Talk:Parkland high school shooting

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).

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)

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

• 1J: Nikolas Jacob Cruz
• 16: Nikolas Cruz, suspect

Heading should describe his role in the shooting:

2: Perpetrator

• 2A: Alleged perpetrator
• 2P: Presumed perpetrator
• 2S: Suspected perpetrator

3: Shooter

• 3A: Alleged shooter
• 3P: Presumed shooter
• 3S: Suspected shooter

4: Gunman

• 4A: Alleged gunman
• 4P: Presumed gunman
• 4S: Suspected gunman

5: Attacker

• 5A: Alleged attacker
• 5P: Presumed attacker
• 5S: Suspected attacker

6: Suspect

• 6A: Arrested suspect

Survey: Heading of the section on Nikolas Cruz

• 2 or 6A would be my preference, but anything is better than 1. The name "Nikolas Cruz" is unfamiliar to many of our readers. In order to effectively use the table of contents, our section headings ought to be recognizable to those who don't know the fine details of the case. Nikolas Cruz is ambiguous, and could refer to any number of people related to the shooting. We should also not presume that our readers will read through the lead section before using the table of contents. WP:Readers first. AdA&D ★ 14:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

WikivirusC’s point is well taken, adding 6A to my !vote AdA&D ★ 18:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• 1 - Using the name avoids multiple problems with choosing a label for the actor in this unusual case. This is the danger of looking to precedent for guidance, which some of these !votes are sure to do. Other local consensuses should have little bearing on this local consensus, not only for that reason but because it largely kills evolution of thinking on things like this. The downside of using the name—that the topic of the section won't be immediately apparent to some readers upon entering the page—is exceeded by its upside. Nikolas Cruz is ambiguous, and could refer to any number of people related to the shooting. Maybe, but a very reasonable first guess is the perpetrator of the shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 6A - Suspect or Arrested suspect(my preference) until convicted. Then Perpetrator afterwards. Against 3, 4, 5 until conviction after a trial, or a guilty plea per WP:BLPCRIME, which may happen before a 30 day RfC ends. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1 - 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. His middle name has no encyclopedic value.- MrX 🖋 16:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1 or 6 - 1 and 6 are statements of fact: he is the suspect, and his name is Nikolas Cruz. My preference would be for 6 personally, but status quo is fine as well. 2 through 5 are allegations waiting to be determined in a trial. For this reason I would be opposed to any change to these suggestions. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 6 or 3-5 - There is no question he committed the shooting, and he is currently the suspect in a criminal case, so either 'Suspect' or a descriptor of his actions ('Attacker' or similar) would be appropriate. 'Perpetrator' implies legal guilt, and it is still possible he will be found not guilty, e.g, due to insanity. Using his name as a section header is irregular and confusing to readers not already familiar with the case.--Pharos (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

• 1 or 6. Both are factual and can't really be argued against. I prefer his name, but I can understand if people think that would be confusing in the table of contents. Natureium (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 3 or one of the variants of 3. This article is about a shooting and so the reader should easily be able to navigate to the section about the shooter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• 2. "Perpetrator" is in line with the wording of various other Wikipedia articles about school shootings, including but not limited to Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Dunblane (Scotland), Winnenden (Germany) and others. No other term is as consistently used in other articles, especially not the perpetrator's name. Thus I'd settle for anything other than 1, but with 2 clearly preferred. --BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 01:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• There is zero reason to use the individual's name. We should look at the overall situation. That involves the table of contents and the specific section. From the perspective of the table of contents, the reader orients themselves to the role, not to the name. Thus "Presumed gunman" or any other terminology has greater clarity than the individual's name. But we can and should also look at this from the perspective of the individual section. That section contains, as its first sentence "The suspected shooter was identified as Nikolas Jacob Cruz, a 19-year-old former student", and the bolding has not been added by me—it is actually in the article. There is no possibility the reader can miss the name of the individual. The emphasis at present is uncalled for. A question we have to ask ourselves is why this article receives different treatment from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. What do we feel at this article would warrant a heightened emphasis of the individual's name at the section handling the person responsible for the shooting, as compared to the "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article? You don't hit a nail with a hammer one more time when it is already flush with the wood, to use a strange analogy. All you have to do is accomplish your purpose. If you have built a redundancy into your means of accomplishing your purpose, you should back off in some aspect of the carrying out of your purpose. A reader will find and understand that section of the article best using a descriptive role as a section header, not by using the name of the individual. That is adequately accomplished by the first sentence presently in place at that section. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• 1 - per Mandruss and Mr. X Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
• NOT #1 The fact that there are a majority of novice editors for this article shows, because there is no need to rehash the global consensus about something like this which has been widely debated in the past. The policy on this is clear (WP:NPOV, WP:BLP), and the the perp's name is NEVER used as a section heading where "Perp", "Shooter", "Suspect" is always preferred. Just go to any shooting article, such as 2009_Fort_Hood_shooting or Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting, and you will see what I mean. The perp's details are there, but the name is not used to head up sections. Other than NOT #1, I don't have a preference as to the heading. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• 6A - Suspect or Arrested suspect the volume of evidence is such in this case that the likelihood that the suspect is not the perpetrator is extremely low. Nonetheless, we do not sit as judge, jury or coroner - others do that - and the suspect should not be presumed (by us) to be guilty. Name would be acceptable, but is not clear to those of us in places where the name has not become so familiar. Pincrete (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• 6 or 2-5 - It's not an article about Cruz or Cruz's family; it's about the shooting, and the shooting has a suspect. Cruz is a temporary notable/public figure, so knowledge about him is very high at the moment; however, many future audiences will not know who he is, but instead will scan the article looking for the "Suspect" header — not the killer's name. Fdssdf (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• 6A-Arrested SuspectWe can't say he IS the shooter 100% because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Bkellar (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• 16 - Nikolas Cruz, suspect (with anchors to “Nikolas Cruz” and “Suspect”): I think this is a reasonable compromise. It combines the two indisputable facts while limiting any possible confusion about the name. - Paul^T+/_C 14:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

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)

So many terms! "Mass murderer" is as good as any. "Suspect" amd variables of that are too soft. Legacypac (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is totally not applicable. He's been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder, he is a public figure as his name has been widely broadcast in connection with the most discussed crime this year. None of that even remotely suggests we need to consider protecting his name. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What's a prison grass? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Never mind. BritEng. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Mr rnddude and Dougal18 in this situation, everyone is innocent until proven guilty even if everyone KNOWS he is the shooter. He could technically still be innocent if the judge/jury says he is. We have no control over what the jury/judge thinks, and even if it is a 99.999% chance he is the shooter, we can not say he IS the shooter until he is proven guilty. Bkellar (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This is due for auto-archive soon, so this comment will serve to keep it here for at least another 3 days ({{DNAU}} is another option). The only way I know of to fairly and objectively weigh "consensus" with such complex !voting is using arithmetic, dividing !votes for multiples equally among them. If someone !votes for two options, each option gets 0.5. Using this system, and counting Bus stop's !vote as -1 for 1, I get: 1=3, 2=1.5, 6A=1.5, 3=1.25, 6=1.25, 4=0.25, 5=0.25. No majority, but a clear plurality and I think a majority will be unlikely no matter how long we leave this up. A run-off between the top two or three will be an option, if people feel it's worth the effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Umm, you can't make up a voting system after the fact, especially for a !vote. For example, I supported several similar options to give full information. The only way to make a decision is by consensus, figuring out which option(s) are most acceptable, and not objectionabe, to people generally.--Pharos (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

How do you propose to judge that consensus? If an uninvolved closer closed this today, how do you think they would go about it? I think they would do one of two things: 1. Something very much like what I've done, or 2. Declare "no consensus to change". ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about working out a formulaic way to establish consensus, because consensus is not a vote. Just ping an admin on the admin noticeboard to close the relevant thread after a sufficient time has elapsed (usually abvout a week, if I can recall correctly). -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'll request close at WP:ANRFC (not now), which may or may not get an admin. We'll consume the valuable time of a closer, in the name of avoiding a formulaic way to establish consensus, and the outcome will be the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

One of the main concerns people had with the section header, in this discussion and brought up elsewhere on talk page, was people didn't think using Cruz's name was best option. I wouldn't use that to say majority/consensus doesn't want to use the shooters name as title, seeing as even though I voted for something else it really wasn't my reason for doing it. But there were 4 people who explicitly said they didn't like using the shooters name. So even with giving full votes to people who gave two choices, its 5 for his name and 4 against it. A "Do you think we should use suspects name for section header? If not what would you prefer", might of been easier to deal with. To be honest, shooter/attacker/gunman could be bundled, and suspect/perpetrator could maybe be bundled for results. An RfC was made, so lets see if any of the people legobot notifies decide to participate. Can hopefully see how this looks after some outside input maybe. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot it's an RfC. That's a slightly different picture. And it already has a DNAU March 28. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Victims list revisited

No activity for 5 days, so I have requested an uninvolved close.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The list of the dead's names and ages was disputed, discussed, and lacks talk page consensus. The previous discussion went to archive with an 8–8 tie. The view at #No consensus for victims list is that the list has acquired de facto consensus, in effect, and now requires a consensus to remove it.

Oppose inclusion of the victims list
Support inclusion of the victims list

• Oppose - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. I ask myself how much real reader value there is in these names, and myself answers, "Not much". The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information in the article is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. Genders and ages could be summarized in prose and that would add to reader understanding.
  I ask myself whether I would want my name in such a list, or whether I would want my sister's name in such a list, and myself answers with a resounding "F no" to both questions. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. And "well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC) WP:NOTMEMORIAL, a Wikipedia policy, states: "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet [Wikipedia's notability] requirements." Proponents of victims lists very often say this applies only to the subjects of bio articles. In years of discussions about victims lists, I've yet to see a halfway lucid—let alone convincing— argument for that distinction. To say only "Because that's what the rule says" is to ignore or be unaware of two facts: First, that that is not how Wikipedia works, that "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording." And second, that the rule does not actually say that. My explanation for why the policy is not more clear on this point: Written Wikipedia policy is maintained by part-time volunteers with little expertise in the organization of complex information, with no processes for planning, coordination, or quality control. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Memorialization exists where it exists and it does not exist where it does not exist—the circumstances matter. The scope of this article includes people who died who had names and ages. No subterfuge is needed to include these names and ages here. This is a straightforward listing of facts. "Memorialization generally refers to the process of preserving memories of people or events." But we are not including any other details about the victims' lives. This is the barest possible listing and it is relevant to this article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL certainly has its applicability but not where the central purpose of an article involves the killing of 17 people. Unlike articles in which a greater number of people were killed, space constraints do not limit our ability to include this information in this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:N, the victims are notable in context of the event. As I said in the other discussion we also have names in the Columbine High School massacre article, yes this is a WP:OSE argument but I feel that there should either be a streamline solution or a case by case basis of inclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, there have been multiple failed attempts to get community consensus on this. Victims lists in mass-killing articles isn't something that needs case-by-case evaluations, it either makes sense or it doesn't. The amount of RS coverage of the names is always roughly the same. Unfortunately the community's aversion to "prescriptiveness" is too strong, so we're forced to debate it for every article and there is little consistency across articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think we are going to have a clear answer on this until we get the heart of the question solved. I would respect any consensus on the matter but for now these are my thoughts on the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and being the victim of a crime does not make one a public figure. What value does listing the names of the victims add? Natureium (talk) 15:07, 1 March

• WP:NOTMEMORIAL refers to WP:BIO, we aren't making articles about these people so would it apply? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The policy page does not specify that it only applies to WP:BIO, and even if that is the case, that doesn't mean the policy should be entirely different if contained within another article. Natureium (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where he got that it refers to BIO, but it applies to article subjects specifically. Guidelines for articles creation criteria aren't the same for content of the articles themselves. From WP:LISTBIO "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list".(bolding not done by me) There isn't a policy that says we can't have this list, its going to have to be determined by a consensus. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If the purpose of the policy is to state that Wikipedia is not a memorial, the concept applies here as well. While it may have been written to determine notability for article topics, it still stands that Wikipedia is not a memorial and we shouldn't be memorializing victims. Natureium (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It isn't clear as it says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements" These people are not some editor's deceased friends, relatives, or acquaintances. So the others points to the notability requirements if you are going to make an article about the person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the list is not to memorialize the victims, it is the list them as it relates to this shooting. A list of the victims in a standalone page would make that entire page dedicated to just them, which is what I believe why the memorial policy specifies article subjects. The list we have is contained within a section along with additional information, within a the larger whole article. Voting because you believe that it invades privacy of them is reasonable argument. I don't feel like this list was added in or being used to memorialize the victims, and it just provides information that people may or may not feel is needed. Unlike Peter Wang's AfD, I don't see people here(or prior discussion), saying the names should be included to honor their deaths. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, but regardless, it is necessary? No, it's trivia. Natureium (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been uneasy about publishing the names of the less-prominent students (i.e. non-ROTC). The families' right to privacy and possibly, their safety, should be considered. I would prefer to remove the list and add a statement that "the students ranged in age from 14 to 18" or words to that effect. Regards,Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 15:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 2018 (UTC)I think the age range is valuable to the reader, not the individual names.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 15:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Every print news mag, online news site and tv news has shown their photos and listed them by name - cat's already out of the bag on this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.18.4 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Not even an apt metaphor, nobody had put the cat in the bag. They simply weren't named pending next of kin notification, then were, per the way things go. No secret. Many relatives even willingly shared stories of these people, using their names. Those who didn't have the right to remain silent, but no rights are violated by simply relaying public information like this. Has there ever been a case of someone being less safe due to a named related massacre victim? If so, I'll consider it, but I can't see how that would work. Usually the crooks and cops that catch the heat. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion - There is no policy to prevent us from including the list and we have at least one victim who's name is going to be mention with Peter Wang's due to his AfD determining to (delete and) redirect here. While a redirect decision doesn't equate to a merge, there was more than enough coverage on him and his death, along with the medal he and two others received from the army to warrant a mention of him in this event. Are we going to mention him and just leave the other two as "two others"? Are we gonna mention those three names and omit the teacher and coaches? Are we gonna name the 6 of them and have a state with 1/3rd of the victims named and 2/3 unnamed? All of those are options, but I lean more towards include all, over include some. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Mass ping of people who participated in last discussion. @K.e.coffman: @TheHoax: @InedibleHulk: @Ohconfucius: @MPS1992: @Spirit of Eagle: @MrX: @Mr rnddude: @Kieronoldham: @DHeyward: @Starship.paint: WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of the victims list. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, and WP:BLPNAME applies.- MrX 🖋 15:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  WP:BLPNAME does not apply as these people are not living. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  While BLP polices do apply to recently deceased, it won't be applicable forever. WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply though since that policy applies specifically to article subjects. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  That's a very narrow reading of the policy that borders on wikilawyering. The fact is, a list of unknown victims is not encyclopedic. It's trivia. The names are not historically significant. There is also the potential risk of invading the privacy of the surviving friends and relatives of the deceased.- MrX 🖋 18:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  There is no risk as the families released the names of the victims to the public which were distributed in widespread reliable sources. If the names invaded the privacy of the surviving friends and relatives we would be hearing about lawsuits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  I don't feel its a narrow reading, its just a literal reading. It states "4. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements., not "Contents of encyclopedia articles must satisfy...". The list is directly related to this shooting, and it purpose is not to serve as a memorial. And this is from an actual policy, not one of those essays that people cite as policy. WP:SOURCELIST is the policy to use to determine the contents of a list in an article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Include information about who died and otherwise received physical injuries in the incident. That information is the concrete representation of what has happened. Ages are easy to relate to, and names less so, but even the names convey the significance of real people. The dimension of the reality of this incident is conveyed by the inclusion of such information as is found in the Victims section. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support including the names and ages. Real people were murdered, not just a list of ages. We regularly include names of murder victims in other crime articles. The info is well sourced and widely reported. What I have not seen is details on the injured - in fact we've struggled to get a definitive count. We are right to exclude the living injured names but include the dead. I also share the concern it would be wromg to omit the names of those that died protecting others, so the current level of detail strikes the right balance. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose list per User:Mandruss. As I already said in previous discussions, we do not add lists of victims' names here on WP just because they are published in news sources. It is completely fake news to claim there is consensus elsewhere for similar lists of victims here on WP. The existence of sources to cite is not relevant, as these are not content-related policies – Sources and citations exist to permit verification of information included. For those arguing for a "concrete representation of what happened", this can be achieved by simply incorporating a tally of staff/students injured and killed, and this may or may not include the perpetrator (where he/she is injured or killed) as so the editors may decide. The mere existence of news articles containing peoples' names does not go to establishing notability where the mentions are "trivial". The relevant policy for non-inclusion is WP:MEMORIAL. These policies and guidelines have existed more or less in that form for years, to avoid shrines being created. As to details of victims' ages, we don't usually list individual victims' ages because WP is not the news, although there may be an interested in having age bands. Those readers who want to find names of the dead can and do go to relevant news websites. The list therefore ought to be removed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 20:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Shrines have pictures, mementos, ornate dressing and reminders of hobbies, interests, stories or other private life stuff. Listing a name and age is nothing like a memorial service, more like a census. Dry, boring and detached facts which are merely remembered, not commemorated, celebrated or anything like that. We say very much more here about (currently) living people; if NOTMEMORIAL applied to content rather than subjects, we'd need to wipe our recollections of Lasky, Scherer, Weekes and Runcie, too. Or only when they die? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

• Support The victims have been extensively covered in the press, and there is no indication the families want the names kept quiet for privacy reasons. We're just giving a list of 17 names, not writing a biography for each of them. Including only ROTC members would give a very distorted view.--Pharos (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support The first time I explained myself, I felt it shouldn't need much explanation. Now I know it doesn't. Per all the reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, March 2, 2018 (UTC)
• Support We have a section in the article about the victims; their names and background information are highly relevant and have been the focus of a great deal of media coverage. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not relevant here because the policy prohibits articles on people that fail WP:GNG (the GNG section is highlighted in the policy to signal the importance of the "not meeting notability" element). Strictly speaking, NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to content within articles. However, even if you do extend the policy's principle to content within articles, the victims have received substantial press coverage and thus meet inclusion standards. Some editors have argued that we do not need to include every detail published by the media. However, the victims are not some inconsequential detail; they have received substantial press coverage and their tragic deaths is why the article exists in the first place. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Partial support – I support the inclusion of semi notable victims who have received a substantial amount of coverage, like Peter Wang and ROTC members. The victims are notable in the context of this event and should be mentioned in an appropriate section of this article. NOTMEMORIAL usually applies to biographies – not individual sections within an article. This is not an uncommon practice to list the names of notable victims. We do the same for the September 11 attacks. CookieMonster755✉ 17:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support keeping the list up, useful info. A 'memorial' might be if a bunch of people simultaneously died in an explosion. People who were progressively gunned down in a specific order are useful to know for understanding how a situation took place. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  But that's not the information provided, and that's not in the article at all. It gives the names in alphabetical order. What purpose would it serve to know who was killed first, who was killed 6th, and who was killed 15th? It doesn't add any useful information. The article doesn't need to provide a second-by-second accounting of the shooting. Natureium (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, our purpose is not paint a vivid picture allowing readers to imagine they were there seeing it play out. That's for the movies. Similarly, we also omit some of the reported details about his movements between specific rooms. Never mind that it would be impossible to establish the precise order. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think knowing the order people were killed in, the rooms they were killed in, would necessarily paint a 'vivid' picture. That's still pretty sparse. I don't think it would be impossible to establish a precise order. Isn't that the type of stuff CSI do? Not sure how much video exists from the time but couldn't they do audio analysis? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  I would strongly oppose that kind of detail as unencyclopedic, even if we got to that, which we won't. Until you show that they have done that kind of analysis, and the results have been reported in RS, this is all off-topic speculation not related to article improvement, in violation of WP:NOTFORUM. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  Closer note: User ScratchMarshall received this topic ban on 3 March. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Their deaths are the basis of the article. Legacypac points out that other murderers' victims are left uncensored. These people have already passed, which I believe lessens the privacy concerns. starship.paint ~ KO 01:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mandruss's calm assessment. The individual names have no informational value at all unless the individual had a well-documented and significant role in the event, 'demographic' description of age-range and gender is sufficient to characterise the event. These people's names, and those of their families has become 'public info' without any consent or consideration of their wishes, we should err on the side of caution and exclude them. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

When you say "no informational value at all", clearly you are speaking figuratively. Of course the names of the individuals shot dead by the gunman constitute information, if we were to apply any standard definition of the word "information". I think I am voicing an objection to an unclear argument which you are presenting. If you wish to exclude arguably relevant and obviously well-sourced information from the article, then I think to a degree a burden is on you as well as others to articulate a rationale for the exclusion of the material under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:SATISFY applies. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I was objecting to the figurative use of the term "information". I was hoping the other editor could clear that up. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If a reader never heard of Alyssa Alhadeff before this shooting, her name is not information to that reader. You could substitute any other name previously unknown to the reader and the reader's understanding of the shooting would not change. The information is 14-year-old girl. Pincrete may correct me if I have misstated their position. It's not that the argument is unclear, it's that you disagree with it; i.e. it's unclear to you because you disagree with it. Many of the Support arguments make no sense to me, but I'm not badgering the editors who made them; that is the point of SATISFY. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This enterprise is not about you educating the reader. We compile information and we exclude it if it can be shown to be objectionable. I favor inclusion because that is what we do. In my opinion there has to be an overriding reason for excluding information. Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The overriding reasons to omit have been stated in multiple !votes. I get that you disagree with them, but please stop saying they have not been given. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Somebody should also link whichever policy or guideline it is that says something along the lines of "just because it is verifiable, doesn't mean it needs to be included". Mr rnddude (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS, linked in my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This is assuming that the consensus here has determined that the inclusion of the victim names does not improve this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. (emphasis mine to avoid a misread). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, you say "I ask myself whether I would want my name in such a list, or whether I would want my sister's name in such a list, and myself answers with a resounding "F no" to both questions." Obviously no one would want their name or their sister's name on such a list. Are you really providing a reason for omitting the victim's list? Your reason is obfuscatory. We should exclude information if a clear argument can be made that the inclusion of such information is objectionable. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Obviously no one would want their name or their sister's name on such a list. I think that, to everyone but you, it's crystal clear that I meant I would not want our names on the list if we had been killed in this shooting. To interpret that as meaning that I wouldn't want either of us to be killed in this shooting is pretty blatant strawmanning—you are not interested in actually hearing what people are saying—and I'm not going to engage such tactics. There are no "clear" arguments on either side. The only thing "clear" is that you are unwilling or unable to hear the points made by me and Mr rnddude just above, or much of anything for that matter; so a continuation of this dialogue is not constructive. Good day. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to hear the points. I am objecting to the obfuscation. I think the onus is on you to articulate a case for this material to be considered objectionable. If it is objectionable, it should be omitted. But your argument is merely the weak argument that the inclusion of this information doesn't provide material that is useful to the reader. Many journalistic outlets provide this information. I understand that our purpose may vary from that of a journalistic outlet. But should that translate into our willfully omitting information what quite arguably is relevant to an article on this subject? Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

When I say "no informational value at all", I mean it contains no useful information, ie nothing that would help anyone to understand what happened, nor how or why this event occurred. I've taken part in a number of these discussions and in none one them has anyone come up with any explanation of what knowing the names adds to the article. THAT is, or at least should be, the main criterion for inclusion, that it adds useful info. The list will probably be included, since, in my experience, the more gut-wrenchingly emotive the event, the more likely editors are to want to 'memorialise' the dead, and few events could be more emotive than these young deaths. Despite knowing that mine is probably a lost cause, I would like to hear a stronger case for inclusion than "Columbine has one". Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - For a combination of WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean it needs to be included. An article should summarize details, not include every bit of minutia that can be accrued, even from RS. I don't see this information being valuable or useful to the reader. It won't impart any greater knowledge of the event, which is what it's supposed to do. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  The names are notable in the context of this event, "I don't see this information being valuable or useful to the reader" is a WP:DONTLIKEIT argument. WP:NOTEVERYTHING meanwhile is a blanket statement that has little meaning if not pointed to a policy or guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  No, it's not a DONTLIKEIT argument. It's an editorial judgment argument, which is something we do every day. By your standard, every argument here is a DONTLIKEIT argument because policy does not clearly support either side. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  To your first statement: A name doesn't have notability... a subject has notability. I've heard the "context" argument before, and thoroughly rebuked it by pointing out that names don't provide context because they don't explain anything. Context: noun the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood. I can change the names, or invent them myself, and they will not impact on your understanding of the event. To your second statement: Mandruss covers it well enough. To your third statement: NOTEVERYTHING is a policy in and of itself, moreover I've coupled it with ONUS... quite obviously. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  The names of the victims are relevant to this article. There was a shooting. People died. They had names. Those names are relevant to an article on that shooting. The question is whether the inclusion of the names of the deceased constitutes some kind of impropriety. Is the inclusion of the names objectionable? If so, why? Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  The question is whether the inclusion of the names of the deceased constitutes some kind of impropriety. That may be your question, but that's not the question in front of the community. It also summarily ignores either of the policies I've linked. Impropriety is not the only reason to exclude material. You obviously don't agree with my or Mandruss' points, and your points aren't convincing to either of us. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  Noting that this kind of behavior often gets editors with smaller edit counts blocked per WP:DE and/or WP:NOTHERE. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  Mandruss—the article has an ostensible subject. Its scope is not entirely a mystery to all editors weighing in here. Why shouldn't we use a Talk page to 'talk" about what should or should not be included in this article? I don't maintain the overweening perspective that I know what is best for the reader. I don't think I have an infallible understanding of what makes a good article. But rational discussion on a Talk page is a part of airing out editorial differences of opinion on how an article should be written. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  The questions you keep demanding answers to have been answered multiple times. Whether the answers make sense to you is immaterial. This is not what talk pages are for. Just stop it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  One of the things to take into account when writing an article on an event is whether the information provided improves the readers' understanding of the event. I've read that list countless times and the only name I remember is the first name of the first victim: Alyssa. Doss it help me get to grips with the subject matter? No. Does it fill my head with useless information Ill never need? No, it obviously can't even do that considering I only remember one word of it. It's a block of text that tells me nothing of what happened, how it happened, why it happened, or why its important. I've said this multiple times before, an encyclopaedic article isn't supposed to hit you in the feels. It is supposed to give you an understanding of the subject matter. Unless you're reading about a named subject, e.g. William Shakespeare, you are not going to benefit from the knowledge. That, fundamentally, is why I'm arguing to exclude it. It exists, it is known, but it provides the reader with nothing. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  As has been clearly enough stated multiple times by multiple editors. When do we get off this merry-go-round? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  You say Does it help me get to grips with the subject matter? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that. The subject matter is plainly obvious. There is nothing in the article that modifies the fact that a 19 year old male used a firearm to kill and maim many people in a school. Almost everything in the article is extraneous to those basic facts. Are the names of the victims more extraneous to the basic facts than for instance that it took place in what is called the freshman building? We provide many pieces of information simply because they are relevant facts. Must we? No. We are not required to include all relevant information. You are asking if information is helping you to get to grips with the subject matter. Nothing is going to help us to get to grips with the subject matter. Maybe the shooter will reveal a motive, or psychological analysis will result in a theory. The names of the victims obviously cannot help us to get to grips with the subject matter. You are eminently entitled to argue for keeping the victims names out of the article. But inclusion/exclusion of the names of the victims shouldn't be decided on the basis that they do or do not help us to get to grips with the subject matter. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  Request a closure? Right now there is a 10-7 consensus going by numbers alone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  I think you're counting CookieMonster's "partial support", which is actually supporting only selected names, not the whole list which is the subject of this discussion. That makes it 9–7 Support. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Again WP:OSE but I invite you to look at the articles over at Mass shootings in the United States#Deadliest shootings, we either have these victim lists or we don't. I'm sure the same arguments have been played out many times before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion should remain open since the last comment was made just a few hours ago. At the moment, there is no consensus.- MrX 🖋 17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You should consider taking your issue to WP:PUMP or start a WP:RfC on the matter. If this has to go to WP:ARBCOM then so be it. Personally I feel that there are lots of other things on Wikipedia that need the attention more but this is an issue that has popped up way too many times. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: What "my issue" are you referring to? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue of victim lists in articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

As of this moment, there are six other editors who agree with me. How is this "my issue" exactly? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to go on the defense here, all I am suggesting is that this discussion be continued on another venue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being defensive, I'm asking you not to call things "my issue" when they are clearly not that. First, if you just wanted to suggest another venue, I don't know where ArbCom comes into that as I don't think content decisions are made by ArbCom. As for VP and other community-level venues, I've already said that that has been tried unsuccessfully multiple times. If you feel it might yield a different outcome if tried another time, go ahead and try. I don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay I will get straight to the point... do you take issue with the victim list (yes or no?). By saying it is your issue in no way do I mean to imply that you alone have a problem with said content. If you don't want to take this to another venue that is fine as well, I just threw out an idea to be helpful rather than having this be an endless conversation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

do you take issue with the victim list (yes or no?) - I don't think I have ever used the word "facepalm" in a Wikipedia discussion, but I'm making an exception. Have you read my !vote and the rest of my comments in this thread? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't resolve content disputes, and I doubt that Village Pump would settle on a project-wide guideline for or against victims lists in articles. - MrX 🖋 18:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

They do resolve disputes though when a consensus can not be reached by the community. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No they don't.- MrX 🖋 19:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, an RFC advertised under the centralized discussion would be the best solution to the dispute over victim lists. This is an issue that affects a large number of articles, so it would be appropriate to get input from the wider community. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, we need to have a centralized discussion about the matter. If other editors didn't care about this issue then we wouldn't be having this discussion, in my opinion other things on this article deserves the attention more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mr rnddude and Pincrete have covered it pretty well.--Khajidha (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for many reasons already highlighted here, and also for reasons highlighted over at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting, both active thread, and the archived topic. One of the arguments for is that the victims are notable because of the event - this is circular - they are not notable in any other sense apart from being victims, and in what way is the article improved by inclusion of the list? Nobody seems to have clarified that yet. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mandruss. "Not a memorial" applies to inclusion in an article about a shooting, war, earthquake,ship sinking, tsunami, plane crash, fire, bombing, or epidemic. Newspapers have published lists of victims. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As noted above, if a different name were substituted, the reader's understanding of the event would be the same. The list of victims constitutes a memorial. Only if reliable sources state that someone had an important role in the shooting (they fought with the attacker, delayed the attacker, helped others escape, reasoned with the attacker, aided the attacker in some way, hindered the attack in some way, or otherwise affected the outcome), does their name belong in the article about a mass killing.If they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, then they are part of the "mass" in the mass casualty. Edison (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You say the list of victims constitutes a memorial. It does not. If we were memorializing these deceased individuals we would be "remembering" them. Memorialization involves the presentation of brief vignettes excerpted from their lives. A key part of memorialization is remembrance. Included here are names and ages—only. Whether you have other reasons not to want the names listed—it is not memorialization. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Seriously, how many times are we going to have this discussion? TheHoax (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  As explained in the opening comment, there was no consensus to include. This is a quite legitimate attempt to establish one. If it fails to establish a consensus either way, de facto consensus will likely continue to rule at this article for the foreseeable future (I'm not aware of any challenge to a victims list that has been in place for a long time in any article).
  I'll note that you have voted, not !voted; if you want to be counted I suggest you state a coherent rationale. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  I want to add that this has been open for over two weeks now [2], and this isn't even labeled an RfC. Maybe we should move on rather than beat the WP:DEADHORSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  We got a new !vote 14 minutes after your comment. My plan is to wait until there has been no !voting or discussion for 5 days, slap a DNAU on it, and request an uninvolved close. Open to other suggestions. But the fact that the default for RfCs is 30 days doesn't imply that non-RfC discussions should close earlier. The only actual difference is the RfC listing. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion of the list, per memorial concerns above. This isn't done at two of the more infamous shooting articles, Sandy Hook and Columbine, no reason that it should be here. ValarianB (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  ValarianB, I hate to say this, but a list of victims is published on both articles you cited. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  Meh. Darnit, I just scanned through the body of the text and looked at the TC, I never expected a sidebar of all things. Listing age and specific ("shotgun to the head", how lovely and weapon-porn fulfilling) death details is just weird. ValarianB (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yes. We're more fighting to set the precedent that this sort of information is not needed. A much better example is practically any shooting that is European centric. I don't think I've ever seen a list of names on such attacks anywhere in Europe. Whether it be the 2011 Norway attacks or 2016 Nice attack (there is a timeline, but not a list of names), Europeans do not feel the need to publicize victims names. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  Well one can usually find some precedent pattern that supports whatever position they choose to take. That's the first problem with looking to precedents for things like this. The second one is that making precedent our guide tends to stifle evolution of thinking, which is a Good Thing. And the third one is that no two cases have the same dozen or so relevant characteristics. These are the reasons why you'll never see me make a precedent argument—or try to establish a new precedent—for things like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support It isn't like the list is so long that it would be unwieldy anyway. 72.215.185.243 (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support — 1. Generally, I think that sequenced events with a small number of total fatalities should include the death list so as to provide a clearer explanation of what happened. In this case, we have not just a sequence but several individuals who died after intervening in the event. We have five of the individuals named already; it's odd to not just complete the list. 2. Unusually, this case also includes extensive follow-on activism and visibility by relatives and friends of the deceased, much of which is or will be recorded in Wikipedia. It's of encyclopedic value to know who was and wasn't a victim of the crime when their family and friends (e.g., Fred Guttenberg) engage in notable political activism after the fact.--Carwil (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mandruss has hone way overboard on WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. If it happens again we should discuss a topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"Small Capacity Magazines"

Change under shooting section mentions he used multiple small capacity magazines, citing the Miami Herald where "Sen. Lauren Book, D-Plantation" says that he used only 10 round magazines after visiting the school as larger magazines would not fit in his duffle bag. I recommend not using this as fact and waiting for an official report on the incident as she is not an expert in any way. The reason I doubt the use of only 10 round mags for the AR is numerous, but the biggest factor is one of the students videos during the massacre records at least 25 round in quick succession, with no break in fire. So he had to use magazines with more than 10 rounds, at least 1. She also describes that “weapon and bullets were not high quality and were breaking apart", and that the gun jammed. I can only guess that she means that the gun malfunctioned and that maybe he had some magazine and ammunition indued failures, not the actual weapon breaking apart while firing.

I'm guessing that he had some 10 rounders along with some 30 rounders, and had one 10 round in the rifle to fit it in the duffle bag he supposedly put the rifle in. I cannot imagine that the relatively small 30 round Stanag magazines would not fit within the large space of the duffle a M&P-15 would fit in (although the bag may not have been of great depth, meaning he could not have been able to zip it up with a 30 rounder inserted into the rifle, it doesn't mean he could not fit extra mags along the profile of the rifle or is small pockets on the side of the bag that is commonly found on duffle bags). But this is only my educated guess. Glm.moulton (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That's weak sourcing for the use of wiki voice for a point connected to the ongoing political debate. Barring independent corroboration (not simply more resulting from Book's statement), I would support removing mention of magazine capacity until there is an official report from one of the investigating agencies. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done - [3] ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

One should also note that the pictures of Cruz's rifle he took himself has a 30 round magazine inserted into the rifle. While it may technically not be disproven 100% as some 10 round mags can have the shape and appearance of a larger capacity one (due to pinning), I believe this is also good evidence for skepticism of Book's expertise, or evidence for her lack of expertise. Although the change has been made, this is good evidence for the future of this page and the mention of magazine capacity. Glm.moulton (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep the original text. This is a horrible example of editors doing their own WP:OR. Incredibly, people are questioning the WP:RS based, for example, on their own opinion of a video. In other articles, people's opinions after watching a video are usually dismissed with prejudice. Also, people are attacking what's being reported by a WP:RS based on their own opinions after looking at photos published long before the shooting, because people have seen old photos of the perp with long magazines! Not to mention that to do that one must actively and selectively ignore that the WP:RS specifically said the shooter was forced to use small magazines because of a backpack size constraint... a more selective and biased WP:OR is rarely seen. XavierItzm (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What RS states "small capacity" in their own voice? All I've seen is statements that state Senator Book said that. I reiterate that That's weak sourcing for the use of wiki voice for a point connected to the ongoing political debate and there's nothing wrong with deferring this until there is an official report that will very likely clear it up. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You know very well that you don't have to use the Wiki's voice at all. Per WP:PRESERVE the correct use of the WP:RS would have been to edit the text to say that "State senator XYZ said that...". WP:PRESERVE calls for Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary, as opposed to just memory-holing stuff. WP:PRESERVE also states: «as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained». Again, no wholesale deletion of material provided by WP:RS based on easily-fixed edits. Thanks! XavierItzm (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You know very well that you don't have to use the Wiki's voice at all. That is not what you said eariler. What you said was, "Keep the original text." And I'm sure you know that we don't include everything reported in a reliable source, it is not that simple.
I have no objection to an attributed sentence about Book's statement, but it doesn't belong in the Shooting section, any more than the controversy about Peterson's response belongs there. With one exception which remains open to challenge—"He later said he did not enter Building 12 because he thought the shots were coming from outside."—the Shooting section is limited to what is known to have happened during the shooting and up to Cruz's booking. It is not known that they were small capacity magazines, yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, will include on the political section, though I see no reason why it shouldn't go in the shooting section.XavierItzm (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

One person gets the word "aged"?

You say "if you want to ask 'why aged' and don't want to go find the answer in the TP archives, then start another TP thread - but edit summaries are not for discussion"[4]. Where is the discussion? I looked. I did not find it. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: It was a brief exchange between me and GreenMeansGo, the conclusion of which was not contested (including by you, although you commented later in the same thread). To see the exchange, go to Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 5 and find "anglophone". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for one of the seventeen names to be annotated differently. I think it is quite clear that the number refers to age. Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I take it you are asserting some knowledge about readers who are not native anglophones and disagree with GMG's comments. But your comment doesn't indicate that, or even acknowledge GMG's comments. I do not assert any such knowledge, I was deferring to GMG, and I will defer to any consensus here. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It presently reads:

"The seventeen people who were killed included fourteen students and three staff members. They were:"

That can be changed to:

"Seventeen were killed. Fourteen were students. Three were staff members. Their names and ages are as follows:"

Is that acceptable? Bus stop (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No. That simply reopens the whole issue resolved in the aforementioned thread, throwing away the editor effort spent on it. Let settled things remain settled, at least barring far better reason than that to unsettle them. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In this unimportant thread you and one other editor decided to use the word "aged" after one person's name. That is not binding. Bus stop (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you missed that, but your failure to pay sufficient attention hardly justifies revisiting that. As I said, two editors agreed, no other editor disagreed, and the change has 3 weeks worth of de facto consensus. For such a minor issue, that's more than enough, and your objection and that of a drive-by IPv6 user (who knew nothing about the prior discussion and has not participated in this one) hardly justify a reopening of the issue.
Your repeated insistence that others discuss until you say they have discussed enough amounts to disruption in my view. Unless you want to be the subject of a DE complaint I advise you not to change the article in this area without a consensus sufficient to supersede the existing explicit and de facto consensus.
Unless another experienced editor sees some legitimacy in your position, I'm done arguing with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You say that simply reopens the whole issue resolved in the aforementioned thread. There was little purpose to that thread in its entirety. And the minor point concerning the word "aged" is not something that has to be retained in the article at this point. Bus stop (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore you disregard your much-vaunted Victims list introduction sentence thread when it suits you as seen a few sections up on this Talk page in the section titled Victims list introduction sentence update. You've got to allow other editors, such as myself, to have input. You are acting as a gatekeeper. Bus stop (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's acceptable to me if you tweak "are as follows" to "were". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

• Umm... I do think as a matter of course, we should write in a way that is as clear as possible, which includes things like explaining details that might be confusing, and avoiding things like euphemistic or colloquial language in favor of literal wording. I think the burden on us in particular is heavier than on other language projects because we are writing in the lingua franca, in addition to being the largest project, and so, for example, an English article is much more likely to be used as the basis for a translation to an article on another language project.

Having said that although I think it's best practice, I usually don't have a strong opinion about how we do that in particular. This one word is still a fairly minor detail, and I find it hard to believe the project isn't better off, all things considered, if whichever side just lets the other one win and we all go on to improving the encyclopedia in other ways, rather than arguing over the presence or absence of a single word. GMG^talk 09:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi GreenMeansGo. There is no need for the word "aged" after one of the names. Our article presently reads:

"The seventeen people who were killed included fourteen students and three staff members. They were:"

That can be changed to:

"Seventeen were killed. Fourteen were students. Three were staff members. Their names and ages are as follows:"

Wouldn't the above suggested wording obviate the need for the word "aged" after one of the names? Here is that section of the article for reference. Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Either solution works just as well for me. GMG^talk 12:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Four short sentences. One full length sentence. Information conveyed in stutters. A negative outcome. For those of us who dislike having to take pauses after three words, you are proposing that we take a single sentence and break it into four small chunks just to avoid one instance of "aged" in the list. A far simpler solution would be to just remove "aged" from the list. I would need some evidence for GMG's assertion that non-Anglophones might be confused by a name followed by an age such that it needs to be explained to them in an example. If anything, I'm more likely to be confused by "aged" in one instance and no other, than by not being given an introduction to it. That said, I'm not a huge fan of the sentence as is. Do we need The seventeen people who were killed? I'm sure that everybody can do the simple math required. I'd propose Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were: or if you must insult the reader's intelligence Seventeen people – fourteen students and three staff members – were killed. They were:. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You make an excellent suggestion when you suggest Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were: Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I... don't have that strong of an opinion about sentence structure. GMG^talk 13:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What some of us are saying is that it looks odd to have "aged" after one of the names and not after the other names. Now, I understand that this is the first name on the list, so one could understand the significance as you intend it. But there is fundamentally one alternative way of clarifying for the reader, if you feel such clarification is called for, that the number after the name refers to the "age". That way involves the introductory sentence or sentences. Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Barring a persuasive argument for why your "alternative way" is better than the current way, I support the status quo as more concise. No, I don't have to discuss until you say I've discussed enough. I've clearly stated my position and I'll let you know if I see something that changes it. More generally, I think that whole area preceding the list has received enough attention and it's time to stop "improving" it, each "improvement" creating another issue that then needs "improving". That kind of thing does not benefit readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You say I don't have to discuss until you say I've discussed enough. But you seem to have boundless time and energy to "discuss" when there is no issue at all. This is not a real problem. It is a made-up problem. You claim that there has been "a significant amount of churning around the sentence preceding the list in the Victims section". So what? Does it matter? It is not an important sentence. Is it? Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

As Mr rnddude has pointed out, and I endorse, a far simpler solution would be to just remove "aged" from the list.[5] Mr rnddude also suggests, and I endorse, the wording Fourteen students and three staff members were killed. They were:[6]. Mandruss favors concision and this string of words is actually shorter than what is in the article presently, so I hope we can move forward. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Why I removed Corin's name

I think this edit bears a bit of explanation. Corin may be notable in Wikipedia's eyes if the BLP article created today survives AfD. But she's still a minor figure with respect to the shooting that is the subject of this article—her connection is through Cruz, that she tutored him for awhile—and that was my rationale for the removal of her name here. That we already name some of the student activists is not justification for naming her in my view, especially outside the context of student activism. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think a person with a Wikipedia article is inherently not the sort of person we're advised to not name. Granted, the article may disappear. But until it does, she's close enough to a public figure. That's not to say I want to name her, just see no reason to play vague. Cruz had dozens or hundreds of "classmates", and we already mention two as such; how should a reader know we don't mean one of them (beyond clicking and comparing sources)? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

I have a separate question. At one point he was tutored by a fellow classmate - Who the fuck cares? What a random and utterly trivial detail to include... even in the context which was previously given as to who the tutor is. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. WWGB (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes when I look too hard at a detail of a detail, I stop seeing the the whole enchilada. But taking a step back, it is needlessly thorny and lays eggs no person should want to digest. More like an echidna. Unless she taught him to kill people or use Facebook, it's best left unsaid. Thanks for the voice of reason! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. I feel that way about ~20% of the article, but my "who the fuck cares" radar sucks so I defer that to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess "deferred suckage" is as good a reason as any for why my radar wonked out. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, March 23, 2018 (UTC)

False titles

Am I the only editor who thinks the false title form is overused and that "eliminating two unnecessary commas" is not a good rationale for using it? Always doing this the same way does not produce good writing in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Reads better in this case, I find. Those commas aren't just unnecessary, they slow the sentence down. A false title (or real title) is only overused when it's appended to every instance of a name, not just introducing a person. Since we only mention Beigel once, one "geography teacher" works. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of any others, my question refers to the repetitiveness of using the false title form all the time, as opposed to varying the form used. I'm not talking about the treatment of any single person, and I don't suggest we should drop the fact that he was a geography teacher. Your first two sentences seem to get that and the last two don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought it suggested you might be the only editor who thinks eliminating two unnecessary commas isn't a good rationale for using it on that single person. To be clearer, since we only mention Beigel once, one "Geography teacher Scott Beigel" works more quickly than one "Scott Beigel, a geography teacher," does. Always doing this the same way ("alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz" or "Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel" rather than "Cruz" or "Israel", for instance) isn't good writing. Know what I mean? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

No. And I'm even less confident that you know what I mean. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

False title says that many people regarded as "writing experts" object to any use of the form at all. I'm more moderate and I can live with a balance between the false title form and other ways of conveying a person's position or role. Before the example edit, 10 out of the 15 cases where we have a reasonable choice used the false title form. I felt that the elimination of two commas was not sufficient reason to make the article even less balanced. My comments have nothing to do with whether a given position/role should be stated in any form, nor are they about how we treat any single person. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

So it's about student Peter Wang, agent Robert Lasky or educators Ravitch and Berliner's displeasing forms, is it? I daresay (and I don't use that word lightly) we already mix it up quite well by not saying soccer captain Alyssa Alhadeff, prominent Republican donor Al Hoffman Jr. or defense lawyer Gordon Weekes. I'm not saying the other nine cases don't exist, but if you could pick out four (by name) you'd like to flip, I'm (probably) willing to flip them. Or at least support your flipping. Or whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

Hell, all this confusion has made me generous. Pick five. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

Create new category for mass killings committed by donald Trump supporters?

I, for one, believe it is high time for such a category. Just off the top of my head, we have Las Vegas, Charlottesville, Stoneman Douglas, Charleston, and many more. Sadly, this category likely will continue to expand and already has enough members to justify this useful category for people seeking to connect the dots between Trump's ulltra-violent, white nationalist rhetoric and its consequences47.16.198.16 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC).

Wikipedia's purpose is not to help people seeking to connect political dots, and this article is not about politics. You are very close to a sanction. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Dylann Roof, James Alex Fields, Stephen Paddock, Nikolas Cruz ...how many more must die at the hands of these Trumpians before we understand the harvest which Trump has sown?47.16.198.16 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for your political views, or mine, or anybody else's. If you continue to edit against that fundamental principle, you won't do so for long. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention that Paddock's motive is unknown, Roof's massacre was a year and a half before the presidential election, and Fields wasn't a mass killing. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

All 4 were known Trumpians, though it is true that Fields only slayed a single person. The timing of Roof's massacre isn't particularly relevant. I still say we have the beginnings of a category here.47.16.198.16 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, this is the problem with even going there, which is why I didn't. It implies that it's relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

... Yeah. True. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand your definition of "Trumpian", your dot-connecting ability is awful. Only Roof was ultraviolent and white nationalistic. Paddock and Cruz were ultraviolent on mostly white people, and Fields' mundane single homicide wasn't tried as any sort of hate crime. If you want to make someone out like a charismatic nationalistic cult leader or the greatest killer in American history, there are far less convoluted ways. And if you're genuinely concerned with categorizing like subjects, remember it's the defining characteristics that count, not just circumstantial confluence like whether they prefered Trump to Clinton or boxers to briefs. I think it's high time we started focusing on the latter matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

Yes this whole category thing is really pushing things too far, saying that all mass killers are Trumpians, etc. This is original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It's us, drawing conclusions, connecting dots like Mandruss said, and that's not our job here, but rather our job is to echo what reliable sources say, typically mainstream accepted ones. That said, I will say that it's my own view that there is a slight relation between Trump-type anger at immigrants, Mexicans, women, minorities, which seeps into the minds of disaffected alienated angry types -- it's a subtle factor -- and I bet a case could be made, further, that the typical Trump voter types are more likely to own or have access to (or live in states where it's easier to buy) guns. Again, my view, doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but if there's a study which draws a connection along these lines, and is reported by reliable sources, then we can put that in provided it's balanced. One other thing: I think there's lots of anger on the left side of the political spectrum too, so there may be left-wing nuts engaging in violence.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what's already been written, and personal views aside, a salient guideline is Overcategorization. We don't create capricious or trivial categories or those that promote only a certain point of view. We categorize by defining characteristics: those that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. We don't have a category for "musicians inspired by Jimi Hendrix" (no matter how verifiable) nor intersecting categories like "Films made by Obama supporters" or "Libertarian violinists". --Animalparty! (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Avid supporter of Donald Trump

It's clear enough to me that the purpose of this content is to show that Trump supporters shoot up high schools. If not that, what is the relevance to this shooting? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Something, something, condemn by association. The timing of this thread is exciting, refer directly above. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The facts are pretty clear, and it's well-referenced: that Cruz was a Trump supporter, wore the Make America Great Again hat, was racist, white-supremacist, etc. It's documented. But that's just Cruz; you're right that a statement that all "Trump supporters shoot up high schools" would be POV; but the addition doesn't say that, just Cruz, so I don't see why Mandruss deleted referenced content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Maybe the word avid could be struck; and whatever, it doesn't belong in the lede section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC) About the relevance to this shooting -- there's much speculation about Cruz's motives; it's pertinent to this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a note- "avid" was taken directly from the sources.47.16.198.16 (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed the content for the reasons I gave in my edit summary. I get that you disagree with those reasons. As the content is disputed and highly controversial, I think it should stay out pending a consensus, but I'm not going to continue the edit war that you obviously think was ok. I suggest both of you (assuming you are different people) learn a bit about dispute resolution before making controversial edits to controversial articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course we are different people. Thanks for the advice, though. 47.16.198.16 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, you removed referenced content with good references which is not disputed; maybe it's controversial to you, but not to pretty much everybody else. If you wish, you could do a RfC and see what the community thinks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: The mere fact that you claim it is not disputed, after I disputed it, shows that your understanding of dispute resolution is sorely lacking. No, we don't start RfCs to get editors to abide by commonly accepted best practices. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There's problems with how those sources are being used. Most of the material isn't supported by any of the six cited sources. Dailymail is not an RS, so it's out. Snopes, Hollywoodlife, and Dailykos were removed by another editor for misrepresentation (I checked Snopes, definitely was misrepresented); and I removed the Washington Times because all it says is that Cruz claimed to have written to Trump, not that he was an "avid supporter" of his. Even with the daily beast some of the material is fabricated. "Often", no it just says he had been seen wearing it. "Avid supporter" doesn't even say he's a supporter. Etc, etc. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Cruz and MAGA

RfC: Should the article mention that Nikolas Cruz wore a "Make America Great Again" hat?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support There are numerous references that Cruz wore a MAGA hat on many occasions, on his Instagram account, such as here and here and here. Cruz's motives and affiliations are relevant to this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The above !vote pretty much tells it all. The best RS Tomswulcer can produce are Snopes.com, Hollywood Life, and Daily Kos, "a group blog and internet forum focused on liberal American politics". Snopes is good, and they say the hat thing is kinda sorta legitimate, supported by a student and Heavy.com. That may be sufficient RS to show he wore the hat, but it's not enough to show relevance to this shooting. For all we know Cruz could want to make America great again, as do many Americans who don't support Trump. Anybody who argues that "well, it fits with what we already know about him" is putting 2 and 2 together and getting 22. Show me far better RS and I'll reconsider. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Trump is both the most famous person in America and its president. As such, virtually every American has an opinion about him, and millions have shared that opinion online. So it's not even an interesting factoid. As a motive or affiliation (or even a vague suggestion of either), it's more interesting, but also an unsourced delusion which doesn't jibe with what we do know. Most of his targets were ineligible voters, even after the election, so posed no threat to his favoured candidate. Cruz didn't mention Trump (through words or hats) during the shooting or since. Trump has publicly condoned condemned Cruz, indicating a clash of ideals. In short, there's NO COLLUSION. Might as well wonder about whether he preferred McCartney over Lennon, Hagar over Roth or chocolate over vanilla. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

• InedibleHulk - "condoned". I think you mean condemned. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, those two trip me up every dozen times or so. Thanks. But on second thought, it wasn't much of a condemnation. Headlines will tell you he called Cruz a "savage sicko", but he was tweeting about a hypothetical savage sicko. We kind of know who he meant in the same way we kind of know who "Russia" means, but Cruz did get it a lot easier than Sayfullo Saipov got. Probably just because he's...you know. Different. Anyway, can't think of a good verb, so sticking with "condemned". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

Being publicly condemned is less embarrassing than being publicly "condomed". ;-) Is that a word? It's the kind of typo I would make. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be a word. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, March 25, 2018 (UTC)

SUPPORT. Key fact. I would even support a stand-alone article on the hay Nikolas Cruz’s Maga Hat. Inclusion of this information WILL save lives from being taken from more of these Maga-hat wearing murderes. IP user is calling for a complete and total shutdown on Maga-hat wearers entering the US. Until we can figure out what the hell is going on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.95.250 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

WaPo quote, a misleading insertion...

@Tomwsulcer: these two sentences have been stable in the article for some time:

An email from the school administration had circulated among teachers, warning that he had made threats against other students. This led the school to ban him from wearing a backpack on campus

Now you have inserted this WaPo "quote" between the two sentences:

for example, one student reported that Cruz told a friend of hers that he would be "excited to gut her like a fish and play with her dead body."

Now the text reads thus:

An email from the school administration had circulated among teachers, warning that he had made threats against other students; for example, one student reported that Cruz told a friend of hers that he would be "excited to gut her like a fish and play with her dead body." This led the school to ban him from wearing a backpack on campus

Although the quote for WaPo is properly sourced, inserting here is incorrect. It now appears that the threat was stated in the emails that the teachers circulated, and that this threat led to the backpack ban. This is NOT what was stated in the WaPo article. The WaPo article reports ONE person saying that a friend told her something. Nothing about emails and/or backpacks. Per my edit summary when I reverted, this information should not be inserted at this point in the article. It is totally misleading to do this. If you are going to report this, put it somewhere else, in its own sentence. There's a whole paragraph with student quotes.

I hope this is clearer to you now. Please revert your revert of my revert!! Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!}

If the issue is the placement of the insertion, why not move it? Instead, you deleted the phrase plus the reference. So I moved the insertion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, and for your patience with me. Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 16:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I've been deleting this section. think it happened because I was clicking edit from a diff of an old revision, and I didn't realize that I would be editing the markup of an old revision of the page. AdA&D ★ 15:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 16:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Wadler

Naomi Wadler is a hopeless stub and proposed for deletion, but some of the references there could be used here. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Wikipedia is not the place nor a platform to include random people with no notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed, but her speech on March, 24 was covered by USA Today, Miami Herald, and Huffpost, among others. The March For Our Lives should be covered here instead of Naomi Wadler. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  It already is covered here, albeit in future tense. Needs to be updated to past. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  It is mainly covered at March for Our Lives. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  I went WP:BOLD and merged/redirected the page to March for Our Lives#Washington, D.C.. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry, I switched the {{merge to}} March for Our Lives, where it fits better. Thanks for info. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  This ended up with a redirect and Talk:March_for_Our_Lives#Naomi_Wadler. –84.46.53.50 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Fix NICS Act of 2017

The Fix NICS Act of 2017 in the lede for this article about an event in 2018 is odd. Apparently it is related to the Sutherland Springs church shooting. –84.46.53.49 (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of anchors

Re [7][8]

Hello. Anchors are used to serve incoming section links to former section headings. AFAIK they are not meant to be used as "aliases" for a section—we have no need for that since we can use piped links to create whatever linktext we want. That section has never been headed "Nikolas Jacob Cruz" to my knowledge, certainly not long enough that there is a significant chance of an existing incoming link. Therefore we don't need an anchor for "Nikolas Jacob Cruz". All we need is "Suspect". Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss. I moved your comment from my talk page to here. I hope you don't mind. By your argument, could we also remove "Suspect" if we make sure to remove all incoming links with anchors for that term? My intent is to anticipate potential incoming links for people searching for this section. This section is the redirect target for both Nikolas Cruz and Nikolas Jacob Cruz, and so I thought it would be appropriate for both possible terms to link to this section. I had a similar thought process for the "Perpetrator", "Shooter", "Gunman", and "Attacker" anchors per the RFC above. I can see how that could snowball at some point into quite a lot of anchors, and so I'm not pushing super hard for these changes, but I don't think the idea ought to be completely dismissed out of hand. - Paul^T+/_C 13:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

By your argument, could we also remove "Suspect" if we make sure to remove all incoming links with anchors for that term? Yes. (More accurately, all incoming links to the "Suspect" heading.) I would have done exactly that instead of adding the "Suspect" anchor, except I didn't know how to find all of them.
I don't see how anchors affect search, either Wikipedia search or Google search. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"suspected" shooter

I've accepted several edits that remove the word "suspected". At this point there is no doubt Cruz did it. Even his defense admits it. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem with that. I see little point in the word when we're saying things like: "Cruz entered Building 12, a three-story structure containing 30 classrooms typically occupied by about 900 students and 30 teachers. Armed with an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle and multiple magazines, he activated a fire alarm and began firing indiscriminately at students and teachers." Logic dictates that you either remove "suspected" or add a lot of allegedlys, and the former makes more sense at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)