Talk:Never Again MSD

Better title

I have not seen "Never Again MSD" in any news articles, but I have seen "Better Again", as in this New Yorker article specifically on the "movement". I think it makes sense to rename this article to something like Never Again (gun control movement).104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, the group gets to call themselves what they've chosen to call themselves, and they're calling themselves Never Again MSD. There are news stories with that exact wording.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Unless ... if the group is setting itself up with the term Never Again being the umbrella term, and then particular chapters of it are based on specific locations or schools, so that Never Again MSD is that school's chapter, and other schools might have different initials appending to the Never Again, then that's another thing, and your renaming suggestion might be necessary. Here's the current disambiguation page for 'Never Again'. Another thing: if the two words 'Never' and 'Again' are merged into one word, that is, ten continuous letters NeverAgain, then that's another thing entirely. Let's see what happens as events develop.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well.- MrX 🖋 03:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

the group is young. This article calls them the "never again movement". We shall see. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure a consistent name will emerge over the next few weeks.- MrX 🖋 18:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Photos needed

Please upload photos of the group's founding members to Wikimedia Commons. The link for uploading is here. Remember whoever took the picture (ie, pressed the button on the smartphone or camera) is the copyright owner, so that's the person who should upload the photo. Please name each image file with 'Never Again MSD' so we can find it to include in this article. If you declare images as 'public domain' they're more likely to be copied widely around the web.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Remember that a picture is often better than a thousand words; also article needs better explanation why their activism campaign is nonpartisan, when clearly it is the fault of the GOP for all the gun crap happening.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Logo needed

If the group has a logo or identifying image, please upload that to Commons as well (see above), thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It can only be uploaded to Commons if the copyright owner wishes to freely license it. That may or may not be something they wish to do, since doing so would mean that -- for example -- under some circumstances the NRA would then be able to sell shirts with Never Again MSD's logo on them!

If the copyright owner of the logo does not wish to freely license it, then it would still be possible to include it in this article as a non-free image. MPS1992 (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

2018 United States gun violence protests

A summary of this org's activities might be appropriate at 2018 United States gun violence protests. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Just a reminder to all editors, the Biographies of living persons policy should be excruciatingly studied before adding material on any member or survivor, some of whom are already reporting death threats ([1],[2]). Per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY, primary sources should not be used, especially ones that include personal details. We should avoid victimization by only including the facts most pertinent and widely reported, or even omitting some reported details as appropriate. The dignity and safety of human beings should always be placed above the need to write a meticulously detailed article. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that they are receiving death threats is also very noteworthy, possibly for this article, and the individual bios and the main shooting article.- MrX 🖋 23:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Key people

The key people section usually lists a few major people in an organization. This appears to list all members. I think we need to cull this. Natureium (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree, but may I suggest? These things are still working out -- like is this a coherent group, which meets regularly, and plans a coherent course of action? or a less organized bunch of highly charged individuals? My suggestion is to wait a few weeks or so -- but keep the list as it is (including references) and then maybe after the March 24th demonstration, it will be clearer who's who in this group.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Or, maybe move the names to a paragraph in the text, and pick a few key people; that might work too. My sense is we shouldn't delete any names at this point from the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, cull. We should err on the side of including less info, not more, per the WP:BLP notice above. Only the key people need mention in infobox, e.g. prominent founders (not necessarily all founders). This is not a membership directory. If other members need be named, it should only be in context of article development (e.g. "Never Again member Jack Smith told reporters ..." --Animalparty! (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Culling underway.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC) May I suggest? Let's adopt the rule that only wikipaged-members get inclusion in the "key people" slot with the others getting mentioned in the text, until of course a better criterion becomes known to us.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Using that to start the list is fine since the results work, but as a general rule to be used for future, it shouldn't be used. The names there now are fine, until there is some kind of official list of key people that we can find sourced. Also I see Kasky listed as the founder solo. Are we really using the who started the Never Again movement with his classmates, line as he was the first founder? Even that source explicitly says he founded it with others. Can we get a better source to cite if we are going to list him as founder by himself. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agree. We could list the founders as "Surviors of the Stone Douglas high school shooting" or something of that manner? Rather than just listing one person, as I believe all of the "key people" that have been listed in the article could be the "founders"--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I think that only Wikinotable people should be in the infobox, I don't think the current list should be recreated anywhere in the body. Again, this should not be a directory or exhaustive compilation. Names should not be mentioned merely because they exist. I think Kasky should not be singled out in the founder field, leave that empty for the time being. . --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I see there's been some discussion, and back and forth editing, regarding the member names. I think we can keep the general statement that numerous Parkland students have been covered in the media, with the references that had already been cited, without listing every single name. Only the prominent members need to be listed in the intro. But just because a member doesn’t have a Wikipedia page (yet), doesn’t mean that member isn’t prominent. For example, Sarah Chadwick. It's important for readers to get an objective sense of the collective nature of the group, and they can check out references for further reading. JJMM (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I personally think that for founders, we need to leave it blank or decide on what to put there (citing one single person as the founder of this movement doesn't seem accurate from what I've read, it seems like it was more a group effort). I think a discussion should be had about exactly who to include, before we possibly have edits wars over it. I definitely agree that just because they don't have a wikipedia page, doesn't mean they're not prominent (i.e Delaney Tarr has gotten prominent media coverage and is a very active member of the group as well). I don't think every member should be listed, but I think it's most prominent should be, wikipedia page or not.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and have moved Kasky to key people. Leaving the founders field blank, at least for now, is the most diplomatic, least arbitrary, and least cumbersome option. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Also, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox should summarize, not supplant, info from the article, and should not be a repository for shoehorning in elements merely because they are verifiable. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I added to the Founding section that the initial three co-founders were Cameron Kasky, Alex Wind, and Sofie Whitney. From the sources I've read, these three co-founded Never Again MSD on Feb. 15th. The two other key people besides Kasky, Emma González, and David Hogg, joined on Feb. 17th. -JJMM (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Tarr and Whitney still have no articles and stand out in our lead for their lack of blueness. Hard to see them as equally "among the most prominent" when the prominent ones are clickable. I've already deleted them once and they already came back, so I'm just saying now: How long do we wait? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we think they justify an article (if one were to be created)? If not, I'd say just remove them until we can justify their names being there.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they pass GNG, but I also think that about some of the current bios. If they're created and survive AfD, though, I'm fine with listing them among the most prominent. Same for the previously-removed Matt Deitsch, who wasn't restored with the bunch for some reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the current bios are questionable, maybe too short (i.e Ryan Deitsch possibly? Maybe that could be reviewed and lengthened or something?) We could draft some up and see if they seem like they'd pass an AfD (i.e. do they have enough information? is it useful information? etc.)--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Alfonso Calderon seems to exist solely as a token immigrant and Kyle Kashuv as a voice for the right (per Fox) or an alternative outsider (per CNN). Sarah Chadwick is a lesbian, so fills that quota. Deitsch doesn't stand out, identity-wise, from the general appeal of the core three members (Hogg, Kasky and Gonzales), so I think his lack of notable deeds works against him. Jaclyn Corin is plainly presented as a rally mastermind, so she's done enough, doesn't need to "be" anyone to stay. Alex Wind is largely redundant to Kasky in the dramatic lead department, but was on the cover of Time, so deleting his article now would make us look unduly pro-Kasky, even though reliable mainstream sources do cover Kasky more.

Long story short, we already have too many spinoff bios rehashing the same plots and themes. That's not a knock on any of the people, just their Wikipedia entries. I don't want to help create more, especially if they're anchored on being there from the beginning (Whitney's claim to fame) and writing to Vogue (as Tarr did). But if you can make something out of that, I won't argue for deleting your articles and would like to see them here with the others. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try to get something drafted in the next couple days for Tarr (just as I've actually just been able to find more articles and news about her, so I'll start with her). She also had a speech a week after the shooting that she made at the Florida house (? Not American sorry aha. She made it in Tallahassee when they all went down there right after the shooting), so I'll include that.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, would it be easier to make a draft (to start off) or just do it in my sandbox, or does it not matter? I've never done a draft before so I just want to make sure I'm doing it right!--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never really grasped the difference between draftspace and sandboxes. I think a draft might get more outside attention and help. I've had a monkey wearing a coat lingering in my own sandbox for way too long to offer sound advice on getting started. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

A draft for Tarr has been created here, a list of articles I found on her is linked in the talk page, just in case anyone is interested.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Good start. Pending the finish, I'll move them out of prominence here again. You might want to find a source for the bit that flat-out defines her as "a prominent member", though I appreciate the effort. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Aha, I'll probably get it finished and properly sourced when I have the time, and slowly work on it. Though others are completely free to chime in! (Edit: I have found several that have called her one of the most "vocal and visible" of the students, do you think that's enough? Or should I get something more definitive?)--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

While the human ability to modulate sound and reflect light in such a way to transmit ideas to and influence behaviour in other humans is indeed wonderful, I can't help but have my fascination dampened a bit by seeing chickens talk to each other, too. That's not to say she's a chicken, to be clear, just similar in that regard, as she is to every student we've seen and heard. Collectively, the Never Again dozens are all "the most" vocal and visible, relative to the three thousand enrolled. Being called "one of" or "among" the prominent group relays her inclusion in it, but not her individual prominence within. Just distinguishes her from the students we don't see or hear at all.

So yeah, something more definitive, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

New Yorker profile

"We’re Not Your Pawns”: Parkland’s Never Again Movement Meets the Lawmakers". From the New Yorker.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-auto ban in Norway

There's quite a bit out there tying a proposed 2021 gun ban in Norway to the general post-Parkland push, if not these kids directly. Maybe worth a mention, in some form or another. Maybe just Americacentrism and recentism giving undue weight. You decide! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. My hunch is this material might be relevant on wiki-articles on gun control or elsewhere. It's not clear whether the Never Again MSD group did something in particular to influence the debate in Norway, that is, the Norwegians may be simply reacting to the shooting event itself, which reminded them of their earlier horrific mass murder. I'm wondering what others think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

If it gets an article we could put it in a see also section. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Media strategy?

I came across an article somewhere about how the group was evolving a marketing/media strategy against gun violence, but then I couldn't find it again; did anybody come across it? Like, whether they're hiring a mentor, coordinator, about how they're spending the donated money, and about whether it will act as a unified group with a coherent message that they stick with over time, with an internal discipline and focus (whether it's definition-based or a limited focus like this one etc), or whether they're better off being autonomous individuals, each saying what each one thinks. It seems like right now there's a kind of jostle by each one of them, competing almost, to see which one gets the most media attention. Again it will probably be a good idea to revisit things later, probably after the November election, to reassess what's the subject here (a general "Parkland students" like a general umbrella term, "Never Again MSD", individual student activists, etc. Already there are signs that one of the Never Again MSDers, David Hogg, is not focusing on gun control but is adding (widening? diluting?) new topics such as racial issues. Anybody come across stuff about the group's strategy?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I did come across an article that discussed the formation of a non-profit (something like Never Again Action something). It discussed how funds would be managed. Unfortunately, I can't find it now.- MrX 🖋 12:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I heard them mention it in a video one of their classmates make, that they plan to turn Never Again MSD into a non-profit after the march. Still searching for a more definitive source.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Including Cruz's Name

Alright, so, since we have an edit war going on about including Cruz's name, I don't want to go back and forth. So, I'm here to start a discussion about whether or not to include his name. If a consensus cannot be reached by discussing it like this, I'll open an RfC.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Cruz is mentioned repeatedly in the Wikipedia article Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. So if Wikipedia decides to exclude his name on that article, I'm fine with excluding it here too. In the meantime, Cruz's name is referenced and relevant to the subject of Never Again MSD and if we include the word allegedly I think we're fine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Also, just to point out, that you, yourself, used Cruz's name in your section heading, which leads me to think that you, yourself, are not that wedded to the no-naming-a-suspect rule. Further, Cruz is mentioned repeatedly in the news media, so if you still feel inclined, launch your RfC, but most Wikipedians will, I suspect, roll their eyes, and think you're wasting everybody's time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Counterpoint: It's clear enough that "19-year-old Nikolas Cruz confessed to being the perpetrator.[5] He was charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder and 17 counts of attempted murder." It's not clear that "alleged to have been committed by former student Nikolas Cruz, who had been armed with an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle.[14]" Is a good writing in this article (IMO it's not). Cruz's name and other details can be left for Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, and the AR-15 bit can be merged to the AR-15 bit further down. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The question is: exclude or include. What is your position? And why?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Exclude because this article is much less about Cruz than Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, so his name is not needed here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Gråbergs' on this and that the article is more about the organization that was formed after the shooting, not the shooting itself. Leaving out Cruz' name would not hinder information the reader gets.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

My point was never about the name itself, only using it to say he killed people he's yet to be tried for killing. Throw an "allegedly" in there, and the sentence becomes non-prejudicial. It'd still be arguably irrelevant to understanding this topic, but not plainly against policy. Confessions are compelling evidence in a trial, but that's all they are. Our job is to wait till a jury considers that evidence along with the rest and reaches a decision (or Cruz pleads guilty). We can't pick and choose which untried citizens deserve this right and which don't, even if we're personally sure certain ones are clearly murderers. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

And the mere mention of a court of law in BLPCRIME in no way means or suggests Wikipedia itself is, should be or should mimic a court of law. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A policy prohibiting Wikipedians from saying person X did such and such a crime, when it is still in doubt, well I can understand the reasonableness of such a policy, since it protects the reputation of persons as per WP:BLP. But in this case, with the high profile attention from the news media, the ferocity and extent of the crime, and the high degree of certainty that this person is the perpetrator, plus the inclusion of his name elsewhere in Wikipedia, well I think it doesn't make sense to prohibit his name in this article for BLP reasons. It's like the cat is out of the bag. The moral of the story might be this -- if a person doesn't want their name splashed all over the media, including Wikipedia, then don't take an AR-15 rifle and go shooting up one's school classmates.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, this was never about prohibiting his name. The shooting article mentions his name in a perfectly BLP-compliant way, and many reliable sources exhibit standard journalistic integrity. The rule is simply "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." It then hammers home "Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." There's nothing resembling an exception for high-profile people, ferocious crimes or apparent certainty in Toms, Dicks or Harries (or even Hulks). The only people not presumed innocent of crimes on Wikipedia are dead and convicted people (presuming we follow our policies, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This thread is about whether to include Cruz's name. Please re-read the section header.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, totally my bad on the wording. Didn't know how else to word it, but it's my bad. My intent behind creating the section was just essentially about what InedibleHulk is talking about. Again, should have worded it better, sorry!--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)