then modifying it when they think those modifications would help de-glamorize mass-murder for the small number of people who might consider committing mass-murder. But I think some of us here see efforts to de-glamorize mass-murder, and a whole raft of other similar initiatives, at odds with our current policies.

    As to what common knowledge has concluded, consider heroic Richard Jewell. He was a security guard, who started to clear an area at the 1996 Olympics, when he saw a suspicious package he thought might be a bomb. It was a bomb, and he saved lives.

    However, the newly appointed FBI director unfairly told the press that Jewell was their prime suspect. Jewell wanted to be a real cop, and Director Freeh suggested he himself planted the bomb so he could be a hero who found a bomb. The press leapsed to repeat this suggestion, surrounded his home, made his life hell. There was zero evidence to back up Freeh's suggestion, but Jewell lived his life under a cloud for half a decade. Eventually the real bomber was arrested, for other crimes, and he owned up to the bombing. The real bomber was a crazed anti-abortion kook. Finally, Jewell was able to become a real cop, but he died tragically young, his early death probably quickened by the cloud of suspicion.

    So, how should the wikipedia have covered Freeh's suggestion, if it had been around, when the bombing took place? Geo Swan (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, and Wikipeople, I swore off Wikipedia yesterday. However, since you addressed me, specifically, and I realize I should be anonymous, but so it is for now. I think we have been glamorizing murderers in this country since we first painted and drew the king-like portraits of notorious outlaws like Billy The Kid and put prices on their heads. While Wikipedia is a loose reference, the articles stand the test of time on search engines long after events pass and there is never a reason -- due to contagion -- well proved in American gun culture - and through scientifically collected evidence --- to link a crime to a notoriety-seeking individual. This habit can be cast aside in the annals of history. In our present with scientific reason and contemporary enlightenment as our guides, no one cares to remember the names of crime-committing individuals. If you want to make the name unique call the being 111.427389846 or something like that. Create a new system without photos. De-individuate the being who committed the crime. it's easy; it won't hurt you. Get it done and then let's all do something else to help others. Now, how can I change my username? Kaiww (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a place for meta discussion like this, and this is not it. Geo Swan has been around more than long enough to know that. I advised you below to take this to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or drop it. If the discussion continues I'll collapse it per WP:NOTFORUM and talk page guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

Due to incredibly ample scientific evidence for notoriety's association with copycat murderers, I suggest that the name of the self-confessed perpetrator in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting be removed from this article. In addition, I suggest that the image of that living person be removed thusly protecting other American children from future copycat murderers. Freedom of speech can be fully maintained without making people notorious for murder; there is no rational justification for correlating individual names with heinous crimes. I will watch this page and due my best to learn the rules of your community. Is your community interested in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, reason, scientific evidence, enlightenment and rational thinking or is it an extremely radical propaganda organization aiming to hurt and kill children by arming other children against them with military-grade weapons and delusions of fame for committing heinous crimes? If it is the latter, Wikipedia has no place in civil society, whatever its political affiliation may be left, right or as a genuinely non-partisan group of civilian journalists for the common good. KirstenStoffa (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No rationale has been presented for removing the name or image per Wikipedia policies. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out also that you are misusing the edit request facility. Please see WP:Edit requests. If you just want to have a discussion, you don't need an edit request to start a new thread. But I'll also point out that Wikipedia policy is not changed at article level. You are free to start a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but frankly I think you would be wasting your time and that of other editors, as well as adding to your frustration. I say this based on almost 5 years of Wikipedia editing experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KirstenStoffa—you should try to WP:SIGN your posts. At the end of your comments simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cruz's name and face have been and remain all over the news. Having him named here is not going to create any copycats that the media coverage will not create. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "all over the news" reasoning is never a reason to include Wikipedia content. The point is that Wikipedia does not drive social change but rather follows it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Widely reported is good rational for NOT excluding some verifiable fact about a notable event. Also I was responding to the idea that wikipedia mention of his name was going to create copycats. 23:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Legacypac (talk)
Copycat children aren't limited to mimicking the latest infamy, they're free to learn all sorts of potentially deadly lessons here. From Cain and Abel straight through to the February 2018 Mogadishu attack, knowledge is power. How kids use that power is up to them. By the time someone responsible (in the "good sense") has taught them to read, someone has also taught them basic manners; it's the illiterate, unassimilated and literally moronic youth we need to worry about, and by "we" I mean the TV, relatives, social workers and bullies. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Just a reminder to all editors, the Biographies of living persons policy should be excruciatingly studied before adding material on survivors or any other living people with respect to this issue, some of whom are already receiving death threats ([21],[22]). Per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY, primary sources should not be used, especially ones that include personal details. We should avoid victimization by only including the facts most pertinent and widely reported, or even omitting some reported details as appropriate. The dignity and safety of human beings should always be placed above the desire to write a meticulously detailed article. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the individuals whose roles are important enough to be named have already been named. A good policy would be not to name anybody new without prior talk page consensus, and to automatically revert anybody who does so with a link to this consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make "policy" on the fly to fit your personal tastes. Thank you. XavierItzm (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if only I had that power. The things I could do with it! ―Mandruss ☎ 04:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mandruss was referring more to a working rule of thumb than any Wikipedia policy. I'm talking about exercising editorial discretion alongside policy adherence (besides, the 5th pillar of Wikipedia is that policies and guidelines are not absolute, and "ignore all rules" is another policy). Non-notable students, or family of victims and survivors, need not necessarily be named if a coherent article can still be constructed without that info. The ongoing aftermath of this shooting is a hot button issue that has stoked significant negative attention. Thus the need to be professional, discrete, and sensitive to the lives of any living people should be high on editors' minds. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CNN and InfoWars and YouTube

There appears to be some offshoot event here, YT taking down vids, giving them 1/3 strikes, etc. Worth adding to the "Conspiracy theories and disinformation" section?

I don't actually see any mention of Alex Jones yet despite CNN singling them out in relation to this. ScratchMarshall (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly matters to InfoWars, where it isn't mentioned. Might be a sign that it doesn't matter at all, might be someone hasn't gotten to it yet. The theory (the students are actors) is already mentioned here, this adds very little to understanding it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, February 26, 2018 (UTC)
I agree that at present this would be most relevant to InfoWars than here.--64.229.165.48 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about the heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz

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)[reply]

Prior/current Discussions: On the section title "Nikolas Cruz", Improper use of the word SUSPECT in Section header

Heading should be his name:

1: Nikolas Cruz

Heading should describe his role in the shooting:

2: Perpetrator

3: Shooter

4: Gunman

5: Attacker

6: Suspect

Survey: Heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz

WikivirusC’s point is well taken, adding 6A to my !vote AdA&D ★ 18:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pharos Are you sure that '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)[reply]
Anne drew Andrew and Drew If a human is not culpable, then it's a homicide, but not a crime (murder, manslaughter, etc). I'm not sure of the definition of perpetrator under criminal law, I think it's more a police term than a court one, though our article suggests it means guilt. If it doesn't, then that term would be fine. Otherwise, there are terms that presume less about guilt, like 'Assailant'.--Pharos (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharos: I'd dispute the suggestion that 'Perpetrator' implies legal guilt, based on the fact that the term is widely used in cases where (1) the perpetrators are not known or (2) the person has committed suicide (particularly in the case of school shootings). In neither of these cases it's clear whether the person would be or would have been found fully guilty of the crime in court. --BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 01:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz

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. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What Wikivirus is saying is: 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)[reply]
WP:CRIME is where I guess I should have pointed too. Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. WikiVirusC(talk) 05:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Legacypac - the policy was written to protect Wiki from legal issues. Does not apply here, whatever it says. There is absolutely no question he is the shooter - he has confessed - every single news service has stated he is a mass murderer. They would be much more in danger of being sued than this hobbyist exercise at an encyclopedia. Time to drop this argument, and move on with the reality of the situation.104.169.18.4 (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People falsely confess to crimes. Law enforcement falsely claim suspects have confessed. Prison grasses falsely claim people confess. Since when is the media always 100% accurate? WP:CRIME is what should apply here. After a conviction we can call Cruz a mass murderer/perp/gunman. Dougal18 (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's a prison grass? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Never mind. BritEng. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victims list introduction sentence

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

You are suggesting changing "the victims who died were" to "the dead were", correct? Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing it back, to be precise. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would "the dead were" be preferable to "the victims who died were"? Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my !vote? I don't think I can answer your question any better than that. If you disagree with my reasoning, !vote something else. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't mention possibility number two, which is the wording presently found in the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I "mentioned" it by implication of my first sentence. Are you disputing that 1 is more concise than 2? Are you aware that "don't waste words" is a universal principle of good writing? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is concision all that matters? The entirety of your argument seems to be that we should reduce the number of words. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Always use the fewest words that convey the desired meaning. There is no reader value in extra words, and they require time to read. If you agree with Anne drew Andrew and Drew that "1 sounds odd", by all means !vote 2. But I'm tired of trying to justify my rationale. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for choice number two is to distinguish between the victims who lived and the victims who died. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied that the word dead does 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)[reply]
After I die, I will no longer be Mandruss [or substitute my real name]. I will be formerly Mandruss. More precisely, I will no longer be anything, because I will have ceased to be. Further, do you want to state five years from now that those 14-year-olds are still 14? I see nothing wrong with the past tense in 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... fair enough. Makes sense in the case of options 1 and 2 from that perspective. Though I'd still make that argument for options 3 and 4, as the identities and ages will not change. In which case revised !vote to option 1 as first preference and option 2 as is, or option 2 with "killed" replacing "who died", as second preference. Still expressly opposing the remaining choices (refer to paragraph 3 of my first comment for reasoning). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've identified another reason to use as few words as possible; it can avoid unnecessary complications. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victim count

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). [23] 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. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a definative victim count of 16 injured. I support using that ref and updating the page. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm blind since I don't see victim counts in that letter. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3rd paragraph lines 1 and 2 Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we're seeing different things. My 3rd paragraph begins, "BSO detectives are investigating...". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the image, it opens it up more fully. Parts of the letter aren't visible in just the tweet. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3rd paragraph lines 1 and 2 "...33 victims (17 murdered and 16 survivors) and their families...". Theee are three paragraphs before the "For the Record" section. This was issued recently by the Broward County Sheriff Office. It has the advantage of being official and long enough after the event to avoid the confusion of breaking news coverage. Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Ok, so now, two questions. 1. Is the primary alone acceptable? I don't know that part of policy well enough to say. 2. There is a difference between injured/wounded and taken to hospital. One can be injured (or even slightly wounded) and treated on scene without being transported. So we would need to decide which is more important, unless we want to state both numbers, even if we could source both accurately. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that it says "survivors" not injured, wounded, or hospitalized. Yes I know I'm being a bit obtuse, but that is what it says. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree that "survivor" is synonymous with "wounded or injured"? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, most probably. But generally, absolutely not. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Ok, I propose we limit discussion to this context. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's most probably referring to the wounded. I took the opportunity to revert on a technicality since this is still under discussion, moreso than directly contesting the idea that survivor means wounded. Again, I was being a bit obtuse. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support any excuse to revert editing while under discussion. The only expression yea or nay was his—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)[reply]
@Legacypac: Why are you editing while this is under discussion? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Students that were no where near the shooter have been rightly called survivors. Obviously in this official statement the 16 refers to injured. Why are you wasting my time with this foolishness and worse by reverting my sourced edit? Legacypac (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Categories