Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 2

References

Please be careful when removing a reference to check that you aren't leaving orphan ref tags. This has happened at least three times in the last half hour or so. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC).

I have named all unnamed refs and moved the references to the end, as we commonly do with these fast changing news articles. The general process is to regather the new references which will be inserted in the body from time to time. A useful tip is to merely comment out refs which become unused, saving time if they are required once again. Also useful is to number mutliple refs from the same source "ABC 1", "ABC 2" etc, though we have not entered that territory yet, and may not. Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC).

Thank you for your most valuable edits Rich.. And it appears that some refs have again been orphaned, and then deleted!
• The reference,<ref name="Daily Mail">{{cite web|title=Children and adults gunned down in Connecticut school . Cops quizzing kid brother|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html|publisher=Daily Mail UK|accessdate=December 14, 2012|author=Rachel Quigley|date=December 14, 2012}}</ref> used for info regarding the weapons used, seems a poor ref as it links to an index page where the title referenced no longer appears. I couldn't find a way to search for it either.
• If any one else can? Or replace with a more recent source? - 23:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I also want to thank Rich Farmbrough for the Herculean effort it took taken to expand, name, and move all those references throughout the day. I was just adding snippets here and there, but at least half of my edits had conflicts. It must have been much worse for Rich. 2010 SO16 (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to remind users about this, I have fixed multiple reference errors also. Werieth (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Taking a look at the page only 8 of the last 50 edits have not contained a reference error. :/ Werieth (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

XXXX-deadliest

I think it would be better to say "It was the third-deadliest school massacre in history, after the Bath School Disaster and Virginia Tech Massacre." Would it be appropriate to use this article as a reference?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 21:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You would think, but respectfully, you would be wrong. Ma'alot massacre and Hiroshima and Nagasaki?Da5id403 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable reference. However, you might be able to get away with WP:CALC and references for the other counts - however, I would say that is also probably not acceptable, as it misses the possibility that we have missed other incidents. We need a reliable source giving the comparison. Further, I don't think the comparison itself is very important or needed in the article. Say "one of the deadliest" and leave it at that. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This WP article lists the deadliest shootings in US history, which puts it at the second most deadly (Bath School was a bombing.) Perhaps it could be used? Novalayne (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This up-to-date article from NBCNews confirms the deadliest US school massacre as the Bath School disaster (last paragraph), if it's deemed necessary for this article. Tylermeuse (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone possibly explain to me why the emphasis on labeling it a shooting in lieu of just a massacre? I would think that a shooting would involve more injured than dead, while a massacre implies that the party perpetrating the act is in total control of the situation. Is labeling it a shooting, possibly a bias where other international incidents involving the deaths of students at a school are labeled as massacres? Granted, a shooting does specify as to the type of event, however, it does not inherently imply that there were fatalities. Aneah|talk _to ^me 19:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely prefer labeling it as a massacre.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 00:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

2nd Deadliest American Shooting Altogether

After Virginia Tech it is not only the 2nd Deadliest Shooting but also the 2nd Deadliest Shooting in US History so we should probably note that (it makes it sound even more dramatic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are you sure about that? And would we discount things that happened during times of war? During the Indian wars? The Wounded Knee Massacre? Czolgolz (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• We are not in the business of "making things sound even more dramatic". Uncle G (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not so much making it more dramatic as it is making things accurate, yes it is the 2nd biggest School Shooting but the Top 2 "Peactime" (I should have clarified that) shootings are both school shootings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words

I think we need to remove weasel words like "reportedly" from this article. Since we don't do original research, absolutely everything in this article IS "reportedly", so repeatedly saying it makes no sense and slows down the reading. We already have the "current events" tag, so readers are forewarned that details will change quickly. Rklawton (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Sancho 23:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Go Phightins! 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There's still a lot of "reported..." in the article. I don't think the content should be about who reported what, but just plainly stating the facts, with citations to reliable sources after them all. I'd edit myself, but edits are happening too quickly. Sancho 23:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been removing things like "tentatively identified" and "apparently" and "most likely" and since they keep being re-inserted, well, I don't want to be accused of edit warring so I'll let others deal with that from now on. 2010 SO16 (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Apparently" and "most likely" go beyond the definition of weasel words. These are statements of conjecture and have no place in a Wikipedia article. --Crunch (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's take turns. If you do it again I certainly won't report you. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Title

Weasel words

Is using "shooting" versus "massacre" weasel words? Aneah|talk _to ^me 22:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Massaacre" would be, but "shooting" wouldn't. They were shot. HalfShadow 01:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Article moved

Not sure what the consensus of this recent move is, so I am asking the community to weigh in. Is the recent renaming appropriate?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Which was also marked as a minor change.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It WAS somewhat unilateral. Such changes, done without discussion, will tend to attract opposition even if they're the right thing to do. I really don't have a strong opinion on the name, but changing it that boldly was not a diplomatic approach. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, but I'm fine with the way it is.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 02:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Potentially controversial moves are supposed to go through the WP:RM process. 2010 SO16 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the undiscussed move. It's far too early to know what name will predominate, so that isn't a valid basis at this juncture. For now, "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" is suitably straightforward and descriptive.

Also, our style convention is to append a year only when it's needed for disambiguation (which is why we have an article titled "Columbine High School massacre", not "1999 Columbine High School massacre"). Unless another notable shooting occurred at the same elementary school, there's no need to specify "2012". —David Levy 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The page will inevitably be moved. First, we don't put the date in front (unless for some reason there's a need), and second, we call almost all school tragedies like this massacres by convention. I looked into this in regards to the Aurora shooting, and almost every school tragedy-crime article is named as massacre. That's true even when the only weapon was a firearm. Shadowjams (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an eventual move to a title ending in "massacre" is likely. (Of course, we routinely wait until it's clear that such terminology predominates among reliable sources.) —David Levy 03:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think waiting is generally prudent in this case; there's no hurry in that regard. Shadowjams (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK - my apologies for the premature move - yes, it should have been discussed first, and I mistakenly didn't think it would be contentious. But I did not mark it as "minor" - that apparently happens automatically, with no indication on the move page that this will happen, which ought to be changed. As for the date in the title, it's not correct that we only add the year when there is a disambiguation issue. The recent trend has been to include it - see: 2012 Aurora shooting, 2011 Tucson shooting, 2012 Minneapolis workplace shooting, 2011 Grand Rapids, Michigan mass murder and others. The naming of these articles is not consistent - recently, again, they have tended to be based on the city/town name - rather than the more obscure name of the location (theater, mall, school), and for some reason have shied away from "massacre", although I would prefer it as well. So, following these recent examples, 2012 Newtown school shooting would follow the pattern, and when I looked at ghits to get an idea of what was commonly being used, that phrase was appearing a great deal more often in headlines than "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" or similar. (Yes, I know we don't decide based on google hits, but it can be an indication of the trend.) My move was premature, but the current title may not to be the title that most readers would come here and search on, so we ought to be considering this. Tvoz/talk 06:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The articles are titled as such because other shootings have occurred in those locations (so there are disambiguation issues). When the title specifies a location in which no other event of this nature has taken place (as is typical in the case of a school, campus, or small community), there's no reason to append the year.

We even use the title Virginia Tech massacre (with Virginia Tech shooting redirecting to it), despite the fact that another shooting occurred there last year. —David Levy 13:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

i have only heard "sandy hook" mentioned ONCE all day, and i assumed it was a neighboring town, i.e., where the suspect lived as opposed to where the school was (newtown).

if you're now stating that the school was actually CALLED sandy hook (ok, yes, you are - i've read the article), that seems more accurate, but clearly not the way the media is leaning. it's been "newtown" "newtown" "newtown" "newtown" "newtown" all day. and a few "newton"s.

seems to me it would be like calling 9/11 the "lower manhattan attack". correct, yes, but simply not used. 67.150.80.200 (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook is a village in Newtown, so both are accurate, but maybe not the common name - Newtown is the much better known name, which people in the tri-state area would recognize and why the media would use it. The school name is Sandy Hook, but I'm not hearing the incident being referred to as such. Tvoz/talk 08:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

i'm not in the tri-state area; i was actually stating that out here where we've heard of NEITHER, the media is using "newtown". personally, i'm surprised they aren't going with sandy hook, b/c there are a lot of newtowns around -- and even more NEWTONS, sans w -- and it's just inviting confusion, IMHO. "sandy hook" seems far more unique, easier to google, more specific to this incident etc. etc. but unless they start using it soon, i'd say move page back to "newtown".

btw, on the other point, i vote for "massacre". FWIW. 67.150.80.200 (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, because this event did not happen on a date with another significant meaning. Usage, particularly in serious mainstream media, is what will ultimately count here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has done anything in the wrong here about a move issue, but obviously the precise wording of any move is gonna involve some debate, so whoever's bold enough to do it, please start the WP:Requested Move and please link the specific discussion here. There's no need for this to be acrimonious, I think the general idea about what it should be is established, we just need to give a little time to the process, and I think that is the right place to start. Shadowjams (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Please see the move discussion below. Shadowjams (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

As I explained above (and the nominator appeared to express agreement), while such a move (to the proposed title or another ending in "massacre") is likely to occur in the future, its discussion is premature. We routinely use the term "shooting", "bombing" or "attack" (e.g. if an incident involved both a shooting and a bombing) until it's clear that alternative terminology predominates among reliable sources. In other words, we don't deem events "massacres" ourselves. We have a Columbine High School massacre article because that's the common name in real-world usage. When a comparable designation exists for the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, we'll use that too. —David Levy 13:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting → Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre – Procedural request. Most, if not all school tragedy articles are suffixed by "massacre", and any specific terminology will be worked out through consensus. This article is widely edited at the moment and only a consensus process can arrive at a timely and appropriate title for the article. It's important we get this process started now, and I don't think it will be especially controversial. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support because it would tend to seem more accurate to someone not already familiar with the events. 2010 SO16 (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stop letting emotions get in the way. "Shooting" is a balanced term to describe this. It is making a problem where there is none. --86.40.107.195 (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I note a comment in the section above this one, from Uncle G (talk) - 'We are not in the business of "making things sound even more dramatic"'. That would appear to apply to this equally hysterical section. --86.40.107.195 (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Shooting conveys that the perpetrator used a gun. Massacre is more appropriate (IMO) to the use of a bladed weapon. --Auric 12:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support A school shooting could just as accurately describe someone who shot the windows out at a school. Appending "massacre" is a clear statement regarding the death of innocent victims, perpetrated by rogue authority with heinous motives and callous disregard. --My76Strat (talk)  12:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support because there should be uniformity in the word used to describe school mass shooting like this. Both Columbine and Virginia Tech are titled "massacres", and since this event is nearly identical to those two mass shootings in terms of how it was perpetrated and will likely be forever linked to those two mass shootings, it should be referred to using the same descriptor. Either name them all "massacres" or name them all "shootings", but stay consistent.108.73.44.248 (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Massacre. Victims were all shot more than once. All first responders relate an unbeleivable scene. To call it less is "head-in-the-sand"-ish. It was a massacre. Shootings happen every 23 minutes in the USofA. Massacres not so much. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

There are basically two choices of criterion. the first is if this meets a true definition of a massacre. For this: then yes it should be retitled. Regardless of opinion, if Columbine and Virginia Tech's article warrant "massacre" then this should as well. The other is basing it off of what the public says i.e. if "the Sandy Hook massacre" becomes a common reference title. If this then it's something on which we should just wait and see what spreads in the media. My thoughts on the matter. Samvnkauffman (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What's the Hurry?

• Question: Why was the above discussion closed after only a few hours of life? Whose decision was it to close? Was there a discussion to close? Was there some tired refrain about a "dead horse"? Editors should refrain from making decisions that effect the capacity of fellow editors to engage in conversation. Is there some rush to make it to the 10 o'clock News? ```Buster Seven Talk 23:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, what's the hurry? As explained above, the nomination was premature. The closure isn't an endorsement of the current title; it reflects the simple reality that it's too soon for us to know what name will predominate among reliable sources.
  Editors are welcome to engage in conversation on this topic, but when usage in the media is changing and evolving on a daily basis (potentially affecting the validity of both support and opposition), a formal move request is rendered stale before it's even concluded. —David Levy 04:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was also wondering about that? As the editor who brought this up....it was to discuss it.....not to just shut down discussion when an appropriate request was made.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  I explained why the move request was inappropriate when I closed it (and I've expounded above). This isn't a unilateral determination; the community has been through this on numerous occasions. —David Levy 04:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Shooting section

The shooting sections reads that the .223 Bushmaster has not been used in the school yet CNN States "He must have shot a hundred rounds" that's hardly glock shooting! --Fox2k11 (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There are some stories out there suggesting that several 9mm clips had been used. I'm not convinced this is a necessary detail for now, as all the latest stories say that two 9mm handguns were used, so it goes without saying I would think. 2010 SO16 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Police tell CBS News that they found two handguns near Lanza's body-a Glock 9mm and another weapon which carries extended clips."[1] I can't find more along those lines. 2010 SO16 (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar w/ guns but whats the fire rate of a Glock 9 mm? could he swaped mags pretty quickly that would made sense? how many rounds can those extended mags carry? otherwise hundred of rounds w/ a glock & a sig sauer sounds not plausible! --Fox2k11 (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Last I saw the police said they hadn't released the total number of rounds shot. But that was a few hours ago. I suspect we won't know for sure for a while. I suspect the glock involved probably held around 17 rounds, although in many states like New Jersey and New York that number of rounds is generally illegal. I suspect that specific point is not quite clear yet, and we should wait until we get specific about it until some reliable source reports on it. Shadowjams (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A quick perusal of Google Shopping indicates that 15 round Glock clips and 30 round Sig Sauer clips both sell for $15 each. 2010 SO16 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The rate of fire of almost any semi-automatic handgun is very fast. You can empty a 15 round mag in 2-3 sec. Obviously aimed shots would be much slower than that. . The mag change is where the time would go, or to an actual mag reload if needed. The bushmaster ar15 was found in his car, and there are 0 reports saying anyone was shot with it. Additionally "hundreds of rounds" is probably not accurate, but that may be what it felt like to people at the time. Also he had 2 handguns, so if we assume 15 round magazines, thats 30 right off the bat. A single spare mag for each gets you to 60, which I think weill be closer to the actual number of rounds fired when the cases are counted. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"You can empty a 15 round mag in 2-3 sec." (Gaijin42) - Do you have a reference for that or is it speculation? With semi-automatic firearms the trigger has to be fully pressed and fully released each time you want to fire a round. The length of trigger pull varies from model to model, but is around 1/2" on a Glock 30 . I don't know if you have tried it, but I am physically unable to move my finger 1/2" backwards and 1/2" forwards 30x times in 2 to 3 seconds. I'm getting around 4 seconds and that is without factoring in that you have to recover from the recoil of the gun and re-aim every shot at a target. Steveday72 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Please Fox, this is not a forum for general discussion. My POV is that it is more likely that the reported "hundreds of rounds" may be exagerrated. If I was in the middle of a shooting, I would likely be dodging, running or hiding, not counting. A few rapid shots may seem like many more. IIRC it is less than 24 hours since this happened, so the exact details of weapons used and shots fired are simply unknown and will remain so for some time. Suggest that you keep an eye out for reliable sources about this.
Glock pistol#Feeding says high capacity Glock magazines hold up to 33 rounds, standard are 17, depending on calibre. 2 guns with 2 mags each could easily equal 60+ shots.
The sources cited say the rifle was found in a car outside the school, and that is what we report. - 220 of ^Borg 04:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed wait seems Prudent sorry if it looked i was discussing! --Fox2k11 (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem, we are all 'guilty' of such, especially relatively new editors. AGF always! - 220 of ^Borg 03:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"A .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle (favored by deer hunters[27])" .. "Favored by deer hunters" - Not really true, despite the misspelled reference quoted. Some or many(?) states have minimum .243 caliber specified for deer. For deer hunting, Connecticut <http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/regulations/26/26-86a-1through12.pdf> has a shotgun only open season on public land with rifle usage only allowed on private land. Most Connecticut deer hunters would not likely use a bushmaster in .223 caliber for deer. Semajmai (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it is favored by deer hunters, that bit seems completely non-notable. Lanza wasn't hunting deer...he was killing people. We could say that 9mm guns are "favored by gang members", but that would be similarly extraneous. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur! - 220 of ^Borg 03:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "assault rifle" at the bottom of the Shooting section references an old source of information that has since been superceded. The original reference which used the incorrect term "assault rifle" was from typed at 12/14/2012 @ 12:45PM. Newer more accurate reference on ABC News ([2] posted today 12/15/2012) properly describes the rifle as being "a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle" .    Please change the incorrect description as it is misleading the general public into believing fully-automatic military weapons are the same as the semi-automatic rifles that are available to civilians. They Are Not! Steveday72 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree totally, most journos don't know the difference between a bullet and a Cartridge (firearms), let alone semi-auto and assault rifle - 220 of ^Borg 03:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

References

CNN and NBC Criticized for interviewing children on scene

And what little bit of detail these "witnesses" have to offer doesn't seem to be worth the insensitive nature of the questioning — at least not according to the slew of people on Twitter calling out these news organizations to stop talking to kids, immediately.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/why-are-cnn-and-nbc-interviewing-students-sandy-hook-elementary/60009/

I have to say I disagree. While most of the kids I watched interviewed on livestreams over the afternoon had nothing interesting or newsworthy to say, some of them were astonishingly articulate and provided newsworthy details which have been found noteworthy enough by several sources to make it into quotations in print stories. 2010 SO16 (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the kid's parents were asked first BEFORE any interviews took place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt that what the Atlantic Wire says people on Twitter are saying about CNN and NBC is going to add much to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Lanza

Edit request - Ryan Lanza was never taken into custody

Please immediately remove the sentence from the Suspect section: "Ryan Lanza has been taken into custody by police for questioning, according to unnamed police sources.[18]" That is complete nonsense. He was never taken into custody. And what makes it especially irresponsible is that the lousy source[3] attached to that sentence doesn't even say that. The fact is that Ryan Lanza and his father, who live in New Jersey, volunteered to go in for police questioning. Neither of them was ever "taken into custody." And police never even implied that either one of them had any involvement in the shooting. And it has now been officially confirmed by police that both are not suspects and they have finished questioning both of them. For verificication, see this report from just 30 minutes ago: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/14/at-least-27-dead-in-shooting-at-connecticut-school/, which says "Ryan Lanza, 24, who was widely and erroneously reported to be the suspect, was questioned in Hoboken, N.J., but authorities said he was not involved. An FBI source tells Fox News that Ryan Lanza and the father, [name redacted], have both been cleared and are not longer being questioned." Btw, I suggest more experienced editors keep a close eye on this article to prevent any other irresponsible edits about living people. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: (edit conflict × >4)as they were led away in handcuffs, and there are more sources that say they were detained for a while for questioning. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What source says Ryan was handcuffed?!? I have done this. I've also removed the father's name from the above comment per BLP policy. 2010 SO16 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, SO16! I was going to say the same think to Gwickwire: Where's the source for your allegation that they were led away in handcuffs?? You better be careful about making claims about living people without a reliable source, and read BLP very carefully. And the source attached to the sentence did not say that, which I previously stated. And I provided a reliable source that shows both have been cleared and released. Anyway, thank SO16. :) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, but someone else mentioned a video of Ryan in handcuffs above (without a link) so I have to say I'm still confused about where this is coming from. 2010 SO16 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the videos showing Ryan being taken away by the police clearly show him in handcuffs. One of the reporters even asked someone (I think it was a police officer, but I've seen so many things I'm starting to lose track!) why they were using handcuffs if the guy was not in custody, which the person refused to answer. I find all this quite troubling, even though I don't remember any official source actually using the word "in custody," and even some of the CNN reporters corrected themselves when they let the word slip. There are so many odd things about this case... Desdenova (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Link? 2010 SO16 (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not the best quality, but here: [4] skip to about 0:30 seconds in. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; also I found this: "CBS station airs this image, says it is Ryan Lanza. Says he is NOT under arrest, though he is in handcuffs." Given that, I think we should still indicate that he voluntarily submitted to questioning and was not taken into custody, unless someone has a source saying otherwise explicitly, per BLP concerns. Cops are not known for their very careful attention to witness rights in high-pressure situations, but because of the misidentification I think we should be very careful about BLP issues. 2010 SO16 (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Though why they would handcuff someone who "is not a suspect" still baffles my mind... Desdenova (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

U.S. police do crap like that all the time, sadly. 2010 SO16 (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

[ec]Police in the U.S. have wide latitude to detain people for a variety of reasons, and probable cause is one of those. Handcuffing isn't the same as arrest, and in fact if you watch Cops (TV series) enough you'll see them cuff suspects and then tell them expressly that they're not under arrest; that's largely because they believe they don't have to read Miranda rights if they say that. Quiz your local law student. Shadowjams (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"In custody" is not a precise term. It could be anything from questioned, detained, protected, arrested, jailed, imprisoned. He can voluntarily be in custody as well. It is not a perjorative or criminal state, and the fact that others may THINK it is should not affect our use of it, if thats what reliable sources are reporting. Police often handcuff anyone who is a theoretical risk, even if not an immediate suspect. It happens all the time during random stop and frisks. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) comment before this one has been removed. They aren't going to handcuff someone because of a 'confusion' when the other brother was dead on scene! He was handcuffed in HOBOKEN. Not anywhere near the scene! we know he's been cleared. However, we should include that he was questioned. They handcuffed him because they thought he might have provided the guns (at first) and/or helped plan the shooting. It's not BLP vio if it's in sources that say the material, as long as we say that he was later cleared. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You might be right, however the press (or CNN at least) has been trying to avoid using the term, so we likely should do the same. Desdenova (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just addinng that this USA Today article says that their reporter Kevin Johnson reported that Ryan was taken into custody in the late afternoon for questioning by Hoboken police, and that a law enforcement official later told the Associated Press that Ryan Lanza had been extremely cooperative, was not believed to have any involvement in the rampage, and was not under arrest or in custody. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just great. Perhaps it would be best to eliminate all mention of "custody" one way or the other? 2010 SO16 (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, the guy has been defamed enough today. He had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting and the entire world knows it now. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If he was in cuffs, and had to go against his will, and had no say in the matter, he was IN CUSTODY. Technical semantical BS notwithstanding. He was taken with no choice. If it quacks like a duck. But he was totally innocent, and there was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL ANYWHERE that Ryan the brother had anything to do with it. But as other editor just said, in crazy unique high pressure situations, cops will put people in handcuffs, and in effect arrest them, even if there's no real indication that they themselves committed a crime. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"He was also described as a goth who was obsessed with video games.[63]" needs to be removed, the Daily Mail is absolute rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.108.161 (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - add citation I provided

I tried posting this request a few minutes ago, but "220 of Borg" removed it, saying I wasn't allowed to post it after my previous edit request was answered, yet he didn't remove others who posted after me. Anyway, please add the cite I provided (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/14/at-least-27-dead-in-shooting-at-connecticut-school/) to the sentence: "Ryan Lanza voluntarily submitted to questioning by police, but was not considered a suspect or taken into custody.[20]" The current cite does not verify that Ryan Lanza was cleared. The Fox cite does. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Added. 2010 SO16 (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that I removed any post, unless accidentally or as a result of an edit conflict. If you can point me to a diff where you think this occurred... - 220 of ^Borg 10:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the sentence, "Lanza lived with his mother in a hilly neighborhood of newer houses five miles away from the Sandy Hook Elementary campus", why do we care that he lived "in a hilly neighborhood of newer houses"?? That part needs to be removed from the sentence. It should simply say, "Lanza lived with his mother five miles from the school." Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're supposed to be comprehensive, but I tend to agree that if we can't mention the vigils and Red Cross services, the hilly neighborhood phrase should probably go, too. 2010 SO16 (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Lanza listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ryan Lanza. Since you had some involvement with the Ryan Lanza redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Wrong" Ryan Lanza

It seems that the reports in the Christian Reporter and other small media outlets are the ones that are wrong - Ryan Lanza was not the killer, but there is overwhelming evidence that it was the right Ryan Lanza (i.e. the killer's brother) - how many Ryan Lanzas are born in Newtown, a town of 30,000 in Connecticut, and also live in Hoboken? - Which is what his f.b. page said...before it was taken down (why else would it be taken down?) He even resembles Adam Lanza, look at the photo. It's the screenshot on twitter (i.e. where he appears to be posting on facebook that it wasn't him) that seems to be the hoax - it never actually appeared on the facebook page, even though it was circulating on twitter way before the facebook page was blocked. Also, none of the major news organizations have said that it was the wrong Ryan Lanza. Only sites like TMZ, etc, took the bait. I won't take out the relevant sentences in the article, cause i know someone else'll put em back and i dont want an edit war - but these appear to be the facts. BigSteve (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this, and already mentioned it yesterday -- though the conversation digressed into the handcuffs issue. But yes, I do feel this should be changed. More specifically, the problem is in this sentence: "Some news organizations incorrectly showed photos from a Facebook page of a different man with the same name as Ryan." To better reflect the facts, this should be changed to: "Some news organizations incorrectly showed photos from Ryan Lanza's Facebook page." Though this could probably be phrased better, but I'm too tired to think, LOL. Desdenova (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be correct; I removed the bit about Facebook. The source used was basing it on information that Ryan Lanza was the perpetrator, thus him posting supposedly made it the "wrong" Ryan Lanza...when it wasn't Ryan Lanza at all. It may or may not have been that Ryan Lanza's Facebook page, but unless we have a ref to that effect that notes the correct shooter, it shouldn't be in the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Lanza's girlfriend and a friend have also been reported missing in New Jersey.

This seems to be cleared up here:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/confusion_reigns_at_hoboken_bu.html

And the article may be useful for other information.

It sure is, thanks! If only all news stories were so fact-heavy. 2010 SO16 (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good article. And it confirms Ryan was never in custody ("Ryan Lanza was extremely cooperative, said a law enforcement official who was briefed on the investigation. He was not believed to have any involvement and was not under arrest or in custody").

Ryan Lanza taken into custody

According to ABC news, Ryan Lanza was taken into custody at his home, contrary to the third paragraph which states "[Ryan] was neither considered a suspect nor taken into custody."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza/story?id=17975673#.UMzFHG_Aeh1

The relevant information is at 3:32 in the video. --Scochran4 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Bath School disaster #1 shooting spree wrong

If you read the article the killer set off three explosions which killed the people, the rifle was used at the end when he used it to shoot dynimite in his car to set off the 3rd and final explosion, he did not use his gun as the primary weapon to kill anyone (Although one can argue shooting the dynimite was indirect). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the third such discussion, but I think the best answer is to rename this article to "massacre" as we do most school tragedies like this, and then if we want to get specific about the "shooting" aspect, that can be made clear later. Shadowjams (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:RM is the correct process if you think it should be renamed. I have no strong opinions one way or the other. 2010 SO16 (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources are calling it the 2nd most Deadly United States shooting, which is accurate just not the massacre bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Number of victims

Number of victims in the first paragraph is said to be 27 out of whom 27 were children. 20 were children, not all of them. --85.23.71.98 (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That must have been a transient typo which has already been fixed. 2010 SO16 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Why "Suspect" and "Suspected perpetrator"?

The police have confirmed that Adam Lanza was the shooter of all 27 people, so why are we using the words "suspect" (in the article) and "Suspected perpetrator" (in the infobox)? If he were alive, then he would of course be the suspect or the "alleged" gunman, etc. But he's dead and the police have declared him the shooter. Therefore, it's a solved case. So why are those words still included? --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

seriously?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Because people were using things like "thought to be", "is most likely", "some authorities have reported", and other weasel words. It Just...Didn't...Stop until I changed it to refer to him as the suspect. I prefer "shooter" or "gunman" except that I am certain those will very quickly be prefixed with "alleged", "reported", and the like. 2010 SO16 (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi SO16. If a suspect who dies is ultimately declared to be the perpetrator by the law enforcement agency investigating the crime, then the case is legally considered solved. So he is not the suspected perpetrator anymore; he's the perpetrator. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You will of course need an actual reference for that fact before it goes in the article and just hours after the fact seems a tad too soon, but lets allow concensus to decide such.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A reference that a dead suspect being declared the perpetrator makes it a solved case? That's crime 101. And it doesn't matter if it's a few hours after the crime or even a few minutes. If the police declare a dead person the perpetrator of the crime, the case is solved. There are many, many cases when it's done very quickly, such as in the case a few months ago where the fired prep school teacher returned to the campus and killed the headmistress, then himself.[5] The teacher was declared the perpetrator almost immediately and the case was closed. If the police do not declare a perpetrator, then the case remains unsolved (cold case) until they do. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah you know that and I know that, but clearly everyone editing doesn't, so I'd rather have "suspect" than "alleged gunman according to several authorities" and similar nonsense. 2010 SO16 (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's simply not the way it's done. See Virginia Tech massacre. The infobox correctly says "Perpetrator", not "Suspected perpetrator". And instead of a "Suspect" section, there's a "Perpetrator" section. That's exactly how it's supposed to be done. And this case is exactly the same as the Virginia Tech case in that respect. In both, the shooter killed a lot of people, then killed themself. No trial (obviously); just a police declaration of who the perpetrator was, so a solved case. So no "suspect" and no "alleged" should be in the article.. Adam Lanza IS the perpetrator. He's dead and police have declared him the shooter. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I removed all mention of "suspect". Watch how long it lasts. If only the way it's done is how it actually happens; not on Wikipedia, sorry. 2010 SO16 (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If that happens, just refer editors to this thread and to the Virginia Tech article (or any other similar article). ;) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The Sheriff, Lt. Vance, referred to the gunman as "the suspect" - that's the source of MY using it in the talk page. MaynardClark (talk)

Navbox?

There has been a lot of debate about whether or not to link to other notable shootings in the US with articles on Wikipedia. Might it be valuable to have a navbox at the bottom of the article with links to notable US shootings? --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Someone has started it for you in the See also section. 2010 SO16 (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is now a basic Navbox available that is now in use. Super Goku V (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I've populated {{US Mass Shootings}} at the end of its articles. 2010 SO16 (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

.223 shell casings

ABC's live coverage is saying ".223 shell casings – a round used in a semi automatic military style rifle – were also found," but I can't find that confirmed anywhere else. Someone else should look. 2010 SO16 (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I also heard that on NBC's afternoon coverage. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

AFP says it too, but many more sources say the .223 Bushmaster wasn't fired and was found in the car, so I'd say best leave it out for now. 2010 SO16 (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

USA Today says "shooting revives gun debate"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/15/connecticut-school-shooting-gun-debate/1770835/ Lots of officials are quoted and plenty of gun control angles, but I'm about ready to call it a night so someone else have at it if you want. 2010 SO16 (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be best to wait two or three days to see how the situation stands on how this will affect the whole gun debate. I don't think we're going to have a reliable sense of where the politics are heading within twenty-four hours. But it is still something to watch. Dab8fz (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reaction section

I was looking at the reaction section and I was just thinking that it could use a little trimming. Right now it's turning into more of a tribute section. Just about everyone is pretty much saying the exact same thing: that it's a tragedy, that their prayers are with the survivors and the families of all impacted by this, and so on. It shouldn't be a 2-3 sentence section, but I'm not sure how many press statements we really need, or that we need to list the individual reaction of each country. Since everyone is expressing horror and sorrow, we could probably sum up the reaction from the other countries in only 1-2 sentences and reduce the amount of press blurbs to keep it from being a quote farm.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, in part: the Domestic section is getting too bloated. Quoting President Obama's national address is appropriate; I'm not so sure about Governor Huckabee and other pundits. This being said, I think the International section is perfect as it stands at the time of this writing. But why can't I edit the Pope Benedict XVI's remark (i.e., why doesn't it appear at the bottom of the Edit page?) I simply wanted to cross-reference to Wikipedia's article on Pope Benedict XVI as was done with the other leaders.--Erasistratus1 (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Suspect's Medical and Psychiatric History

As of 15 December 2012 6:30 a.m. GMT, the "Suspect" section is responsibly written, i.e., explicitly quoting (w/cited sources) law enforcement and Ryan Lanza's statements concerning medical/psychiatric disorders Adam Lanza allegedly suffered from.

As time passes and A. Lanza's medical history is clarified, let's be careful to use (a) factually verifiable diagnoses (as opposed to hearsay); (b) correct classification of his relevant illnesses -- thus far, I've read about developmental disabilities (autistic disorder; Asperger's disorder) and mental illness (personality disorder; obsessive-compulsive disorder) -- as referenced in the U.S. by the DSM-IV-TR (currently) and DSM-V (when it's published this spring); and (c) appropriate formatting for cross-referencing to the most relevant Wikipedia articles explaining these conditions [but only after the preliminary news coverage -- and Wikipedia's mention of -- these conditions as they apply to Lanza have been verified].

Therefore I'm creating this new Talk Page section for Wikipedians to discuss and keep track of edits to this important aspect of the article's content, namely, accurate characterization of the shooter's medical and psychiatric history (in the "Suspect" section).--Erasistratus1 (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

--- I now see that even in the few minutes it took me to create the above note, the "Suspect" section has been renamed "Perpetrator." Fine. But why have references to his medical and psychiatric history been deleted? I hope it is precisely because of the problems I alluded to -- namely that it might be too early to discuss this subject as anything other than hearsay. But I'm not even sure about this: shouldn't the article reflect, to some extent, the news information current as of the most recent edit? Deleting mention of A. Lanza's alleged psychiatric problems is to exile the 500 pound gorilla (or is it elephant?) in the room! --Erasistratus1 (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

See #Why "Suspect" and "Suspected perpetrator"? above. He's no longer a suspect because the crime is considered solved by authorities. I have no idea why medical and psych history references were removed. A lot of them are still in there. 2010 SO16 (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

My error -- thank you, you're right, a lot of them are still in there. Cautiously, which is appropriate. My original point still holds.--Erasistratus1 (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to try to bring the gist of these links to a larger audience but I have no background or expertise in mental health so I hope you can help, please:

• http://autisticadvocacy.org/2012/12/asan-statement-on-media-reports-regarding-newton-ct-shooting/
• http://grasp.org/profiles/blogs/statement-from-michael-john-carley-on-the-newtown-ct-shootings
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/15/1170176/-They-re-Saying-the-Shooter-Had-Asperger-s#

2010 SO16 (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much to whomever added those. 2010 SO16 (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That was me. IMO the unverified autism rumours should be moved into the reaction section, and there needs to be more emphasis on how these are unverified rumours which the media has chosen to focus on. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

2010 SO16 : I'm not sure what you mean by "I was asked to try to bring the gist of these links to a larger audience but I have no background or expertise in mental health so I hope you can help, please" -- do you mean contact the links you listed? Please clarify. — Erasistratus1 — continues after insertion below

The present inclusion of those links and the text referencing them by Gordon Ecker is excellent at present, but I hope people will keep an eye on them so that they aren't removed. It's important to explain that untreated mental illness is obviously more of an issue here than any particular diagnosis. 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And Gordon Ecker, I strongly disagree with your suggestion that the autism reports (stronger than "rumours" if they indeed emanate from family interviews) be moved into the Reaction section. Since this is a developing and very fluid news story (e..g, virtually all sections of the article contain points at odds with some of this morning's news reports), we (editors) will certainly need to verify -- and change as needed -- Lanza's psychiatric history, etc. But it is an important aspect of his biographical profile and should NOT be moved to the already bloated "Reaction" section! Instead [to rephrase points made (above) when I added this section], editors of this article should continue to do three things: (1) Use neutral language', employing referenced phrases such as "reported to ..." and "quoted as" when -- and only when -- they are both likely to be true [based on consensus of reputable news reports -- and germane; (2) Restrict medical/psychiatric profiling to aspects of his life that are relevant to (and help readers better understand) the mental states leading up to/preceding (as opposed to "causing" or even "contributing to") the crime; and (3) be very sensitive to the concerns of the mental health/Asperger's (etc.) communities.

In regard to my last point: Because of the undeniable stigma/misunderstandings involving people with the conditions Lanza may have had, persons with, treating, and advocating for individuals with these conditions, are often (justifiably) hurt by news reports such as those referenced as contributing to Wikipedia's summary of this aspect of his biography. This reality does not absolve reporters or encyclopedists of their public responsibility to write (again, responsibly, relevantly, and neutrally!) about such conditions. As always, this is also an opportunity to educate. (By providing facts -- not by editorializing on the stigmatization and inappropriate generalizations which such facts might generate in uncritical minds. That's a job for the op-ed writers and the medical/patient communities.) If Wikipedians were to hold off or refrain from reporting sensitive psychiatric facts until all such facts have been verified -- which in some cases will take many months -- then we will leave a knowledge lacuna which will inevitably be filled by sensational, unreliable pseudo-journalists. And the public, seeking accurate information from Wikipedia, will have been ill-served by this (our) ostensibly neutral reference. --Erasistratus1 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

---

How the frak are unverified rumours "an important aspect of his biographical profile"? Why the frak are we assuming that a rumoured but unverified diagnosis is relevant to his mental state? [citation needed] -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So far, every theory I've read suggesting that autism and / or Asperger syndrome might be even remotely related to the crimes have come from people who are not experts on autism, and all of those theories have relied upon the thoroughly debunked myth that people on the autistic spectrum lack empathy. IMO these autism theories seem like pretty clear-cut example of an exceptional claim which has not been backed up by exceptional sources. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've cut it, since everyone here seems to agree that we should only include medical information which is adequately sourced as relevant. Also, I skimmed over the Jeffrey Dahmer, Luka Magnotta and Beltway sniper attacks articles, and none of them seem to include any medical information about the killers. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic breakdown of the victims?

Does anyone have a link to a list of the victims, preferably stratified by race? Thanks! 68.228.240.147 (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not yet. The police announced that the coroner only started the formal identification process around 9 p.m. Eastern, and the earliest they would be able to release the results could be Saturday afternoon but there are no guarantees. 2010 SO16 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The mother, the school principal and school psychiatrist were identified as victims, but the children's names will not be released immediately. It may be quite a few days before authorities will allow that. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Preferably stratifed by race"?? "Ethnic breakdown"?? What possible relevance does that have and why would we include it unless we had some reliable sourcing that said these were hate crimes targeting certain races or ethnic groups? Short of that - and it would have to be quite good evidence, none of which has even been hinted at - the race or ethnic background of the dead children and teachers has nothing to do with anything. Their ages, sure. But explain what relevance their ethnicity would have. Tvoz/talk 08:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's for a socioeconomic study. 2010 SO16 (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the person wants to see if the shooter was a racist. Coasterghost (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the person asking the question could have some reason for asking, but I'll clarify, then: what possible relevance does the race or ethnicity of the victims have for our article, short of evidence about targeting? I see none. We're not doing a socioeconomic study here, we're writing an encyclopedia article. Tvoz/talk 19:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You ask what relevance a possibly racist motive can have? Honestly? --89.204.138.200 (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A police spokesman said they will release the names of the victims at 8:00 a.m. Saturday.[6] 2010 SO16 (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Images

Photo

Can you add a photo related to the Newtown, CT school schooting? 67.172.190.101 (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an edit request, by the way. 67.172.190.101 (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

We had one but it was removed because it had identifiable faces of children and failed (incorrectly, in my opinion) criteria #2 and #8 of WP:NFCC. 2010 SO16 (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Image ideas: map of school with various insets

The Charlotte Observer has published this composite map, chronology, and infographic which purports to show the location of the shooting within the school, along with some inset maps and graphics which do far better than the map we are displaying presently.

Does someone with graphical skill want to take a crack at making something similar for the infobox? 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Replacing map photo with a more appropriate image

Now we have a vague map of the city in the infobox. Can't we have a photo of the school itself or media photo taken from the scene which would be more related to the shooting instead and put the map further down? werldwayd (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Media images" would almost certainly be copyvios. Rich Farmbrough, 04:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

Bullet proof vest and .223 source

There's an early reference in the article that the shooter was wearing a bulletproof vest, and in the same sentence (and I believe the article) that .223 cartridge casings were found at the scene. I've heard contradictory sources, and indeed our article seems to say (at least at some point today) that the .223 rifle never fired a shot. That, plus other news reports makes me wonder about this particular claim, about both the vest and the idea the rifle was fired. I think it's best if we remove this until there's more collaboration. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be about 719 Google News hits with the "bullet-proof vest" and "Sandy Hook" terms, but when I looked for .223 casings it was more like four, so I'd say yes to the vest and no to the casings. 2010 SO16 (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think counting links is the way to do this; as with other cases, anything black tends to get seen as "military style" or "bulletproof" when actual kevlar is extremely rare; similar misrepresentations have happened elsewhere. Counting links doesn't work because many regional papers print newswire stories verbatim; they don't have the resources to have a reporter at the scene. So, while I appreciate you responding, I don't think that's the end of the discussion. When we have something definitive it should be added in; I haven't checked the news cycle since I got up so I don't know if there's new information. Shadowjams (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags

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

---

There is no need to have the flags in the Reactions section per WP:MOSFLAG as the names of the countries are already given. The flags are only ornaments here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it's completely inappropriate and if I were able to edit the page, I'd simply remove them, as their use on this page is not in accord with guidelines for use of flag icons. Someone who can edit this page should go ahead and remove them. Lizabetha (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Mind telling me how that's a violation of MOSFLAG if MOSFLAG explicitly says to include the names with the flags? -- Veggy (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It may not directly add to the content but I believe The flags serve to illustrate that the person/agency issuing a reaction is representing a whole nation and not just him/her/itself. Also, I find that the section is quite easier to read with the flags serving as a sort of visual re-enforcement for the particular reaction provided. Bcatabas (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags should not be used where words are sufficient, they are not ornaments for text-based content. It is a pity that the flags have been put back several times despite the comments above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Besides, the flags do not "change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words." And the flags have been put back—obviously—because they don't violate the Manual of Style. -- Veggy (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags are an affectation when they make an article look like a Christmas tree. The mainstream media does not use silly little flag icons every time it quotes a government statement.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written in a news style. -- Veggy (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but the flag icons are still totally unnecessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but the nature of how the International Reactions section has evolved so far really merits them. Compare the Mumbai attacks reactions to the VT massacre reactions. The former is a list and is really improved by the presence of flags as informative bullets. The latter is prose and doesn't need flags. If someone turns this article's reactions to straight prose, the flags won't be necessary. -- Veggy (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• The flags are stupid and add no information or utility to the article. This section should be rewritten as prose and the flags removed. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This I agree with... Rewrite the section. -- Veggy (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

From this talk section you "found no contra to using flags"? Or just no reason you agree with? Either way, I agree with Lizabetha and ianmacm about the flags. Garion96 (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Things need time to settle down, see 2011 Tucson shooting which is a Good Article and deals with the reactions in a much more measured way. At the moment, this article's Reactions section has issues with WP:RECENTISM and is written as a bulleted list which is poor writing style. A brief prose section summarizing the international reactions is what is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice—if you bothered to read the section—that I countered the arguments regarding the inclusion of flags as being violating the standards of inappropriate usage per MOSFLAG. Or do you simply ignore arguments when it suits you? -- Veggy (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Twenty children are dead, it is not the time to spend all day arguing about WP:MOSFLAG. I am not going to contribute any more to this section and will wait until things have settled down. The Reactions section should be in prose form without the flag icons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I just don't agree with your arguments. The same as you don't agree with the arguments of having no flags. That's quite normal in discussions. Garion96 (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Splendid. You didn't need to waste space telling me this—I realized it when you first got involved. What should be important is why you don't like it, but I guess you can't be bothered to form a reasoned counter-argument. Whoever made you an admin must've had a real sense of humor. -- Veggy (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. WP:PROSE expresses our preference to have our articles written in sentences and paragraphs like a grown-up resource. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, I agree. When I added the flags, the reactions were already in lists. Per lengthy articles like this or this I tried to make the article fit the style commonly used through Wikipedia. I think the reactions should naturally evolve to prose as we know more and more about the incident, but, so far, the lists remain. -- Veggy (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I could just reword the arguments made above, what would be the point? But I am going to follow ianmacm's suggestion and leave this section alone now. It's only some flags btw, no need to go hyperbole over it. Garion96 (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Navigation to the school district

Readers who know nothing about the school might want to find out, and might want to find out from here, this being an encyclopaedia after all. ☺ The encyclopaedia can tell them about all of the schools in Newtown Public Schools district, now. So the question is how do readers get there from here?. Linking [[Newtown Public Schools|Sandy Hook Elementary School]] in the lead seems the only viable place for a hyperlink in the prose. But this does make the first sentence into almost a string of links. Please work something out. Uncle G (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I added it into the "See also" section. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

adam lanza newtown conneticut shootings of school children

The mother of Adam Lanza never worked at the Sandy Hook school and was a stay at home mother. This is misinformation that has been repeatedly reported on the news. There is no apparent link between the children he executed and his mother. The new information is that the mother wasn't even a school teacher. Please update this information ASAP. As so far there is no clear reason why the person choose to execute a kindergarden class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdvccv (talk • contribs) 12:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• And you obtained this information from where, exactly? Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

2nd Suspect in hills??

I know that Adam Lanza is currently the only suspect, but earlier this morning they were talking about a 2nd possible suspect. I heard that they caught someone in the hills and detained him, and as he came down he was telling everyone he didn't do it. Does anyone know more about that? Was that Ryan, (Who I also have heard is innocent) the brother? I thought he was detained for questioning where he currently lived.

I've been wondering about this, as it's been mentioned a couple of times already. It's finally been cleared up just now by Lt. Vance in his press conference, though. A reporter asked him about this, and he said that they had searched the entire area around the school and that anyone found there (even a lumberjack) would have been taken in for questioning (much like Ryan was, I guess). He did add though, and I quote: "There were no other arrests that were associated with this investigation." So I think that pretty much clears up this point. Desdenova (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not catch the press conference, did any of the reporters pose a follow-up on this subject? There is AP raw video footage available on youtube of officers apparently chasing an individual through the woods. According to local CBS News radio 1080 WTIC a second suspect was taken into custody. In addition, he made comments to parents nearby as he was led away;

A witness tells WFSB-TV that a second man was taken out of the woods in handcuffs wearing a black jacket and camouflage pants and telling parents on the scene, “I did not do it.”

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/12/14/school-shooting-leaves-multiple-injured/

Catclaw (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Accounts of intense manhunt reported by local press.

West Hartford News Newtown elementary school shooting: At least 27 dead, including 20 children Published: Friday, December 14, 2012

"A reporter observed three state troopers with canines walking around the woods nearby, and parents leading their young children away from the scene."

"Police told reporters to stay out of the woods and stick to the road. Officers with weapons drawn were stopping cars and questioning motorists. They looked in car windows in a nearby parking lot."

Catclaw (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

References

RadioReference.com Police and EMS Radio Archive

The Founder and President Lindsay C. Blanton III has posted up for free Radio archives of of Fairfield County Police, Fire and EMS and Newtown's Police for around the time of the shooting. Think we should put it into the article or at-lease a transcript of it? Here is his post:

Here are some of the relevant archives from today's incident. Please be respectful with the use of these archives. They document a professional response to a horrific incident.

Newtown Police/Fire

Response starts at the 22:45 Mark

(9:13 AM - 9:43 AM)

http://areg.radioreference.com/20121214/1/201212140813-441506-7623.mp3

Continues here…

(9:43 AM - 10:13 AM)

http://areg.radioreference.com/20121214/4/201212140843-182442-7623.mp3

(10:43 AM - 11:13 AM)

http://areg.radioreference.com/20121214/4/201212140943-188411-7623.mp3

Fairfield County Police, Fire, and EMS

Response starts at the 5:45 minute mark (9:34 AM to 10:04 AM)

http://areg.radioreference.com/20121214/1/201212140834-153453-9921.mp3

Use of the archives:

First and foremost - be respectful with the use of these archives.

You are free to share, remix, and make commercial use of RadioReference.com's audio feed archives as long as you attribute the work to RadioReference.com. We suggest "Audio Provided by RadioReference.com" as a proper attribution in your works. Our audio feed archives are governed by the Creative Commons License listed below:

Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 United States — CC BY 3.0 US

Source: http://forums.radioreference.com/community-announcements-news/255408-live-audio-archives-newtown-ct-school-shooting-incident.html Coasterghost (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Too many condolence quotes

Do we really care to have a paragraph from Lt. Gov. Treadwell of AK from Facebook, which is as long as statements from national officials, just because he grew up there? This looks like a Facebook page, with a long list of quotes, especially from world leaders. See the article on the Virginia Tech shooting. The world condolences are summarized and leaders are identified in a paragraph. This is not supposed to be journalism, with every quote captured, but an encyclopedia article.Parkwells (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's absurd that this encyclopedia article is starting to look like a memorial page. I strongly support condensing this to a summary perhaps 2-3 short paragraphs, with brief mentions about the President's and Governor's press conference, and a mention that world leaders expressed shock and sorrow (or whatever). - MrX 13:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The mention of all states that reacted would be important anyway as it's an important part of every such event. Brandmeister^talk 13:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. Treadwell's quote isn't even referenced properly; it's from a random Facebook post that says it came from Treadwell. It needs to be removed or reliably sourced. Half the other quotes are generic condolences that can be expressed without listing every single one out. Some are just ridiculous...the president of France was just "horrified"? Did he simply blurt out "sacre bleu!" and walk out of the room when he heard the news? That stuff can be condensed since it isn't detailed or specific in any way; the Virginia Tech shooting article seems like a good template to do so. Not to mention we're leaving out dozens of other world leaders' generic reactions, in a somewhat-POV fashion...aggregating them helps resolve that as well. (Though I know there are people who think all reactions are notable, so perhaps we'll end up splitting them off into a separate article as a compromise now that they've started taking over the page.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a common problem after major tragedies. A sampling of reactions rather than an exhaustive list is required.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this? "Numerous foreign heads of state as well as domestic leaders, most notably President Barack Obama, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, offered their condolences to the community." And at the end, we can spell out any notable ones (perhaps Duncan's, which seems to be the most official response from the Federal Government)? Just a thought. Go Phightins! 14:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I support that approach. - MrX 14:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that we now have political statements, disguised as condolences, for example from Iran, not to mention certain US politicians. - MrX 14:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The section is titled Reactions, not Condolences. The Iranian statement may be disguised as a condolence, but the statement from Nadler is indeed a political reaction. And notable, since he reacted past just offering generic condolences. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the condolences from world leaders really adds much to the article. They just say the same thing over and over again. They're offering condolences but without saying really much of substance. It should just be summarized in a single sentence:

World leaders from <list of countries> offered their condolences

If a world leader says something radically different, then they can get another sentence. For instance, the Iranian or US politician's responses. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought that particular section was good! I think it should of stayed put.--184.214.201.147 (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It was a huge section, and was a significant portion of the article. However I don't think it really added much or helped inform our readers in any way. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs coverage of school security and police response

• Martinez, Michael (2012-12-15). "Slain Connecticut principal remembered as energetic, positive, passionate". CNN. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• El-Ghobashy, Tamer; Barrett, Devlin (2012-12-14). "Dozens Killed in Conn. School Shooting". The Wall Street Journal. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Rather than the list of condolences, it would be useful to have the school's security system described, which had been improved recently, according to the NY Times article, but may not have protected them from someone identified as a relative of a volunteer, or he may have entered before the day's locked doors started. Also more information on calls to police and their response would be expected.Parkwells (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Entry

TV reporter Steve Cooper, NBC's Channel 7 in Boston on 15 December reported that Adam Lanza had shot his way through the door. A Wikipedia article said that the Principal had admitted him because she recognized him. Discrepancy. MaynardClark (talk)

The police dispatcher reported the broken glass.MaynardClark (talk)

Classroom

How many children are regulary in this classroom? (10?, 30?). Was the classroom on ground level? --Bin im Garten (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Victims list

Some sources are popping up like [7]. Do we want to begin adding these, or wait until we have a concrete police statement? —Theopolisme 14:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Certain we should no longer say that the victims are unidentified, when they've all been identified as of Saturday morning 15 December.MaynardClark (talk)

Some names of victims HAVE been released, so it's incorrect to say that NO names have been released.MaynardClark (talk)

• Hold off on this as long as possible. What does it add to the article? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The CT State Police have a document which they are currently distributing to journalists, so that will become public soon, as will the list of the victims, all of whom have been identified. They confirmed that the suspect had forced his way into the building, but Steve Cooper, the Boston reporter, noted that he was an eyewitness to the damaged front door, which the suspect had 'shot through' to gain entry. In addition, the CT Superintendent of Schools denied that the suspect's mother was a regular or salaried employee of the school system, though she suggested that Ms. Lanza could have been a substitute teacher. Aren't substitute teachers in most states paid directly through the school system, anyway? MaynardClark (talk)

• A few more names are included in this article, including another teacher and first grader and also here. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

All names have been released... [8] --MoRsE (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - number of deaths (infobox)

In the Deaths field in the infobox, please change "28 (including the gunman and his mother)" to "28 (including the perpetrator)". That is the standard entry for mass murders. See Virginia Tech massacre, Columbine High School massacre, and Amish school shooting as examples. We don't use the word "gunman", nor separate his mother from the other victims. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done to perpetrator. However, I think the mother still needs to be called out, as she wasn't a victim specifically at the school. —Theopolisme 15:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Thepolisme. But as far as the mother, it doesn't matter that she wasn't killed at the school. The article is about the entire incident, referred to now (per common name) as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The mother's killing was part of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting incident as a whole. That infobox field is not supposed to tell any kind of story or give any kind of explanation; the article itself will do that. The Death field in the infobox is only supposed to give a number, plus paranthetically include the perpetrator if they were among the dead, also. Thanks.--76.189.123.142 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed "mother" before I read Theopolisme's comment, and wouldn't object to it being changed back. However, I agree that mother should not be broken out. Coretheapple (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your help. I think my explanation above at 15:19 clearly explains why the mother should not be included in the infobox. So it's correct the way it is. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. "Mother" should stay out of parentheses. The way it was, it almost sounded as if we're implying his mother was somehow involved in the execution of the crime. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is that implication. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. But the primary reason the mother shouldn't be there is because precedent dictates that we don't single-out any of the dead, except for the perpetrator(s). I mean, if it were a neighbor that was killed off-site, would it say "(including the perpetrator and a neighbor)"? Of course not. Or if it were the paperboy, would it say "(including the perpetrator and the paperboy)"? Again, that field's sole purpose is to give a number, plus the perp(s) parenthetically, if applicable. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying! —Theopolisme 16:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thanks for the follow-up. :) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Two crime scenes

We can discuss (as the CT State Police spokesperson Lt. Vance did) "two crime scenes" The on-site investigation is expected to last through 17 December (or possibly later). Everything on the property (including cars in the parking lot) are considered part of the crime scene. MaynardClark (talk)

Would the major crime scene be the school grounds and the second be his mother's house where she was murdered? Aneah|talk _to ^me 20:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Huckabee a significant reaction

Mike Huckabee's reaction was significant in that it was covered in major press sources like UPI and even overseas in major German newspapers Die Zeit and Süddeutsche Zeitung. The passage I am attempting to include in the article is this:

Within hours of the shootings, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made headlines in the U.S. and abroad for suggesting on Fox News that the ultimate cause of the shootings was the "removal of God" from schools, saying "we ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools," and further asked "Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?"

Two people so far have issue with include Huckabee's remarks - I wonder if it's because the remarks have political/religious implications. In my opinion this article should not be confined to reactions which are simply sympathy or about gun control. Reactions which have another spin on them, if the fact that the reactions were stated was newsworthy/notable in itself, should be included. Any other opinions out there? Keizers (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Any response that is presently politicizing the event should be stricken until we have a better idea of what type of debate/legal/law-making discussion is raised. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should responses that politicize the event be stricken? The response was made by a notable person in a notable environment, and covered in a significant fashion. I find it *more* notable than the reactions that just offer condolences, without expressing any actual views on the situation. We don't need to have a waiting period. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Becuase pulling that one statement out of all the various statements that have been made so far in response, statements like Huckabees are counter to the prevailing trend and make its inclusion POVish. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, that's back-asswards. A response becomes notable and possibly worthy of inclusion if it is discussed elsewhere (in reliable sources), as appears to be the case here. Latching on to 2001's comment below, condolences are simply of no value in an article in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that there are *lots and lots* of notable/inclusionable comments coming from notable / significant people that are all over the map. Selecting just one opinion of one person is not appropriate. Once the event aftermath has settled down and it clear where public discussion is going, we can talk about what statements to include. At the rate this article is developing at this immediate time its silly to try to include anything that's not directly related to the event or condolences. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The prevailing trend seems to be to include non-controversial condolences. I would say that that is an incorrect trend, as responses certainly include more than just non-controversial comments. I agree there may be a POV issue to some, but simply removing reactions *because* they are controversial seems like the wrong way to go. They need to be included or excluded on the merit of their notability, not based on political inconvenience; MaynardClark makes a better point below on it being culture criticism...but I'd say it's still relevant, because it was made in reaction to this specific event, even if the comments are somewhat more broadly applicable. If there is a POV issue, it should be resolved by rephrasing, or by including appropriate analysis or counterarguments, not by removing the comment. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that a week, a month, or far out enough that pretty much all that can be said about the immediate event that a statement like Huckabee's can be included, if it represents a significant POV about religion and schools. But while this article is fast-moving and the investigation still developing, it is very much out of place as we have no way to assess the overall viewpoints of all parties; we should only be focusing on the immediate, non-politicizing statements which are not POV statements. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should be careful in picking which statements (of the barrage of statements made on that day) should be represented here. The culture comment below does seem applicable. In any case, I removed "Within hours of the shooting" from the Huckabee paragraph because it seems to imply a bias against him, namely that he wasn't being sensible in doing so. It isn't a needed statement and seems to encroach upon NPOV so I don't think it should be there. Dab8fz (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Huckabee comment is, more properly considered, a comment on culture ('culture criticism') and not specific to this incident. However, it is not unlike other concerns that emerge around this incident, such as the concern for gun violence in general. Mike Huckabee's comment may be a foreseeable response from those who see the problem as fully embodied in the intentionality of the population at large (which they don't generally criticize, curiously, but only cite that when guns become an issue), vs. those who think that the extended distribution of lethal weapons (as an instrument of destruction) are part of the formula, without which gun violence would have happened. It may be possible to link to another article that broadly addresses this kind of issue; I'm unclear that the comment deserves a full subsection. I suspect that the specific edit that included it was somewhat 'opportunistic'. MaynardClark (talk)

I agree that it should go. There are valid concerns about gun control that have been raised which at least, if not more so, deserve to be in the article. This is just a commentator mouthing off on Fox. Disgraceful to include it. 16:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coretheapple (talk • contribs)

Obviously, you are in disagreement with Huckabee's views and are attempting to censor them. Ironic, Christians are the ones accused of intolerance, but they are actually the targets of intolerance most of the time. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that his comment is probably worth inclusion, but the current presentation is questionable. It seems that there is a want to present it in a scandalous form rather than simply stating his opinion. Arzel (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you that it's not presented well as it currently stands...it needs to be rephrased at the very least. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Huckabee is one of those politicians people outside the US seem to have heard of. (Maybe they just remember his "funny" name.) What he said will get attention globally, as one of those weird, "only in America" comments. But it does represent part of America. I don't think we should hide it. HiLo48 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I want to weigh in here, because I was apparently the first person to raise the question re Huckabee's relevance ["I'm not so sure about Governor Huckabee and other pundits"; in Reaction section above]. My concern wasn't political. It was motivated by concerns about just whose comments are relevant and how many of them to include. Yes, Governor Huckabee is a prominent public figure. And because his opinion is culturally important and more than just condolences, I think it does enrich the article to include it. But then how many other equally prominent figures, with equally contentious (or different) POVs, do we include? This speaks, again, to what's possibly been the most problematic section in the article, namely "Reactions." But I see that the flags issue has been resolved and that the Reactions section has been considerably cleaned up and condensed since yesterday. Both good. As time goes by, it seems that coverage in the various parts of the article will become even more proportionate. Indeed the article is well on its way to becoming encyclopedic, as opposed to a hodge-podge of variably on- and off-point remarks.--Erasistratus1 (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Christianity has a long history of violence"

"Christianity has a long history of violence associated with it's philosophy and it's followers. [73][74][75]"

This seems to me like an utterly useless statement to be in this article, and I am going to remove it for NPOV and pertinence concerns. I think Huckabee's statement can stand by itself. (Also, the sentence confuses "it's" and "its".) KConWiki (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, yes, that sounds like a good idea. We don't need to be hatemongering here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Isn't it ironic that the haters of religion are the ones that are doing the venom spewing here, the same ones who makes accusations against religion? Whoever posted that POV comment should be blocked. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• I Agree. In fact, I was about to delete that statement myself when you did. I do think, however, that any criticism Huckabee comes under as a result of the remark should follow it. Not a criticism of Christianity, mind you, but criticism of his remark. Paris1127 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Look at Kill them all; let God sort them out and look at Original Sin, where even children are guilty, even unborn children, every damn soul! Do you really not see the very obvious connection? --89.204.139.245 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a soapboxx, 89.204.139.245. Enough. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• That was this edit and editor, and is clearly an attempt to editorialize the Huckabee reaction section. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• FYI, I am not taking any position on Huckabee himself, nor on school prayer, nor on the relationship of Christianity to violence historically, nor on U.S. gun policies. I am however asserting that the sentence referred to above is not appropriate for this WP article. KConWiki (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If you haven't already taken that sentence out, you should go ahead and do so now, I think. Pretty noncontroversial edit. --Pstanton (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Edit request - remove the infobox in the Perpetrator section

The Adam Lanza infobox should be immediately removed from the Perpetrator section. It's completely contrary to standard procedure for mass murder articles. See Virginia Tech massacre, Columbine High School massacre, and Amish school shooting as examples. The perps do not get infoboxes in the articles about the incidents. Obviously, if/when there is a separate article for Lanza himself, then there will be an infobox for him in that article. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How many 'mass murder articles' are there on Wikipedia. IS there a SOP (standard procedure) for 'mass murder articles'? MaynardClark (talk)

Thanks, Racerx11. Maynard, you can see a listing of school shootings at the bottom of the article. Or see School shootings in the United States. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Do Not Perp Name

What history article hides names of it's subjects what complete socialist crap to hide the "perp's" name. Are you getting paid for psychiatry or what because it's a real long stretch. (note also VA tech's article doesn't follow the form of history books or news articles) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.81.201 (talk • contribs) 2012-12-16 00:36:20

Gun control

As can be seen by reading the New York Times and other major media this morning, this shooting has reawakened calls for gun control. It was implicitly mentioned by Obama yesterday. This is not given sufficient emphasis, and instead there is an overemphasis on Huckabee's idiotic comment. Frankly I feel that the article is so far out of balance that I am considering putting an "NPOV" template warning at the top of this article, pending a resolution of this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just like Huckabee's statement, until we have some idea of how much debate will come anew about gun control due to this, inclusion of these political statements are POVish and should be removed. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between a commentator's off-the-cuff rant and the serious concerns that have been raised about gun control, by the president among others. I agree with you about Huckabee and have said so in the section devoted to that discussion. But I don't think this is an all or nothing proposition. The calls for increased gun control that have come about are widespread and mainstream, as opposed to the finge-type comments of a Huckabee. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Liberal media outlets will run editorials and such on this issue, but if/until the nation takes it up and there is some sort of legislation work done on it, the article shouldn't go into it. There will be plenty of tweaking and adjustments made to this article over the weeks and months and the article can wait.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Many (most?) media outlets are running stories relating to gun control. Not simply liberal media outlets, unless you want to count things like the front page of Fox News as part of the liberal media. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ignoring the contention over Huckabee's comment for the moment, I agree with Coretheapple that there needs to be more emphasis that there have been renewed calls for gun control. It's being reported significantly more than the article covers it. I think that can be covered without making it into a huge POV issue just fine, since there are reasonable statements from people on both sides of the gun control debate. (Instead we're focusing on reactions like Google putting a candle image on their site...which may be less controversial, but I don't find it particularly encyclopedic.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure, in the following weeks, there will be calls about gun control in relation to this event. Inclusion then is fine. Right now the larger picture of what viewpoints there are for this is impossible to assess, and we really can't tell if gun control is going to be a significant factor. We need to be taking a wait-and-see approach with any such viewpoints until we have a good way to assess them all. (For example, I already see some media trying to find out how to inject video games into this as a problem.) --MASEM (t) 16:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Media doing things like injecting commentary on video games is problematic, sure; but with the gun control issue, it's comments by politicians who are generally restating their existing stances. The immediate reactions are just as notable as any reactions that occur later, so I see no reason not to document them now. Analyzing their reactions will be trickier; that's where your analogy makes sense, since we should indeed be careful with any immediate media analysis. But balanced quotations from both "sides", etc, seem appropriate. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It still might be worth waiting. Gun control may be more mainstream but its still controversial. Either way, if we do include comments about pro-gun control politics then we should also include comments made by anti-gun control parties (for example, ending the absolute restriction in some school zones, the point that perhaps controlling guns would only have hindered the killing) to keep NPOV, as there are opinions on both sides. Dab8fz (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the immense passions caused by this shooting, it may be worthwhile to have an article just on reactions to the shooting, down the road if not now. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

We cannot ignore the gun control implications of Obama's comments. They are there for all to see. If other important people (probably well known outside the US) make relevant comments, that's worth including too. Predictable comments from people who will never change their position aren't important. HiLo48 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

All that I'm asking is to wait and see before expanding any viewpoint outside of condolences, until a clearer picture of the events and the overall opinions on the event are known. It may take just a few days or few weeks. We can wait (per DEADLINE) before including these. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What is "idiotic" to one person makes sense to others per their beliefs. Don't insult people because they don't align with your beliefs. Try tolerance. The situation of how many guns there were, where they were and if they were used keeps changing. It appears as of now that gun laws in a strict state were in place but the human factor that is often 'blamed' was primarily at fault. Gun control may be less of a factor with this shooting than previous ones this year. Best to wait and see.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It is covered in the article, and it's certainly an appropriate section under reactions. There have been renewed calls, which is predictable under any political calculus. I'm not sure how you jump from that to NPOV though. What specifically do you believe is out of whack as far as neutrality goes? Shadowjams (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this is the appropriate place or topic in which to discuss gun control. There is already a page gun control for that subject. The information should be relayed with as NPOV as possible and allow the reader to infer what they wish from the facts given in the article. Implications are not facts. Quotes regarding implications are facts. Aneah|talk _to ^me 23:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• No one is discussing gun control. What is being discussed is that the events have led to a renewed discussion on gun control--if you can't see the difference, well. And that renewed discussion is indeed happening and thus relevant; see this NPR article. What is not of any value or relevance is the long list of reactions, but apparently I'm crying in the desert when I say that the predictable expressions of sympathy, national flags and all, add nothing to the article. Does every country get to have a response? Every congressperson, every comedian, every governor? Drmies (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

CT divorce and parenting education program

I have removed the following text [9] as irrelevant and misleading:

During their divorce proceedings, a judge ordered the parents to participate in a "parenting education program".

This gives the impression there were parenting issues related to the divorce, when in fact, in CT by law all parties in a divorce with children under the age of 18 must participate in a parenting education program.

If you have children under age eighteen, you must participate in a parenting education program within sixty (60) days after a family case is filed in court. All parties involved in divorce, dissolution of a civil union, annulment, separation, custody or visitation cases are required by law to participate in a parenting education program. Both judges and family support magistrates have the authority to order your participation in the program. [10]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Great revert. That was highly inappropriate content, whether the law existed or not. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - house location sentence

Please fix oddly-worded sentence in the Perpetrator section... change "Adam Lanza lived with his mother in a Sandy Hook house 5 miles (8 km) from Sandy Hook Elementary School" to "Lanza lived with his mother at her house in Sandy Hook, located five miles from the elementary school." (His first name isn't needed again, "5" should be "five" per style guide, and kilometers is unnecessary.) Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. I wasn't sure how to force the convert template to five (vs 5, per WP:MOSNUM) so I hard wired the convert to km (km is not unnecessary, we are supposed to write for a global audience, which includes coversions of units, usually with {{Convert}}.) Otherwise, much better prose suggestion, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. :) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NUMERAL suggests that as a measurement, and especially since "km" is abbreviated, that it should be 5 miles (8 km)...not a big deal, but that seems to be standard style. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go back to the convert template then, unless someone else already has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Six tries and six minutes, done. [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and fully agree with your edit summary sentiment...use section editing and edit conflicts should occur less, on a high-traffic article like this. (Unless the backend does ultimately process them the same, but I don't believe that's the case.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Victims section

In the Victims section box, please change "Nancy Lanza, mother of Adam Lanza (the shooter)" to "Nancy Lanza, perpetrator's mother". We don't use language like "the shooter" and her relationship is simply to the perp. Also, the victims' names should be listed in alphabetical order (by last name). There will be many more names added and it will be very confusing if they're not in alpha order. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Third try, [12] five minutes with edit conflicts. Are we supposed to be including child victim names? I have not tried to alphabeticize ... there are too many edit conflicts. Someone else can do that :) And before dealing with the edit conflicts to put names in alpha order, someone should let us know the policy/guideline/whatever as to whether the child names are supposed to be there ... I suspect we have something somewhere (dealing with the issue that cruel internet trolls will call the families to mock them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, deceased children (minors) absolutely may be included (as long as they're reliably sourced). See Columbine High School massacre as an example. Also, instead of having "18 unidentified children" and "3 unidentified adults" in the box, it should simply say "21 unidentified" OR not mention the unidentified at all; just list the names of the known victims. But IF the "21 unidentified" is included, it should either be at the top or the bottom, not in the middle. But we definitely should not separate the adults from the children in any box. This was already corrected in the main infobox. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the editrequest here and let someone else fight with edit conflicts for 15 minutes to make all those changes-- I've got to move along now. Good suggestions all round, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider that we are not a memorial. There are victims that have been noted in sources as taking an active step to protect the students and others and that should be included, but even if every child is ID'd in reliable sources, we should not include the full list of victims, only those reported as key roles in the incident. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet in the Columbine article, they list every victim by area, injured, dead, whatever the case may be. I think we should do the same here. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, despite the fact it has been listed in other articles it is not normal to list victims unless they are notable, normally indicated by already having there own article. Nothing wrong with an external link to a reliable source that gives the names. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is completely normal to includes the victims' names in a prominent, mass shooting event. That's how it's done on Wikpedia. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it's done elsewhere is not a valid reason to do it here (cf. the deletion argument WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). There may be reasons that it's OK to give the victim names in those cases where it is not OK in these cases. As such, we absolutely should not be including the name of any child victims if there is any doubt that the family is not OK with it. In fact, as this is a WP:BLP issue, anyone who sees a name and has doubts can remove it without fear of rules for edit warring. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Other crap" clearly does not apply to the Columbine article. It's one of the most heavily edited and monitored school shooting articles. And this tragedy is among the worst school massacres in history. All of the children's names will certainly be published in mainstream, reliable sources around the world. So if/when a name becomes reliably sourced, it should be added. This is standard protocol for these incidents. And we never base content decisions on how others will feel about it. We do what's encylopedically correct. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

20 children and 6 staff

I'm amazed this is contentious and even requires bringing up on the talk page...but the lede should state "20 children and 6 staff" (or "twenty children and six staff"), not "20 children and six staff." It's been reverted as being "correct style" and "standard." Except it isn't, per WP:NUMERAL, and Wikipedia's style guideline is what we use to format articles on Wikipedia, not other general style guidelines or whatever "standard" usage is. From the MOS: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be "20 children and 6 staff" and there is no reason to revert that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Per style/number manual, numbers under 10 are spelled-out, while numbers 10 and over are not. So it must be "20 children and six staff". --76.189.123.142 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That is the general rule. There is a long list of exceptions, one of which is the comparable quantities rule I pasted. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's MoS. There is no exception in this case. It unquestionably should be "20 children and six staff". I stand corrected. The MoS does say, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Therefore, "including twenty children and six staff" or "including 20 children and 6 staff" would be appropriate. I prefer the numerals since it is mid-sentence. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC) 17:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So you're asserting that the number of children killed and the number of staff killed are NOT comparable quantities? Because that's the only way that makes sense. Otherwise it falls into "comparable quantities" as covered in the MoS. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4)He's right. We have to either spell both or use both as numerals. See the MOS. It says (not exact quote) "Compared quantities should follow the same style, regardless of value of number, such as 'one million boys and two girls' or '1000000 boys and 2 girls' not 'one million boys and 2 girls' or vice versa. Do your research please. gwickwire^talk_edits 17:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be "20 children and 6 staff" and there is no reason to revert that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC) (Oh, did I already say that?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

2001:db8 is absolutely correct. I was not aware of that one MoS clause regarding comparable quantities, so I learned something new. ;) If it was the start of a sentence, it should be "Twenty children and six staff", but since it's mid-sentence, "20 children and 6 staff" would seem to be more appropriate. Is someone going to correct it? It currently says, "20 children ages 5–10 and six staff". "Six should simply be changed to "6" (or "20" should be changed to "twenty", if that's what all of you prefer). --76.189.123.142 (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 5)I think I only learned that one myself when I reverted along similar lines some time back, and was chided for it... :) Now it's an even-uglier "20 children ages 5–10 and six staff", but I'm bordering on edit warring...I agree it should be "20 and 6" being mid-sentence. (Goddamn edit conflicts.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 18:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree... the "ages 5-10" part seems very odd the way it's inserted in the middle like that. If that age range is included, it should say something like, "6 staff and 20 children, ages 5–10". I'll leave that up to all of you. In any case, it should be corrected, with an edit comment referring to this thread and clear guideline on comparable quantities. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is his religion not mentioned?

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

---

Nothing in the article mentions his religion. Why not? --89.204.135.45 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Because nobody has provided a source that we can use to include that. gwickwire^talk_edits 17:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nor a reason why it is relevant. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The name Lanza sounds of Italian origin, and the vigil that was held for the victims, Lanza's mother and Lanza himself was held at a Catholic church. So it seems rather unlikely to me that he was Jewish; his family at least appears to have come from a Catholic background. As for Lanza himself, until the police uncover his diary, a Facebook profile, or anything else that might provide an indication of his personal religious beliefs (if indeed he had any), we are not allowed to speculate. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I bet some sickos hope he is Muslim, so sad to look for other things when all should be grieving and praying JMO Kennvido (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that talk page discussions are not to be used to chit chat and give personal opinions about the subject; it's only for discussing content issues. And what the Lanza name "sounds like" to an editor, or that it seems "unlikely" is irrelevant. We must base content on reliable sources. Having said that, if Lanza's religion is reliably-sourced, why shouldn't it be included in the Perpetrator section? It would be no different than any bio, where the subject's religion is standard content. It doesn't represent anything positive or negative; it's simply a biographical fact. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Imo, at this time, adding any religion, regardless of sourcing, is going to be horrid. People are going to say "Oh did you see Wikipedia Lanza was Jewish that's why he did it we have to hate Jews now because they kill children" or something along those lines. We can IAR and just wait about a week (and find sourcing) before posting any religion. I don't want people here, or in real life, to get into a frenzy over his religion, as that's not what's important at this time. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't, or at least shouldn't publish religion on every single biographical article. Unless there is some encyclopedic value or reason why it is relevant, or real information gained in the fact, then it is inflammatory. We don't list political party affiliation of everyone either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. We DO and we SHOULD, IF, BIG if, we do it in a responsible and biobliographical fasion. I see too many bios where its "jammed" into the bio for its own sake and doesn't belongin the article, YET. If religion of parents, up bringing, and its well written, then we most certainly do include it and should. I would say look at any presidential or featured level bio, and its usually covered under early life or whathaveyou. The idea that it can only be included if its "relevant" just isn't "true" or how the best written bios are written. --Malerooster (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't his biography, it is an article on an event. The focus isn't his entire life. Putting too much emphasis on irrelevant information is inflammatory. Unless his religion is tied in here and the sources are making a big deal of it, we do not. Our job isn't to force information upon the reader, it is to summarize what the sources themselves are covering in a neutral fashion that gives proper weight to each aspect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I was thinking BLP since I like to edit those and patrol the BLPN. Religion would not be appropriate here unless it tied into motivation or some other relevance. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

We must never decide the appropriateness of content based on how some readers may react to it. That can never, ever be a consideration. If we did that, we might as well shut down Wikipedia. ;) Again, I feel that including his religion is no different than including any other biographical background information about someone. It's included in the vast majority of bios. Having said all that, I've seen no reliable sourcing about Lanza's religion so it's currently a moot point. And User:Medeis needs to stop closing/hatting this discussion; it's very inappropriate. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• You are twisting my words, unsuccessfully I might add. Policy on BLPs is clear that we don't add information that is inflammatory and without encyclopedic value. That other articles include it is meaningless, per WP:WAX. We include negative material that people hate all the time, if it is sourced and relevant, but we don't publish every "fact" just because we can find a source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The religion of the shooter is not relevant to this article about an event. If the press discovers that the shooter's religion was a motivating factor, then it could be added. Otherwise, it's as extraneous as his shoe size. - MrX 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How is stating someone's religion inflammatory?? It's completely neutral, standard content, like any other background information. If the editor who started this thread intended to include "Jewish" as a way of being inflammatory, that is sad and pathetic. But I have no idea what their motive was. I'm simply addressing the question impartially. Should Lanza's religion be including among the other biographical info already in the article? Sure. Why not? Now if you tell me that it's general policy not to include religion in an article about an event, versus a person, I can accept that. But certainly his religion would be included in the "Adam Lanza" article that I'm sure will one day be created. Thanks.--76.189.123.142 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't understand that, then there is no way I can explain it. As this is a BLP concern, the burden is upon those who wish to include the information to explain why it is relevant. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not relevant. Too much detail for this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, why is it relevant where he went to middle school? That's included. Why is it relevant that he was an honor student? That's included. How are those relevant? There is no BLP concern. Someone's religion is neutral content. But for some unknown reason, you have it in your mind that stating someone's religion is inflammatory. Why?? You haven't answered that question. But I want to know why the middle school and honor student content is relevant, but his religion is not. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The school info is relevant because it shows that he had no prior school outbursts or a history of trouble - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Much of that other material may be irrelevant and need removing as well, but being an honor student isn't particularly inflammatory and gives information regarding his character, so is arguably worth including. You are free to raise the issue of excluding it. Bludgeoning everyone that disagrees with you is taking the issue too far, however. You have picked an odd hill to climb upon and defend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course religion is relevant. Religion determines worldview and personal values. Adherents of religions with great focus on afterlife (such as abrahamic religions) don't put great value on live, simply because they believe they'll get another chance anyways. Neither their own lives nor that of others. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to support your unsubstantiated and defamatory claims? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I did but it was deleted as I linked to two Wikipedia articles, one was "Original Sin" and one was "Kill them all; let God sort them out". Both are religious articles. --89.204.139.245 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not every Christian believes in Original Sin, and very, very few would agree with the sentiment of "kill them all; let God sort them out", and using them to push a general, anti-Christian thesis on Wikipedia is inappropriate. --Pstanton (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry, but that is no defense for Cush's ridiculous insinuations (note that his user page states he considers religion dangerous, obviously he has an agenda to push). The "Kill Them All" reference is a remark made by one person. Using that to paint all religions with a broad brush makes no sense. "Original Sin" does not teach the concepts that you seem to believe it does. Just because someone believes that every person is born sinful, does that automatically mean they don't value human life? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, with all due respect, that makes no sense at all. Saying where Lanza went to middle school and that he was an honor student tells us absolutely nothing about his "prior school outbursts or a history of trouble". That is quite a huge leap. Dennis, although I've asked you multiple times, you have yet to explain how simply stating one's religion is inflammatory? --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Bludgeoning, how does Lanza being an honor student years ago give "information regarding his character"? You do understand that there are honor students who are very stable, wonderful people and others who are very unstable and awful, right? There are a number of strange and illogical assumptions being made in this discussion. ;) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Cush, your statement is exactly why it you don't include religion into articles where it doesn't apply. You are adding your own original research and personal bias here, and soapboxing about religion, which I find offensive and inappropriate. And no, I do not worship the Abrahamic god, but I know bias when I see it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not without sources there isn't. - MrX 19:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC) - {Comment made in response to 89.204.139.245's comment, not Dennis Brown's. - MrX 20:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)}

It's sickening how some people can take a tragic event like this and use it as an excuse to get on an anti-religion soapbox. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

His religion is not relevant. If, at a future time, it is shown to be relevant, it'll be included in the article. For now, since the article is about the shootings not about individual people, let's just keep facts for which relevance has not been demonstrated by reliable sources out of it. --regentspark (comment) 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, obviously Cush's statement regarding religion is completely inappropriate with regard to editing an encylopedic article. Any soapboxing like that, including 89.204.139.245's, is ridiculous. However, almost every biographical article on Wikipedia include's the subject's religion (if there's realiable sourcing for it). We talk about everything else in a perp's background - parents, siblings, schools, hobbies, etc. - and religion is simply another neutral item on the list. All of the following content is currently in the article; where he attended middle school, that he was an honor student years ago, the year his parents married, and details about his father's employment. How is any of that relevant to the shooting, yet his religion not relevant?? Does anyone have a reasonable explanation? All I'm saying is that there's a huge contradiction here. Either all that info (including religion) should be included, or none of it should be included. Each of them has equal relevance to the shooting, which is none. But they are simply background information about the perpetrator. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"However, almost every biographical article on Wikipedia include's the subject's religion". Because this is not a biographical article. --Pstanton (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine Pstanton if it's true and there's precedent for it. I appreciate a response that is relevant to explaining the glaring contradiction. So are you saying the only reason religion shouldn't be included in this article is because it's about the event and not the perpetrator? If that's the case, then why are all the other irrelevant details included in the article? All I'm asking for is consistency. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Even though I've asked numerous times, I still have yet to hear from Dennis how simply stating one's religion is inflammatory, particularly when it's completely standard content when providing biographical background information. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, a number of editors are busy trying to remove all the irrelevant info from the article. Any recent event like this is going to create high traffic, making vetting very difficult and labor intensive. Again, once he has his own bio, it is arguable that the information would be appropriate in his own article if properly sourced, but not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant at this time, and so far I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. If at some point it becomes important in the news coverage it can be added. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that an editor cannot close a thread that they have participated in. Two editors have attempted to do it. I don't really care at all whether this thread stays open, or if Lanza's religion is included in the article, but no involved editor is allowed to close this discussion. The editor who started the thread asked a fair question (regardless of any alleged motives) and other editors giving their thoughts is totally appropriate, regardless of where they stand on the issue. As I said, I've seen absolutely no reliable sourcing on Lanza's religion, so the issue is really moot at this point. However, there must be consistency in this article. And for the record, this thread has been open for a mere four hours; it's like a newborn baby. So allowing other editors the opportunity to give their input is not only fine, but appropriate. It is perfectly normal for contentious issues to be discussed for days or weeks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide a policy link to support your assertion that "no involved editor is allowed to close this discussion." - MrX 21:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've left a comment on his page. While it isn't the preferred methods, there is no absolute bar. I recommend the IP focus on the merits rather than wikilawyering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Adam Lanza article?

As more info comes in about the suspect at what point should we split the info out into a stand alone article? I have the feeling its going to happen and would just like to be prepare for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could keep biographical information in it's own sub-heading so that it can be easily moved once the article becomes too large, or enough information has been gathered to justify it's own article. --Scochran4 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good idea to me, keep a brief summary of Adam seperate and the rest in it's own paragraph(s) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Also agree, I believe the policy is not to write articles about people notable for only one event and to just include their biography in the event article. I generally think reasonable exceptions can be made to that if/when the biographical section of the event article grows prohibitively long, but we haven't reached that point with Adam Lanza yet. --Pstanton (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• We have long experience of this going wrong at Wikipedia. Learn from that experience. Don't even think of doing this until a full, even, unbiased, and detailed verifiable biography of someone's whole life can be written. Not everything in Wikipedia has to be presented in the form of biographical articles. Resist the temptation to always shoe-horn everything into the form of lop-sided one-note less-than-half-the-whole-story biographies of the people involved. Uncle G (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, as there is a rule against biographies of people notable for only one event. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • … one of the earliest formulations of which was a pretty green box. Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@Coretheapple, may I remind you on Anders Behring Breivik? --89.204.139.245 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As a person who has seen quite a few AfD discussions concerning articles about mass murderers I can assure you that an article about Lanza will eventually be created, then it will be put up for deletion, then a horrible shitstorm will ensue where people on both sides cite the same policies to foster their own position, and in the end the article will be kept. I could give you several examples from the not so distant past where this has happened, but after so many years of having the same discussion again and again with the same arguments presented over and over again, I'm simply tired of it. It would be really relieving if those people who are so adamantely against articles about mass murderers would finally accept those numerous previous decisions and refrain from putting the unavoidable article Adam Lanza up for deletion, but sure as hell this won't happen. (Lord Gøn (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

Lord Gøn is absolutely correct. Of course Adam Lanza will have his own article . This is a no-brainer. Once it's created (when the time is right), any attempt to have it deleted will be shut down very quickly. The "notability for one event" rule most certainly does not apply in a case like this. It was one of the worst school shootings in history. See Virginia Tech massacre, Columbine High School massacre, and Amish school shooting. All of the perpetrators in those, plus many other school shootings, have their own articles. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@Uncle G. That "pretty green box" hurt my eyes, but I read it anyway. I have a feeling someone will create an article on Lanza very soon, even though I think it would be wrong to do so at this point. Does anyone know if it's happened already, with failed versions speedily deleted? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Right now Adam Peter Lanza and Adam Lanza are both redirects and have not been put up for AfD (Not yet anyways) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya, the system wikipedia has when it comes to WP:ONEEVENT is broken and as a result there is no line drawn on what does or does not fall under the scope. I feel that if and when enough information about Adam Lanza is gathered he should have his own article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, we are an encyclopedia and our strength is using the power of hindsight to collect information from sources and putting it into a good article that covers the topic fairly. Allowing a little time to pass and for the sources to get finished publishing all the incorrect information and retracting it to publish their own corrections is best. When we rush, we do a poor job at presenting information. It is better to simply wait until some of the dust settles before trying to assemble an article. When it comes to subject like this, no article is a better temporary solution than a contentious and potentially incorrect article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree and am fine with waiting to make the article, even when it gets made though with the sources added as an editor pointed out above it ends up being put up for deletion for WP:ONEEVENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, Knowledgekid. As I said, when the time is right (which I originally included but another editor inexplicably removed), an Adam Lanza article will be created, and will not be deleted. This is a certainty. This is exactly the same situation as the perps in Virginia Tech massacre, Columbine High School massacre, Amish school shooting, and many others. Patience, my friend. ;) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Massacre" in title

I realize this has been discussed in the past, but I was thinking that the time may have come to revisit whether this should be called the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre." The term massacre is utilized in the Columbine article, Columbine High School massacre, even though a smaller number of children were killed. I realize that "massacre" is an emotionally fraught word, but perhaps we could take a poll or otherwise get a sense of the people following this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

By definition, massacre means the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder. I think that most would agree that this killing was unnecessary, it killed a large number of humans, and it was for revenge on his mother (at least that seems to be the present motive theory). Again, this will need to be discussed at a later date, as we still don't know what name will stick. For now, I think massacre is all right. Go Phightins! 20:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The past being a few hours ago. Consensus is to wait for later for this decision, is it not?HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The key here is that will need to use what the sources use as a title. The WP:COMMONNAME. This is why we wait for the media to hash that out, and eventually center around a common name that they all use. We don't create that name, we just document it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, what I think Coretheapple was saying is that massacre might not be, by definition, an appropriate word. I disagree with that, and provided the def as backup. The name I'm hearing most in the media is "Sandy Hook Massacre"...I watch ABC News in the morning and NBC at night, and I'm pretty sure that's what they've been using. Anyway, by January we'll have a clear name, I would think. Until then, I think we can hold off with what we've got now. Go Phightins! 20:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

We use "massacre" for most school tragedies, as pointed out above. I believe that terminology is appropriate, as it doesn't arbitrarily discriminate between the method of attack. There have been a few move discussions before that have been prematurely shut down. I believe a thorough WP:RM discussion is appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is waiting until a couple of weeks have passed so bad? Let the dust settle on this issue. ^Dennis pointed out why.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I've argued with Dennis, I don't see why an arbitrary "dust settle" time is necessary for getting the name right. The precedent seems quite clear. It'd be bizarre if we somehow broke convention with every other school tragedy of this type with this particular one. Even more bothersome is the idea that a discussion is inappropriate. I'm not going to do it soon, but if someone else starts a RM and someone involved shuts it down prematurely under that pretense, I'll undo it. Shadowjams (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I've argued with Dennis, I don't see why an arbitrary "dust settle" time is necessary for getting the name right.

We base our articles' titles on the names used by reliable sources, which have not yet settled on one for this event. Therefore, we have no means of determining what the "right" name will be.

The precedent seems quite clear.

Indeed, the precedent of waiting for a name to predominate among reliable sources is quite clear.

It'd be bizarre if we somehow broke convention with every other school tragedy of this type with this particular one.

You don't seem to understand. We aren't in a position to break convention. It isn't up to us.

Even more bothersome is the idea that a discussion is inappropriate.

Discussion is fine. Only a formal move request is premature.

Did you happen to notice that a different title is suggested whenever someone raises the issue? This illustrates the current uncertainty. Do you honestly believe that engaging in multiple concurrent/consecutive move requests (all while lacking the most important piece of information, as discussed above) would be constructive?

I'm not going to do it soon, but if someone else starts a RM and someone involved shuts it down prematurely under that pretense, I'll undo it.

You'll unilaterally overrule a consensus-backed closure instead of contesting it at Wikipedia:Move review? —David Levy 02:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Letting the preponderance of sources settle on a name and then moving to that name would be far preferable to the mess of moves I remember happening at Ipswich serial murders (or whatever name finally was chosen). Waiting hurts nothing. LadyofShalott 04:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the section heading The first killings awkward

Does anyone else find the first section heading under Shootings, The first killings to be a little awkward? Especially since the next section heading is Classroom slayings. Shouldn't we be more consistent and use either shootings, killings or slayings, not all three? I'm not sure the first sub-section even needs a heading. - MrX 20:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very. I'm not sure splitting them up is the best approach anyway, but if they are split, it needs a different heading. Shadowjams (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I never liked the splitting up of the murders in sections anyway.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, awkward. I don't even understand why there are subsections. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and "Classroom slayings"? I think the sub sections are un-needed and should be removed - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually did that aeons (a few days) ago. I was thinking of readability, to make this tragedy more digestible for the reader. The crime did seem to be divided into distinct phases but I'd not weep bitter tears if the subheads were removed by majority will. Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's remove the headings for now, since multiple contributors are in agreement here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have better titles you can use for them? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the idea of removing the sub-headings. I think it would be an improvement to the article and as a bonus, it would result in a more dignified treatment of the subject. - MrX 22:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to remove the sub-headings. This was a major crime, larger than the Columbine massacre which indeed received step-by-step treatment such as we are attempting to do here. Like it or not, this is a defining event of our age that is being and will be studied minutely for years to come. Coretheapple (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Columbine page is not a good example, as previously discussed. It is far too much detail for an encyclopedia article. The length of the section here - barring any new revelations in the event timeline, is just edging being too much detail. The headers are absolutely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed as to whether or not the Columbine page has far too much detail for an encyclopedia article. No conclusion, however, was reached. I think the Columbine article is fine; it was a "featured article" at one point; and it has withstood 14 years of editing and scrutiny. It's pretty presumptuous of editors on this page – all of the sudden, out of the blue, in 2012 – to start complaining about the past 14 years of edits to the Columbine article. Columbine was a huge event, and I am sure that many, many editors were involved with it, over the past 14 years. I am sure that there were (and are) plenty of eyes of Wiki editors watching that major event and its article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that it was only created in 2003, it's a bit hard to say its had 14 years of scrutiny. But there's a reason why it was demoted from a featured article status. That implies we definitely should not be using it as a template. In contrast, the Dunblane school massacre gets the job done of saying how bad the massacre was without details or glorifying it. That's what we should be aiming for. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Columbine happened in 1999. Do you really want to squabble over whether the article had 10 years or 13 years of editorial scrutiny? Even if the 13 number is incorrect, ten years still is a lot! No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how people editing one page can make such sweeping judgments about another page that seems to be well established. The Columbine article is long, but it seems to be fair detail considering the notoriety of the case. Speaking strictly as a consumer, not as an editor, of Wikipedia I think that the more details, the better. The reader can always disregard details that don't interest him or her. What I don't like are articles on trivia or on unimportant people that are too long. The Columbine article is an important event, really almost a part of the culture. If it was more trivial I would agree with you. What we're discussing now is not adding detail, but whether to make the article more readable and digestible for the reader. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Coretheapple whole-heartedly. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Again we are an encyclopedia which purpose is to summarize topics, not detail them. If readers need more detail, we can provide them references to read more. A step by step description of the shooter's rampage is far beyond what an encyclopedia should provide. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly I'm new as an editor (though not as a user) and I am viewing this through a reader prism. From that perspective, I have found that the best articles are the ones that are detailed and give me a great deal of good information, so that I don't have to look up the footnotes. Some of the articles on scholarly and historical topics do not have Internet-based references so I cannot easily look them up. I don't want to go off on a tangent into a philosophical side discussion, but I did want to point this out. Generally I think this article has been kept far too brief, and that more detail would be useful. We're actually giving short shrift to the subject, perhaps overreacting in the wrong direction. As for the Columbine article, I find it to be very good, and a good model to use. Coretheapple (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

@Coretheapple - You must have posted while I was editing out the subheadings and trying to link the edit summary back to this thread. I'm not opposed to subheadings, but I think they they need to need to be consistent in style and tone. Any suggestions? - MrX 00:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You guys are veering way off topic into all sort of tangents you don't need to. The question is simply how to organize the description. If it needs to be split up fine, I don't think most people have a huge objection to it, they just think it was done unartfully. The big issue was with the title, which was... awkward... if you pick a better subheading nobody would have an issue. Work on that; you guys are far afield right now though. Shadowjams (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the titles can be changed. The ones I put in were added off the top of my head. MrX, I don't have any suggestions at this point in time, but I'll return to the subject later. Coretheapple (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

confusion about events in Vicki Soto's classroom

I think I have figured out what happened there, based on different sources, most of which I didn't save, but could easily be found if anyone wants to add my hypothesis to the shooting timeline.

Source 1: first responders entering the classroom found the shooter just inside the door, Soto on the floor near her desk and in front of one group of dead students, and a second group of dead students in the bathroom. Some time later they found 7 students hidden in a closet.

Source 2: Aiden Licata, a boy who fled Soto's classroom stated that Ms. Soto lined him and other students up along a wall "away from the door". He also said that he saw the gunman enter the class and shoot his teacher, which caused blood to come out of her mouth. He said he and some other children then ran past the shooter, out of the classroom and out of the building. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57559513/newtown-massacre-teacher-vicki-sotos-heroics-remembered/

Source 3: neighbor found six children sitting on his lawn crying. They told him their teacher was dead. Presumably these are the same children who ran from Soto's classroom. These children did not go to the firehouse. The neighbor took them inside his house and called around until their parents were contacted and came to pick them up from the house. Aiden Licata was not one of these 6--his mother found him at a police station. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8924410

Source 4: the children hiding in the closet in Soto's classroom reported to the first responders that the gunman entered, asked Ms. Soto where the children were, and when she told him "in the auditorium" shot her. They are the ones who reported that children were shot while trying to flee. I believe that they, not being able to see the events, wrongly interpreted the simultaneous sounds of the 7 children running from the classroom and of Lanza shooting the children behind Ms. Soto. It sounds like Lanza couldn't see any of the children when he entered, but then he did? Seems odd, if they were lined up against the wall as described by Aiden Licata. Other reports said the kids were hidden, but came out and tried to flee, but it's not clear what the original source was of that info.

Source 5: Ms. Murphy was in Ms. Soto's classroom http://www.newser.com/story/159527/6-year-old-newtown-victim-died-in-arms-of-beloved-aide.html

Conclusion: it seems to me that Ms. Soto (perhaps with Ms. Murphy) made the very smart decision to split up her students in 3 or 4 locations to maximize their odds of survival. Having shut 7 in the closet, she put others more along the wall, in the bathroom and/or behind her desk. During the brief time of the shooting, 7 children got away and Lanza shot 8 other children and Ms. Murphy after first shooting Ms. Soto.

Why 8? 14 were shot in the first (Rousseau's) classroom, 2 of whom were adults. So there must have been 12 children who died there (one girl survived under their bodies), assuming the count of 14 was accurate. Total children killed was 20, which leaves 8 who must have died in the second classroom. Rwielgosz (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the whole thing is very confusing. I thought I read that the deaths (for children) numbered 14 in one room, six in another (for a total of 20). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There were 16 children in Rousseau's class, judging by the school picture taken this fall that was published in the Daily Mail. Fifteen of the kids in the photo were killed and were identified in the paper; the other is presumed to be the lone survivor. One of the children, Josephine Gay, was autistic, so maybe she was receiving services in another classroom at the time? Speculation. I haven't seen any article that lists where the kids were at, but Murphy and D'Avino both worked with autistic children. Little Dylan was also autistic and Murphy tried to shield him with her body. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind, we shouldn't be adding it as you have stated it here. We would need a source to connect the dots, else it is likely a synthesis of sources, with unknown gaps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of the early accounts were unreliable, even from official sources. I wonder whatever happened to that person supposedly found in the woods, according to early accounts. Coretheapple (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

He was a town local, cutting down logs for firewood in the nearby woods there. He was apparently wearing camouflage-colored clothing at the time. Given the situation, he appeared suspicious (to police). Police questioned him and dismissed him as innocent. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is my understanding of this "mystery" man. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For more info about this topic, see this discussion: Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 4#witness states saw man in handcuffs taken out of woods. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiple refrences

Currently, there are sentences with two to three refrences each. Should we begin to clear out some of these excess refrences? Trek001 (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2012‎ (UTC)

I would say NO - the sentence may be an epitome of all three references. There's nothing wrong with multiple ref's.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Sandy hook shorting took place 1.5 miles NNW of this location

—71.185.202.44 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Citation or link available? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• The coordinates of the school on Google Maps are 41.419721,-73.278567 [13]. This is the same as the source in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm deactivating the {{geodata-check}} template so that other coordinate checkers don't waste time on this. The coordinates in the article appear to be correct. Deor (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we have Friday in the article?

It's mentioned several times the incident took place on the 14th of December, but there's no sign of what weekday it took place in (Friday), which I found a bit inconvenient having to find a calendar. Would it be adequate to have the day somewhere near the date (possibly in the infobox)? Bui (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no issue with including the day of the week...Go Phightins! 03:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I see "Friday" was added to the article, but since when do articles include the day of the week something happened? I've never seen that in an article before. It now says "on Friday, December 21"; I think Friday should be removed. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe the day of the week is supposed to be used with the date. Encylopedias don't use days with dates. Can an admin or other experienced editor provide guidance on this? WP:DATEFORMAT doesn't address it. And for the record, I don't understand why it would matter at all to readers what day of the week something happened, especially when the article becomes weeks, months and years old. IMO, it's irrelevant. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Some folks might wonder what day of the week it was, and this way they can find out without having to consult a perpetual calendar. Also, the fact it was on a Friday meant a weekend of accelerated discussion on TV and elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an encylopedia, not a newspaper. Encylopedias don't use days of the week with dates. I'll bet 99.9% of readers don't go to a calendar to find the day of the week when they see a date in an article, or even care. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What's unencyclopedic about including the day of the week? I don't see it. It's information. This happened on Friday; September 11 was a Tuesday. These are facts that contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of an event and its reception.  ^davidiad_.:τ 05:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes - for some events the day of the week may well be relevant (e.g. our article on the Attack on Pearl Harbor should surely point out that it happened on a Sunday, when the bases were at their least alert, though presently it doesn't...), and if it isn't, it is hardly either controversial, or using much article space to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree about your example with Pearl Harbor because the fact that it happened on a Sunday was highly relevant for the reason you stated. Therefore, I'd consider it a rare exception where it's clearly appropriate. In this case, it has no relevance. If some admins say it's an accepted practice to include a day of the week with a date, even if it doesn't have important relevance to the event, that's fine. But pick 10, 20 or 50 random articles (that use at least several dates in them) and I'll bet you nearly 100% of them will not use the day of the week. It's simply not standard practice. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Prove that it has no relevance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugs has a point. How is Saturday relevant to Pearl Harbor? The bases don't go up or down with their alerts depending on the day of the week. That would need a source. How is Friday relevant here?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be missing my point entirely - I've seen sources that argue that the fact that the Pearl Harbor attack took place on a Sunday was significant - and our article on the subject should quite possibly point this out (assuming that it can be sourced, and isn't entirely a figment of my imagination). AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I got your point....it just wasn't made very well or with any relevant facts. Bases did not lower alerts due to it being a Saturday.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Saturday? It was a Sunday. And no, I haven't cited sources, but neither have you - and this isn't the Pearl Harbor attack article anyway - I was making a general point, not arguing about US military alertness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

OK Bugs, but what about you can't prove a "negative" --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. My take is that it's a bit dogmatic (and inaccurate) to say that Encyclopedias "NEVER" use days of the week, in articles. They have. "Black Monday"..."Black Tuesday", etc...when referring to Stock Market crashes. I don't see ANY reason why "it happened on a Friday morning" can't be included in this article, simply because it's an "Encyclopedia".

There's no rule, code, law, or actual in-stone strict protocol that says days of week can never be mentioned in an article, especially one that is supposed to be comprehensive and thorough. You'll tell me that days are never mentioned in historical accounts of wars and battles or big events?

In fact, I can show you where it is on Wikipedia.

In the "Battle of Britain Day" article.

"On Sunday, 15 September 1940, the Luftwaffe launched its largest and most concentrated attack against London in the hope of drawing out the RAF into a battle of annihilation. Around 1,500 aircraft took part in the air battles which lasted until dusk."

How about Britannica? Rarely, but it has been done. Case in point.

On Kennedy's assassination:

"On Friday, November 22, 1963, he and Jacqueline Kennedy were in an open limousine riding slowly in a motorcade through downtown Dallas."

So anyone who says (wrongly) that Encyclopedias "never" have days of weeks in their articles, well, sorry, that editor needs to know that that assertion is just not true. Granted, day of week is rarely mentioned in encyclopedias. But not "never". It depends. And for some reason, I can see it being done on this article. Regards... Gabby Merger (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Aside from all of that, could someone just explain the relevance of the day of the wweek and how it is relevant to the subject and isn't just giving unrelated detail?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated to what? The contemporary Western calender contains some redundancy, but to most of us, the day of the week has meaning - arguably more so than the day of the month. Why should we omit it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That is just parsing words and does not answer the concern of an editor requesting an explanation as to why it is releveant here. Been down this road with you before Andy. Can you actually demonstrate how it has relevance?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Amadscientist. I was just about to ask the same question. Why is the day relevant (needed) in this case? Btw, comparing the use of events like Black Friday or Super Bowl Sunday with the use of the standard date format is totally apples and oranges. And of course we can find a few articles (out of tens of millions) that use the day of the week, but the overwhelming, predominant standard is not to use the day of the week unless there's significant relevance. Even Gabby has acknowledged the fact that it's rare. I initially said "never", but should have said almost never (relatively speaking). I later said almost 100%. So as Amadscientist has asked, why is the day needed in this instance? --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And now I see that while we're here in the middle of this discussion, and waiting for admin input, Baseball Bugs has added Friday to the opening sentence of the article[14] instead of having the courtesy and patience to wait until we finish this discussion and get the admin input I've requested. His edit comment ("Friday - as per talk page") falsely implies consensus has been reached. I consider that very disruptive and request that it be reverted until a final decision is made. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Admins don't determine article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely for our against the addition, but how long a discussion should continue is generally based on the forming consensus. While no one has offered a reason it is relevant, there are clear indications that most editors agree it should go in and have given a number of differing views on why. I think it is safe to say, this is a non-controversial addition and the discussion appears to show agreement for the most part. Is this something you can live with? It seems like such a small issue really.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has given an answer to why including the day of the week is relevant in this instance? And if a couple admins concur that the use of the day of the week is appropriate, I'm fine with it. But until then, the disruptive addition of Friday to the opening sentence, by an editor involved in this discussion, should be removed. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely true I don't think (IMO). I think Baseball Bugs said something. "Also, the fact it was on a Friday meant a weekend of accelerated discussion on TV and elsewhere." Also, the point is that why not make the article more thorough and complete? Why leave out information?

You may not see this as all that "relevant", but as was pointed out, some readers WANT to know the exact day of the week this horrible thing happened (ala school day stuff), and don't like checking computer calendars or whatever, to find out...when it should (theoretically) be in this good article on this topic. Since there is precedent that "encyclopedias" HAVE on occasion included day of the week with the date (Wikipedia, Britannica, etc), and if readers like knowing these things sometimes, why not? What's the big harm? As Amadscientist made the point. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The news cycle has no relevance to the shooting. "I just likie it" is not really enough. And "I don't hear you" is not a good sign when direct questions are asked on a consensus discussion. Clearly an editor disagrees with the editors above (being an admin should give no extra weight to their opinion), so I suggest taking a minute to form an argument towards why you feel it is not needed and see if you can persuade the rough consenus. Remember, if you cannot demonstrate why it is of no relevance, editors may diregard your concern.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I probably should add the relevance I see. Friday is the traditional last day of the school week when kids this age are thinking of their weekend and the time away from school. This could probably even be sourced.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the news cycle argument has zero relevance. It's a completely hollow point. The day kids are thinking of their weekend? Seriously? What the heck does that have to do with the shooting?? How does it change anything versus if it happened any other day of the school week? Look, besides the day of the week being overwhelmingly contrary to standard practice with regard to dates of events, the day of the week in this article has no relevance to the bell ringing (or in the lead) because it had no effect on those incidents, unlike Pearl Harbor, where the day was of massive relevance because it was the day of week that the military was least prepared to defend against that attack. It wouldn't have mattered which school day the shooting happened or what day of the week the church bells rang. Show some reliable sources that indicate that the day of the week had significance in the shooting or the bell ringing. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"How does it change anything versus if it happened any other day of the school week?" How does it change anything if it happened any other day of the year? In any other school? So far, all I've seen here is unverified assertions that 'standard practice' is not to include days of the week, and "I don't like it" arguments. As it happens, I don't like the way Wikipedia contributors ignore WP:NOTNEWS and throw articles together in a rush, and if it was up to me, this article quite possibly wouldn't be here at all - but if it is, we may as well give the readers information that is verifiable, uncontroversial, and something that they might well want to know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that indicate the day of the week had significant relevance to the shooting or bell ringing. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No. It isn't required, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is code for: There aren't any reliable sources that show this. By your rationale, we should add the day of the week for every date in every Wikipedia article. Reliable sources, please. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You are asking for a reliable source that states that the shooting took place on a Friday? Since at this point you are clearly trolling, I shall refrain from commenting further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote. Or didn't understand it. So I'll say it again: "Please provide reliable sources that indicate the day of the week had significant relevance to the shooting or bell ringing." Purposely misstating what another editor said is disruptive. Now reliable sources, please. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Trolling is disruptive. Go away, whichever already-blocked sockpuppet you are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet without reporting it SPI can get you blocked. Focus on content, not contributors. Just provide the reliable sources. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC) No. Troll elsewhere, sockpuppet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC) You have been warned twice and have been asked nicely to stop your personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry without filing at SPI. Focus on content, not contributors. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Obvious troll is obvious: [15] AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no harm in mentioning the day of the week in the article, but it seemed quite out of place in the lead (which doesn't include that degree of detail). I've relocated it to the Shootings section, where it seems like a much better fit (alongside such information as the shootings' approximate times). —David Levy 07:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. At the time I added it (which I did think was "minor" and non-controversial - silly me), there were only two comments, both supportive. I should have waited, as I should have known that Grover would weigh in, once again making mountains out of anthills. He's been blocked at least twice in his short time here, and acts like he's bidding for another one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy knock it off please. Name calling and sock puppet accusation are disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

He does seem to know a lot (or at least thinks he does) for an editor whose first visible footprint is December 12th. Regardless, checkusers won't do anything with IP's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's perhaps ironic that right now Determination of the day of the week (AfD discussion) is nominated for deletion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Peter Lanza listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peter Lanza. Since you had some involvement with the Peter Lanza redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks to Alison for catching/removing this

Among other things, the Daily Mail article had: "The FBI are trying to piece together his smashed up hard drive to see if his online footprint will reveal any motive for the killing, but they strongly believe he made use of devil-worshiping and suicide sites and boasted of his murder plans on message forums." WHERE ELSE has the FBI made ANY public statement on what the killer's motive was? Now, this article is going to get many drive-by edits , but hopefully editors will stop and think about what the media makes hay of and will use some good judgement before adding material in this vein.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite. I don't want to start a row but it is probably worth noting that the Daily Mail is perhaps an example of a source that should sometimes be approached with some caution. DBaK (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced word? Shooting Section

In paragraph 3 under the "Shootings" section:

"A 9-year-old boy in the gymnasium also reported hearing the shooter say "Put your..." Why also, when there is not a prior similar comment or to an earlier reporting....? I think that word "also" could be deleted to make the sentence make better sense. It is unclear in context. The boy also.... reported, or the boy... also reported. Either way, removing that word fixes it, I think. Fix?: The ... boy in... gymnasium reported hearing... Bengalexfx (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I revised it. - MrX 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Shooting Section" - Intercom System

Seems to be a slight conflict of information regarding the school intercom system. Was it on normally, or did Hochsprung turn it on? It seems the urgent activity outside the faculty meeting and the immediate attendance to the disturbance by Hochsprung and her and her fellow attendee being shot, how likely is it that she had some ability to access the school intercom system to turn it on when there was life threatening activity in full and immediate play?

"Some of those present reported that initial shots were heard on the school intercom system, which was being used for morning announcements.[16"

and; "Hochsprung may have turned on the school intercom to alert others in the building."

Unless... what is the location of the school intercom switch? Was it in the facluty meeting room? Was it in the hall where she charged into? I doubt she made a detour to any other location or nearby room even in the midst of encountering Lanza and back out again after turning on this intercom. A point to ponder.

I do not know how to edit, nor do I want to do such. I want to give comments like I have been with hopes that those of you more experienced will take what is deemed appropriate and make any changes if any suggestions are helpful in any way.

I do not know what to suggest about the above 2 different approaches to the school intercom system, and yet it was on, we know that now because shots were heard over that system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengalexfx (talk • contribs) 07:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wording - Shootings section

In the "Shootings" section it currently says this: "Investigators later found her body in her bed, wearing pajamas, with four gunshots to her head." To me, this reads very oddly though I do recognize that it may be a AmE/BrE thing or my age or something, so I am not going to change it off my own bat. Plus I do, of course, understand perfectly what is meant - it's just that it reads clunkily for me. To me, the "gunshots" are the actual events - the four moments at which the weapon was fired. You can hear them: they happen at a fixed time. In that interpretation, they can't have found her with four "gunshots" to her head - it doesn't make sense, it happened some time ago. What I would say is that she had four gunshot wounds to her head, or similar - what they found her with was the results of the shots, but not the shots themselves. Do you see what I mean? The source doesn't use this formula but that doesn't positively prove anything - it says "the gunman's mother was found dead in her pajamas in bed, shot four times in the head" but I'm not advocating that that style must be copied, or anything. Like I say, this might just be because I am not American, or not below the age of 25 (hahaha) or not from Penge or something - so I would be interested to know if anyone other than me hears a problem in this sentence, or am I just (as usual) talking b*ll*cks? DBaK (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I've made appropriate edits. - MrX 13:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it reads better now and hope you don't mind that I edited the "s" out of "gunshot[s] wounds" - I am assuming that it still works in AmE thus? Thanks DBaK (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that. Thanks for correcting it. - MrX 19:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Adam Lanza is now 'notable' -for all the wrong reasons (like Hitler) >> Ramifications...

Adam Lanza is notable now (just like Hitler), and so there are ramifications:

1) He should have his own Wikipedia entry.

2) As macabre as it sounds, he also needs some photographs of himself posted, since this is newsworthy.

Please note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting does not have an entry for him. The article starts off: "On December 14, 2012, Adam Peter Lanza, age 20, fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members..." and his name is NOT clickable, like Adolph Hitler's name would be, as it has no entry.

Any thoughts? Thanks, 71.101.46.249 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside Godwin's law, there is not enough known about Lanza at the moment. The worry is that a separate article would become a coatrack for the sort of media speculation (Asperger's, schizophrenia, video games, satanism etc) that has been removed from this article on numerous occasions. Until more is known about Lanza and sourced directly from the investigation, he should not have a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Way too early for a separate article at this time.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability means we may have an article, not that we need to have an article. Once there is sufficient significant material to fork an biography, then it is a good idea. There is no value in having this article split into a bunch of stubs. I do not think, though, that this is purely a question of clock time, not that we would have more trouble keeping two or three articles clear of insignificant content and OR than one, rather that it would be easier. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC).

I think it is pointless to delay a separate article on "Adam Lanza". It was apparent from the earliest news reports of the event that he would eventually end up with one. No doubt many thousands of Wikipedia readers have already sought out an "Adam Lanza" article looking for biographical details, as opposed to an article on the facts of the criminal case (I was just one myself). Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

But why would you want just a stub article at this time? Because we don't have any hard information beyond his name, age, what his family members' names are. The rest of what has been put in the media just isn't trustworthy or is so much cruft. Wait for some real information.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with previous comments that a Lanza article is premature. Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a guideline for this. See WP:SINGLEEVENT. I thought that the guideline would be to keep the single article, but when I re-read it just now, I think that in this case the guideline calls for a separate article. Lanza played "a major role in a major event." -Arch dude (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It will happen, just not now. For an article to have value it has to have information that's of value, and at this time, the shooting article itself has just about everything that's been confirmed about him (not rumors, not talk from his barber - wow, an autistic child is uncomfortable getting haircuts, who'da thunk it - not claims of messages in forums).HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• As I advocated at the WP:AN discussion on the redirect protection, rather then argue about whether an article on him would turn out acceptably, the simple solution is to draft the article in userspace, and when done, propose moving it over the redirect, and have a discussion about it. That way we can discuss a specific proposed article, rather then abstractions. Editors can also be invited to collaberate on the draft while it is still in userspace. Monty₈₄₅ 16:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that there should be a separate article, but also agree that its too soon to make it an active article on WP. Even the Newtown PD and FBI are still in the midst of their active investigation'. Since we as editors are completely reliant citations and even though the WP:BLP standards are not in effect, we shouldn't rush to create a stub or potentially flawed article.

On a side note, interesting observation about Godwin's law. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

False comparison. Hitler is in no way comparable with Lanza as a metric for an individual article. For starters, Hitler would have been notable aside from all of the atrocities he performed since he was the Chancellor of Germany. Lanza, on the other hand, is notable only for this one act. All relevant information about him can be contained within this article. Arzel (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Ted Varga & conference room?

Hello. Seems that I cannot edit the main page, but maybe it is worthy to add a few lines under "Shooting" about Ted Varga and the other teachers in the conference room, how he initially escaped, but returned to help 3 other teachers flee while a fourth stayed behind and hid. All survived. News link can be found here. --Mistertrouble189 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mother's maiden name

I don't think it belongs in the lead, but should be moved down (perhaps in the "Perpetrator's" bio section, or some other section). No need for such minute (and insignificant) detail in the lead. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. I'm not sure it's essential at all, but if it is it is surely too much detail for the lead. I'm trying to imagine any published source doing this, and can't. DBaK (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of deaths (infobox)

The "Deaths" field in the infobox should simply show the number of deaths and indicate parenthetically if the perpetrator(s) is included. It was "28 (including perpetrator)" for a long time, but I just noticed it's been changed to the extremely bulky "27 at the school (including the perpetrator), plus Nancy Lanza (killed at home); 28 total". This should be changed back. All those extra details are in the article and are inappropriate for the infobox. It should just say "28 (including perpetrator)" Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the diff that shows when it was changed (14:59, 19 December 2012‎). When it's reverted, the word "the" isn't needed in the parentheses. It should just be "(including perpetrator)", not "(including the perpetrator)". --76.189.123.142 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Including the is consistent with every other infobox with a dead perpetrator. Skullers (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI... a thread on the talk page of the editor who made the change shows a brief discussion about the number of deaths issue. The changing editor said, "I think it's important for Wikipedia to strive for accuracy, and reporting the death toll as 28 struck me as very misleading. After all the debate, I've updated the verbiage on the page to show both 27 and 28 near each other, so both death tolls are clearly stated now." The reasoning is misguided. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The {{infobox civilian attack}} docs for that field say, "fatalities – Number of people killed during attack(s); optionally, you can split this into different types of people (i.e. 121 passengers, 21 crew or 3 soldiers, 1 civilian)". IMO, any number given here in this case needs clarification regarding what fatalities are and are not represented by that number. The clarification could be provided in a footnote, but I don't find the amount of clarification currently provided inline in the infobox to be objectionably long. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It says can be split into different types of people, not should be or must be. And there was wide agreement on how it was. For this article, the breakdown is clearly stated both in the body of the article and on the Killed/Wounded list. There was wide agreement on having "28 (including perpetrator)", which is the way it's been until it was changed earlier today with no discussion. And even if the extensive content would stay, it certainly should not say "Nancy Lanza"; it should say "perpetrator's mother". After all, it says "perpetrator", not "Adam Lanza" in that field. In any case, it was "28 (including perpetrator)" for a long time. That's what was settled on and it went unreverted for all this time, until now. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly care which wording is used, but I'll note that your above claims are inaccurate. As clearly indicated in the summary, the edit to which you linked undid a reversion from earlier in the day (mislabeled "minor"). I performed the original edit on 17 December at 21:03 (UTC), per Joseph A. Spadaro's suggestion in a talk page discussion. As I noted at the time, I didn't feel that the previous version was problematic, but this seemed like a sensible means of addressing the concerns. —David Levy 03:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There was a very long discussion on this Talk Page, about this exact issue. I assume that it is now in the Talk Page archives. An editor objected to having a simple statement such as "28 (including perpetrator)" in the info box. He felt that such a notation would mislead readers to believe that 28 people died at the school. Furthering the confusion is the fact that all other outside sources list 27 deaths at the school. So, he felt that the additional death (bringing the number to 28) needed clarification. He felt that, since the title of the article is "S. H. Elementary School shooting", the 28 number is misleading to readers, without some parenthetical clarifying information. I agree that the current wording is bulky and impedes the aesthetics of the info box. But I agree with the prior editor that simply listing "28" as a death toll is misleading, given the (current) name of the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But it did not say "28". It said, and has said for a long time, "28 (including perpetrator)". And the article, and especially the Killed/Wounded list, very clearly gives the breakdown by group. Many, many experienced editors and admins were involved in the way that content was ultimately displayed. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the relevant discussion: Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 4#Article about school shooting and listing mother as victim of this incident. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree that the prior version said "28 (including perpetrator)". The problem is this. The article itself (and the info box) is about Lanza's entire December 14 killing spree. However, the title of the article refers only to the school killings. That is the main problem. And the other editor made a good point about simply listing "28 (including perpetrator)". That (previous) info box left the reader with the impression that 28 died at the school. So, some clarification was needed. The above linked discussion was pretty lengthy, thorough, and involved quite a few editors. There were no objections in that discussion. And, in fact, the current listing in the info box was the solution we all agreed on (consensus) to the problem. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But you're missing the point regarding the article title. The article title is about the entire incident, which includes the mother's murder at home. In other words, it's about the entire spree. Obviously, the article title reflects where almost all the killings took place, but the mother's killing is fully part of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting incident. This was clearly explained in that discussion. The way the Deaths field has been changed is way overboard. That field is simply asking how many deaths there were in the incident. Answer: 28 (including perpetrator). The article and the Killed box gives all the details of how those 28 deaths happened. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

We are re-inventing the wheel. I fully know and understand that the article is about the whole spree. But, the current title does not reflect the whole spree. That is the source of the problem. And that is what was very thoroughly covered in that prior discussion. We agreed that, at some point, it will be appropriate to consider renaming the article. But, right now, it is too soon. So, that other editor made a valid point. While the 28 reflects the whole spree, it does not reflect the deaths at the school Therefore, regardless of the text/prose of the full article, the info box gave the misleading impression that 28 died at the school. Once again, because the title refers only to the school, and not to the whole spree. As I said, this is re-inventing the wheel. I know that this article is about the spree, and not the school. But, the title does not reflect that. That is the main issue and problem with listing 27 versus 28 in the info box. And with having or not having parentheticals. This was thoroughly discussed at that above link. The consensus solution was the present info box, with all that parenthetical "stuff". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But the title does reflect the whole spree. This is just a matter of semantics. That is the title that was determined to be most appropriate for the incident as a whole, even though (obviously) all the killings did not happen at the school. By your logic, there should be no mention at all of Nancy Lanza. But she is a victim of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting incident, just like all the others. I appreciate all your feedback, though. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The title clearly does not reflect the entire spree. If it did, it would be called "2012 Newtown murder spree" or some such. A reader with no knowledge of this event, simply looking at your proposed info box, would easily think that 28 people died at the school (not in the spree). So, again, the misleading title is the issue. And we have all agreed that a rename is premature. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Regardless of the title, the article is obviously about the entire incident, which started at home and ended at school. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the prose and text of the article are indeed about the whole spree. I have stated that umpteen times. The info box, however, is misleading (i.e., if one looks at the info box, without reading the entire article). And that is the whole point of the info box ... to give a snap shot of information, without the reader having to delve into all the prose. Furthermore, to the casual reader – or, to any reader, for that matter – the title is of critical importance to providing some direction about what the article entails. You are being dismissive about the importance of the title to the reader's understanding of the topic. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the article is not "obviously" about the whole spree ... unless one actually reads the entire article. Or, at least, digs through it for the relevant portions. The purpose of the info box is to allow the reader to avoid doing precisely that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully understand your point. I just disagree. Again, I think it's semantics. IMO, saying that the subject involves 28 deaths including the perpetrator is a perfectly accurate summary for the infobox. The Deaths field is not supposed to indicate location(s) or names. Now we can see what others think below. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it's semantics. Semantics is precisely what is the issue here. If the article were entitled "2012 Newtown murder spree" (as opposed to "S. H. School shooting"), we would not be having this debate at all. So, of course, it's semantics! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Good, we agree it's semantics. Now we can see what other editors think. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

One quick note. You indicated that the purpose of the infobox is to allow the reader get a summary of the entire article.[16] Actually, that is not true at all. The infobox is merely to present some important facts and statistics, not at all to summarize the content of the article. And of course infoboxes are not required for articles, so many do not even have one. It is actually the lead that serves to summarize the article's most important aspects. So the detailed breakdown of the 28 deaths should be obtained from the lead (and body), not the infobox. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This is just more semantics. You say that the "infobox is merely to present some important facts and statistics". Correct. But, clearly, it should present correct, accurate, non-misleading facts and statistics. I doubt that this is a point of contention. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"28 (including perpetrator)" is correct, accurate and not misleading at all. The infobox is not meant for going into the specific details about content; that's what the lead is for. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I disagree with it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Which content should be in the Deaths field in the infobox?

See discussion above. Please indicate below which content you prefer to be in the Deaths field in the infobox (A, B or C).

• (A) "28 (including perpetrator)"
• (B) "27 at the school (including the perpetrator), plus Nancy Lanza (killed at home); 28 total"
• (C) "28 (27 including perpetrator at school, plus perpetrator's mother at home)"

--76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If we are voting, I vote for "B" or "C" (which are variants of the same thing). Definitely not "A". I will withdraw my "vote", as my opinion is made clear in the above discussion. And User 76.189 and I have agreed to stay out of this vote, and let other editors provide input. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

B Keep it the way it is, I dont see an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A People can figure what 27+1 is and the details are given in the lead. Skullers (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Choice "A" does not say "27 + 1" ... it says, simply, 28. There's a difference. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Joseph, I would respectfully ask that you please not comment in this polling. We agreed to stay out of this !vote.[17] And Skullers did not say it says 27 + 1. His point was that readers can easily figure out that 28 including perp = 27 + 1. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agreed to stay out of the comment/vote, with my own comment/vote. I think it's highly appropriate for me (or you) to comment on the posts of others. That, indeed, is what a discussion is! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you do not want to keep your word and stay out of this !vote, that's your choice. But I will keep to the spirit of our agreement, which was to stay out of this. You and I have made our views very clear (above). --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again ... I agreed to stay out of the comment/vote, with my own comment/vote. I think it's highly appropriate for me (or you) to comment on the posts of others. That, indeed, is what a discussion is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the needless clutter in (B) "27 plus mother; 28 total" and (C) "28 (27 plus mother)". Other details are already in the first paragraph. Skullers (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Order in the lead

Having said that, I do wonder if this edit was not a mistake. Yes, it does put the lead into chronological order, which is what I was thinking about with the "had", but it does seem to place an unbalanced emphasis when really the primary key thing, as in all the previous versions of the lead, was the murders at the school, which we used to read about as the first thing in the account. This is not of course to say that the murder of his mother was insignificant. Just that it's not the first thought you have when contemplating this massacre. I am not up for a fistfight over this so I am not going to change anything right now, but I do think editors should consider reverting to a structure similar to that before the edit, which used order to emphasize the school murders, and tense to put the chronology right. DBaK (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The deaths at the school are first and foremost on this topic, and should be explained first (particularly since it is likely this article will be named based on the school given what it's being called in sources). --MASEM (t) 16:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The school component should be listed first; the murder at home, second. Even though that is reverse chronological order, it makes sense in this article. The school component is clearly the "big story". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Defintely. I was appalled at how it was worded and am glad it was fixed. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. So, yes, as a start I have gone back to the other form of words, and I do think it makes sense to see the deaths at the school first. I'd welcome further comment here though. Thanks DBaK (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The shooting of the boys mother is part of the same event and led up to the school shooting. Both should be included in the opening sentence. That the number of deaths at the school is greater and in many ways more horrific does not negate the need for a logical explication that is properly ordered. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The question was not whether (or not) the mother's death should (or should not) be included in the lead. The question was, in what order should it be listed. In other words, everyone agrees that the mother's death needs inclusion, as part of the "overall" massacre. The question is about order and chronology. That is, should we talk about the school deaths (more prominent) first, and the mother second? Or should we mention the mother first, and the school second, following real-time chronology. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - the Lead should reflect the order in which the deaths occurred, because the pattern of killing the person closest to the perpetrator first is significant. After that, the perpetrator goes out to take revenge on the community. That is sufficient reason to put her death first. Other examples of this pattern are Bath School disaster, in which Kehoe killed his wife first, and Jeff Weise, who killed his grandfather and grandfather's companion before going to kill people at his high school.Parkwells (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that. The sufficient reason for the current order is that the deaths of the children are, as someone said, the bigger part of the story, and what you expect to read first. I think the way it is now is good - you get that bit first then it fills you in, being careful to use tense to indicate the order, on the other deaths. And that is, after all, just the lead - the article body then goes into it all in much more detail and in chronological order. And whilst you may be seeing a significant pattern in other massacres, I am not sure there's evidence that the articles about these other events follow a policy on this - one does it chronologically and one does the big headline first. I see no reason at all to change it back to something that first tells you that this guy shot his mother - tragic though that was, it is not the reason why we have this article. Maybe we should check what the MOS says on lead construction in news stories? I bet - it if exists - that it doesn't say that chronology trumps headline value. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not about creating a headline; it is about representing an actual event in which real life did not conform to the ideas of editors here about balance or what was most important. If saying that he killed his mother first slows readers of this encyclopedia down too much, then more's the pity. But this is not a tabloid newspaper or any sort of newspaper.Parkwells (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I still do not agree. No-one has suggested that this is or should be a tabloid, a thought which I must say that I find mildly defamatory! :) We are merely trying to have a lead paragraph which reflects the event in a sensible way. I still feel that the detailed chronology below deals with your concerns. DBaK (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Note: I quickly revised an initial, unnecessarily snarky version of this before any further commentary had taken place DBaK (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, it's clear that I should shut up for a while, so please discuss away! I'm not ready to man (/person) the barricades over this. DBaK (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

See also section, why link to Cleveland and Dunblane shootings?

Both of these shootings/massacres/tragedies (et. al.) are already included in the lists that are referenced here, why should these stand out or receive special attention? User GabrielF mentions with regard to the addition of the Cleveland link in the Edit summary that "add event that the NYTimes identified as relevant in a front page article today". OK, assuming we take GabrielF's word for it since there's no citation, one writer at the Times made mention of a similar event, how does this make it worthy of special status? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose linking. Separate, unrelated events. The New York Times is also left-leaning in its editorial policy, and this may start to give the article a POV if we go down the road of following what they and other papers see as relevant. There will be plenty of time for more somber assessments of this tragedy as time passes..HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I added the Cleveland school but the Dunblane incident was already there. My rationale was that the lists are very long and include things that aren't particularly relevant (shootings at colleges by students for instance, or even the Boston Massacre) so I thought it would be valuable to highlight one event that was more closely related (occurred at a primary school by an adult who didn't seem to have much of a connection with the school and had a similar impact). You can't really put a citation in an edit summary, but the specific citation is here[18].GabrielF (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not oppose the links at all. Furthermore, contrary to an above post, "see also" items do not have to be "directly related" to the main article. In other words, it is irrelevant if the items are "separate, unrelated events", as HammerFilmFan points out. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the MOS: The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You've convinced me of the errors of my ways. See below for a real link we need to add! HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Im the one who added the Dunblane shootings as the attack has alot similar to this one sources also are pointing this out: [19], [20] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, back to my original query, why are these two events getting special attention? I'm not saying that they are unrelated, but at the very least highlighting them is redundant and would appear to violate NPOV by adding undue emphasis. Per the MOS:, the existing lists are more than adequate enabling readers to explore tangentially related topics.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Because they were both mass gun killings at elementary schools. I'm not so wedded to the US one, but the Dunblane shooting not only gives non-US perspective but was instrumental in the enactment of the UK's incredibly strict gun laws, which given the current reactions in the US, makes it very relevant. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed I keep getting reverted though with some editors not even bothering to comment here to get a consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just removed thees two links not knowing they were being discussed on the talk page. I do not see why these two events in particular should be mentioned. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont know about the Cleveland shootings but sources have brought up the Dunblane shootings when referring to Sandy Hook (See above). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet BOTH are included in the lengthy lists that are already linked in the section. The "See also" section is NOT to give perspective, per Joseph A. Spadaro's comment, "one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." This is from, [[21]]. I'm not disputing this, but no one is willing to address what makes these two events stand out above and beyond the inclusive lists that are already linked.

Their inclusion is redundant and places undue weight in a section that was not meant to be used in this manner. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Two editors have already explained why they believe the Dunblane killings especially are relevant here. There are currently some 7,000 Google News hits linking the two. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm not disputing its relevance. Again, I'm not disputing its relevance. I'm disputing its particular uniqueness and why it should stand out above and beyond the other attacks on this list List of school shootings in the United States, for example. There are lots of Google hits on many of the other school shootings, but I fail to see how that is justification for special status in the "See also" section. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but how many of those news stories about "other school shootings" are actually linking the two events for the reasons given above? And I have no idea what your link to WP:NOT means. Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How does the number matter? I'll readily concede that the events are related, very similar, and worthy of comparison in the press. BUT, I still see no reason or credible argument based on Wikipedia policy or even common sense as to why it deserves special attention above any other shooting incident in an article on Wikipedia.

As for my link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, take your pick from this section... Wikipedia:Encyclopedic#Content I couldn't agree more with Joseph A. Spadaro that the "See also" section is enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

If there are 7,000 Google News hits linking the two events, then the links we are discussing are unnecessary. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your argument here. After all, our articles, per WP:N and WP:V, are based on non-primary sources and if those sources are linking the two events, we should reflect that; if the press are commenting that there are that many links between the two events, that suggests the link should (at the very least) be in the "See Also" section. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure why you are pushing so hard against this, the events are relevent per WP:MOS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not pushing hard against, I'm asking for it to be removed until someone explains why the Dunblane shooting deserves special status. Black Kite cites that there are 7000 Google News hits linking the two. Obviously the press is free to link the events all they want, but that is not WP's purpose. Furthermore, Notability and Verifiability are irrelevant in the context of the "See also" section. Linked articles wouldn't exist on WP if they weren't and their presence does not validate linking to them.

The inclusion of the link still puts undue weight on the Dunblane shooting and creates bias within the Sandy Hook article. Let readers decide for themselves from the inclusive lists that are already linked.

Conversely, if its as significant as you and other editors have indicated, then I suggest that you work it into the Lead of the article. In the meantime, I am still of the opinion that it does not belong in the "see also" section until convinced otherwise. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say that we should be very careful about what goes into the seealso section, and would rather go with less for NOW and then revisit later. --Malerooster (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Dunblane shooting in 1996 is the only event directly comparable to the Sandy Hook shooting. It is worth including it as one of the See also links for this reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}, please substantiate your claim that the Dunblane shooting "is the only event directly comparable to the Sandy Hook shooting". You and Black Kite are the only ones so far to address my original query, but no one has been able to substantiate why Dunblane is worthy of special attention in the "See also" section of this Wikipedia article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Black kite made a connection above on how the two events share the same things which you ignored. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Since the one consistent thing that everyone seems to be in agreement about is that the Dunblane shooting is relevant to the Sandy Hook shooting, how about mentioning it in the Reactions section?

What I am suggesting is a separate statement like this...

"Shortly after the press began reporting on the incident, comparisons were made to the 1996 school shooting in Dunblane, Scotland. The events are similar in the context that each involved lethal shootings in primary schools by a lone, armed perpetrator."

Using Black Kite's logic and methodology, there are over 100,000 results for a Google search of the phrase "sandy hook comparison to dunblane". This is the basis for the citation I'm using. Its not a "fixed" reference, but it is evidence of the point that everyone who is in favor of inclusion of the Dunblane link is making. Anyone care to locate the first article to make this connection?

This way Dunblane can be referenced in a more precise context than in the "See also" section. God help me for asking, but please comment on how or why this would be incorrect or against WP policy? Better yet, if there's an issue, come up with a workable method. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Dunblane is not as similar to Sandy as Sandy was to Pearl High School Shooting. In both Pearl and Sandy, the shooter was a former student, young, white, both killed their mothers before going on their rampages, both used long guns and had guns. Dunblane was similar in size only but the killer was fundamentally different, motives were different etc. If anything we should note Pearl rather than Dunblane.Justanonymous (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with leaving it out for now since other editors really haven't made a good case for including it in the see also section. Whether it belongs in the article is an different matter it seems. --Malerooster (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood why the "See also" link is there. It's not because of the similarity or otherwise of the actual shooting (although they are quite similar) but how the press have linked the two - Dunblane was the event that tipped the UK's gun laws and many media organisations are saying this might be the US version. It's not a question of making a case for it, our sources have done that for us. Black Kite (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this observation Justanonymous. Unfortunately now that the Reactions section has been changed to the Condolences messages section, my suggestion is moot. In my opinion your observation justifies the removal of the Dunblane link. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oy vey! Now we're back to Reactions! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

If it is left out of the "See also" section, then how and why would a reader ever find the Dunblane article? That is the purpose of the "See also", to allow readers to explore tangential topics. Dunblane is a close parallel to Sandy Hook, in terms of facts. However, since it happened in Scotland, it will not appear in the "boxes" at the bottom of the article, which are exclusively dedicated to US massacres and school killings. So, how would a reader ever be directed to read Dunblane? Leaving it out altogether is a disservice to the reader, no? And serving the reader/consumer is the whole point of this encyclopedia, no? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The lists that are cited are inclusive of the Dunblane article, this is how they will find it plus many others. The lists easily accomplish the purpose of the "See also" section to explore several tangential topics. Furthermore, the lists cited are not exclusive to the U.S. At least one is international, List of attacks related to primary schools.

Just the mention of one (or more) specific event (Dunblane, Cleveland, et. al.) when other links include access to it...

• is redundant
• gives undue weight to that subject
• creates a potential for bias with the reader
• violates WP:NPOV

There is no disservice to readers when they are given ample related information to make their own informed choice.

Additionally, I reviewed both the Dunblane and Cleveland articles, as well as others, looking for insight into better ways to organize and present the Sandy Hook article. My assumption being that they have withstood the "test of time", but this article is so volatile that virtually any change is contested regardless of the credibility of the edit or justification.

Given that the linked lists include Dunblane and every other school shooting incident, no one has yet to make a credible argument for its inclusion in something as innocuous as the "See also" section. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I was not referring to the other items and lists in the "See also" section. I was referring to the blue/purple boxes way at the bottom of the article. (I don't know what those boxes are called.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess those blue/purple boxes are called "templates". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A navbox or template. Currently people can get to other school shooting articles via the Lists already in the See Also section, the categories, and by the piped link in the lead. There is no need to stink up the See Also section with individual shootings. Abductive (reasoning) 07:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)