Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 4

.223 Bushmaster found in car TRUNK

Resolved

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9746051/Connecticut-school-shooting-massacre-at-Sandy-Hook-leaves-20-children-dead.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRdWORVgyvo

Northern Illinois University massacre

--91.6.94.46 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I assume it is due to a lack of reliable sources that have made that clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• {ec with DB] Sorry, but our job is to write a decent encyclopedic article. If reliable sources report on some assessment of a motive, this article will too. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• It's "missing" because it's not known yet, or at least the investigators aren't saying. For one thing, it's reported that he destroyed his computer, so it's going to take the experts a while to figure out what possibly-useful info was on it - and with it, the best likelihood of assessing the motive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: NOT second most deadly attack at public school in US - Problem with first paragraph

Resolved

In the first paragraph of this article, it is stated that this was the second most deadly attack on a public school in the US, with the Bath School attack in 1927 being the most deadly. This is incorrect and needs to be revised. Virginia Tech is also a public school (public university, and a university is a school) and experienced a greater number of dead than the Sandy Hook Elementary attack.

I've reworded it as "American school of compulsory education", which encompasses elementary school through high school. —David Levy 22:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I see what you've done, and I understand it. But, I am sorry, that sounds "clunky" and disruptive to the reader's flow. So, please tell me, would the following suggested statement be factually accurate or inaccurate?

* It was the second-deadliest mass shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, and the second-deadliest attack at an American school of compulsory education, after the Bath School Disaster of 1927.

In other words, does the statement still hold for any type of American school (public or private, regardless of age level) or no? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to have been some misunderstanding about the lede, which had previously made a distinction between mass shooting and mass murder/attacks. The 1927 Bath School disaster with a death-toll of 45 is the most deadly mass-murder/attack (regardless of what kinds of weapons were used- guns, explosives, whatever) on any school of any type in American history. Sadly, the number of dead at Sandy Hook makes it both the second-deadliest mass shooting at an American school (which would include the Virginia Tech massacre) and also the second deadliest attack on any American public school (which includes Bath and Virginia Tech). Shearonink (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't understand the very last part of your reply. You state that: the Newtown event is "also the second deadliest attack on any American public school (which includes Bath and Virginia Tech)". How can that be? Bath was 45; Virginia Tech was 33; and Newtown is 28. So, Newtown is then third – not second – no? Please clarify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unless I'm confused, that doesn't make sense. Both the Virginia Tech massacre and Bath School disaster involved more deaths, so the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is the third-deadliest attack at an American school (public or private) and second-deadliest at an American school between the elementary and high school levels. —David Levy 00:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There was initially a difference delineated between mass shootings at schools and mass murder at schools by any means (Bath was a bombing, Va. Tech was a shooting, Sandy Hook was a shooting). If the distinction of the manner of inflicted death/murder is of a secondary concern for editorial consensus, then yes, by the numbers alone, Bath holds the sad distinction of being the worst, Va. Tech is #2 & Sandy Hook is #3. The problem I ran into earlier in this article's history is finding reliable sources that state the rankings...if a reliable source doesn't specifically say that "something is so", then numerically ranking these school-house murders could be seen as original research. Shearonink (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The source cited in the article provides all of the relevant information. —David Levy 01:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we find any better wording for "compulsory education"? It is clunky; it is disruptive to the smooth flow of the well-written lead; and most people really don't know what the term means (despite the fact that they can click on the blue link). In other words, "compulsory education" is not an "everyday word" in general use with the public. Any suggestions? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've switched to "elementary school". It's a narrower description, but I think that it addresses your concerns (and it might be a more noteworthy distinction anyway). —David Levy 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! That works! Much better. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I still think this needs some work. I was confused by the opening paragraph too and didn't understand the distinction until I came to the talk page. Based on other comments here, I'm not alone. The whole point of an opening paragraph should be to be concise. Instead the article is making two different comparisons in a single sentence.

I suggest dropping either one of the two comparisons. As it reads now it's like saying "something bad happened and it's the second worst thing to happen since the apple incident and the second worst thing to happen since the orange incident"

Shoeless Ho (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Shoeless Ho makes a great point. Maybe we can take it out of the lead. And perhaps add it to the "Victims" section or the "Shooting" section. When we move it to another section, we can there be more wordy (less concise than the lead requires) and more clearly delineate the differences. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is a current event, and it relates to a contentious debate (gun control). The Bath bombing is significant to learn about right now. It happened in 1927, which demonstrates that a school massacre occurred historically (this is not only a modern day issue), and it was not a shooting, which demonstrates that the problem is not limited to guns. Knowing about Bath is important in relation to Sandy Hook. It enters into thinking and debate on the topics of mental health and gun control. I think it should remain in the lede. Tumblehome (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I like your split into two separate sentences, which should help to address Shoeless Ho's concerns. I've tweaked the wording to specify that the 1927 disaster comprised bombings. Hopefully, that will help to convey the distinction between the two statistics. —David Levy 06:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tumblehome, that's a huge improvement and it's at least less confusing. I still think the second paragraph is a bit awkward with too much information shoehorned into two sentences, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to fix it either. A couple of suggestions questions:

1) Move both sentences out of the lead and into the body where they can get more "loving" as Joseph A Spadaro suggested.

2) Keep the shooting statistic (as it is slightly more relevant) and move the bombing info into the body.

3) If it's deemed vitally important to keep both sentences in the lead, can the comparisons be less clunky? Why distinguish "elementary" in the second sentence? Wouldn't it be easier to say something like "It was the second deadliest shooting at an American school and the third deadliest attack on an American school"? Or even just say "It was the third deadliest attack at an American school in U.S. history" Shoeless Ho (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The two individual statistics are significant (and belong in the lead) because they relate to separate key elements of the event (the fact that it was one of the deadliest shootings and the fact that was one of the deadliest elementary school attacks).

I don't regard the current wording as awkward or clunky, but perhaps it can be improved further.

We did briefly switch the second statistic to "the third-deadliest attack of any kind at an American school" (which someone quickly reverted), but that version strikes me as both clunkier (particularly given the need to mention the Virginia Tech massacre twice) and less informative (because the aforementioned "elementary school" element is lost). —David Levy 18:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• "It was also the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school" is just clunky writing, with a sophomorish placement of "also" and a redundant, dummy "it was." Drmies (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest? (Perhaps "also was" would be an improvement.) —David Levy 18:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with David Levy. The statistics (esp. the "ranking") maybe somehow relevant concerning the "gun debate" in the lower section of the article. But wikipedia is not a news bulletin. Placing those statistical references in the lead creates the impression, that the statistical ranking regarding the death toll is a decisive parameter for categorizing this event. The lead should only contain the basic and known facts for those will not change in the future (with the advantage that the article won't have to be updated every time there is another incident with more casualties). Any other information - that may be described as dynamic - like the "ranking" should be placed in the article's body. AssessorJurBerlin (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but it's inconsistent with Wikipedia's coverage of such topics. —David Levy 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun "Registration"

The article says the guns were registered to his mother. I don't know Connecticut law, but under federal law, there is not gun registration. You do fill out a "Firearms Transaction Record" form when you buy. This could be see as a pseudo registration, but is not an "active" registration process. That is, if you sell the gun to a private individual, you do not have to fill out a new form. Thus, you would still be the last person of record to have the gun, but no "registration" would need to (or is) updated.

Mrjohns2 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See Gun laws in Connecticut

So, that article says there is no registration. So, shouldn't the article be changed to fix this misnomer? Mrjohns2 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The article above says that there is de facto registration due to the requirement that handgun sales and transfers require an authorization number issued by the state and a form containing personal and weapon identification must be submitted to DPS and local police. In parallel, if you check the NBC News source cite here in the Sandy Hook shooting article, it says "The weapons used in the attack were legally purchased and were registered to the gunman's mother, two law enforcement officials said." Hence, we've been going with what the sources say when we say that the firearms were registered to the mother. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the source was wrong. There isn't registration, there is de factor registration. Legally owned, legally transferred, but they can't be legally registered without having registration. No?

Mrjohns2 (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To simplify, I've changed that paragraph to read that they were "legally owned by Lanza's mother" rather than "registered". AzureCitizen (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be formal "registration" in Connecticuit in the way that say California or New York do it, but as Mrjohns says, all firearms are registered as they're sold from a dealer, and they are registered in the same way if they're ever sold to a resident of another state (because those transactions require a dealer). The federal "loophole" refers to the fact that in some cases private citizens can sell to other private citizens of their own state, if state law allows it (and the persons are authorized to have them). Those transactions might possibly not be federally "registered", although many state registration schemes would register those.

It doesn't seem innacurate to say "registered" to the mother if in fact she purchased them from a licensed dealer. Shadowjams (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Registered is indeed incorrect language Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) being: No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

The fact that a record of sale and background check exists and may be referenced is explicitly NOT registration of a gun. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually in typical language one calls keeping a record of something pretty damn close to registration. You're quoting part of the Brady Bill that deals with background check registration and state sovereignty issues. The simple fact is all FFLs are registered, and all gun transactions through them are registered. Nitpicking about "registration" verses "registered", when we're talking colloquially (the term "assault rifle" is thrown around with impunity) why are we wikilawyering about "registration"? Shadowjams (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This Article should be blanked and locked immediately

Resolved

 – although not in the way Sue would like. Sorry.

It is HIGHLY irresponsible to print anything at all until the facts are all in. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The page should be blanked with such a notice, and locked until such time as the media circus has found other more interesting things to sensationalize.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• While I empathize with your perspective more than you know, the fact remains that a consensus does not, and as such, we are limited to instead policing the article and dealing with individual issues as they come up. If it gets to a point that it can't be managed, myself or another admin will full protect the page but it isn't close to that. It is a WP:Five pillars issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't write what is true, as that is not always known (as it isn't now), but we report what is verifiable. Everything in the article is verifiable. Therefore, it meets that policy. It's already been semi-protected to prohibit addition of unsourced material, which is all that needs to be done. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, but we do write verifiable material. Regardless of whether it's true or not. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia were not allowed to have an article on some event until "the facts are all in," then it would be decades before it had articles on many events (the Titanic sinking, some historic assassinations, espionage cases for instance). There has never been any such guideline or policy. I agree with your desire to avoid being a tabloid, and we should keep out ill-sourced material. We should follow mainstream media and not try to lead them with synthesis or original research. Edison (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• The article has over 600,000 visits already. Someone is interested. It would be irresponsible not to meet such a strong demand. WWGB (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't entirely agree, although I do recognize that it's problematic to edit as an event such as this is unfolding. I'm not sure how we could assess when "all the fact are in". As someone way up-thread mentioned, we probably need to have a broader community discussion about how to handle these situations in the future. Perhaps a 24 hour editing editing embargo or pending changes protection for a period of time. - MrX 23:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that the way it is being handled works. Actually, this has been discussed at the admin boards anyway. Our first obligation is to the reader, which is why less but reliable is better than more and unreliable, why it is semi-protected, and why so many experienced editors are volunteering to help here on this page, even if they aren't editing. I think it is going as good as can be expected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, I think a discussion about how to implement a system to prevent constant edit conflicts might be helpful. - MrX 23:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a wiki, when two people try to edit, there is a conflict :) Nothing on the technical side that you can do. This is common for any hot topic, the result is always the same: nothing can be done if you are a wiki. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure there is. A check-in/check-out process similar to what is used in software development. I'm not saying it's an appropriate solution, but there certainly are technical solutions that could be brought to bear. - MrX 23:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To put it more clear, nothing is going to happen here. Wiki is fast, dirty and simple on purpose (theoretically). This has been discussed many times is the point. 99%+ of the time, it works perfectly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would have agreed with Sue not too long ago, but mostly because these articles used to be atrocious and of service to nobody. Over the years though, the community has become pretty good at rapidly building useful articles beginning right with the first wave of coverage. Of course these pages grow and change substantially, but we're delivering a condensed summary of available sources, and we include all relevant information. Naturally, many people look to Wikipedia for distilled coverage. We should take pride in that and do our best to give our readers a useful overview of the topic. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm surprised at such a comment coming from a long-time contributor. Whatever "the media" sensationalize is one thing, but that a sensational thing happened is hard to deny, and we should have an article on it. Whether we should have it right now is another matter, but as the IP above me notes it's a pretty decent article right now, and indeed, despite problems, something to take pride in. Sue, I apologize for ending a sentence with a preposition. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well its locked, and thus piling up with inaccuracies as knowledge about the issue is released. For instance authorities have announced they cannot find any corroborating evidence that the perpetrator tried to purchase weapons in the days before the shooting, yet the rumor is still on the page implying it's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.168.205 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

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 are already conspiracy theories being woven around this incident from the usual sources. Veterans Today which generally takes positions against US military policy, but supportive of Iranian policies and shares content with Iran's offical news agency PressTV, publishes many conspiracy theories from 9/11 to UFOs claims that Sandy Hook is " the worst elementary school massacre in America since General Erich Ludendorff, then head of German Intelligence, ordered the destruction of Bath School, Michigan on May 18th 1927, in a desperate effort to put pressure on the Coolidge Administration to cancel the Lindbergh Flight. This was after German technical experts had determined that the Ryan NYP Monoplane had the range to fly from New York to Paris and that it’s excellent Wright J-5 Whirlwind motor was sufficiently reliable to keep going for up to 40 hours, although the planning was triggered by concerns the previous year over a successful non-stop transatlantic flight, before the Ryan plane became a contender. Thirty-eight young children were murdered." There appears to be no evidence to support anything except the Bath school was attacked, and this may be the first appearance of such a theory. There is wikipedia coverage of JFK and 9-11 conspiracy theories, and such theories, even if demonstrably false, may contain clues to people who are trying to protect those who are connected to crimes and disasters. This particular article also makes references to the USS Cole, Virginia Tech and Aurora shootings. Redhanker (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No one cares about conspiracy theories coming from random websites, really. Stuff like that is not getting into the article. --Conti|✉ 23:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

One should care when Veterans Today is not a random website, but a heavy traffic site closely tied to Iran's PressTV, which makes it effectively an international reaction. PressTV frequently posts articles from Veterans Today and even shares bylines. There are many wikipedia articles on conspiracy theories about attacks such as 9/11. VT is noted by the ADL as a source of destructive and deceptive onspiracy theories. Redhanker (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I might have worded it a bit differently, but agree that any "theories" would be an absolute violation of one of several policies here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a conspiracy theory about the Bath School disaster, not about this shooting, so it wouldn't be relevant to this article even if it were being reported by sources less fringey than Veterans Today. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 02:18, 17 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.

The statement that the President paused twice to wipe away tears is not supported by analysis of the videos. There is no evidence of tears to wipe away. It would be better to simply state he paused twice to compose himself.

Title of article

Okay. So Columbine High School massacre of 1999 has massacre instead of shooting, right? That resulted in 13 deaths, and this Sandy Hook nonsense has like double Columbine. Change to massacre. Jonno - (Wanna talk?) 23:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article is protected against a name change for a week. The criteria for the name is what the sources call it, not what we think it should be. Surely, a discussion on the name will take place in a week once the protection is no longer in place. Until we know what the media will be officially calling it, no name change will likely take place. WP:COMMONNAME and likely others covers this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. Plenty of time to discuss these type of changes down the road once the news of this incident settles down some.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes and by the looks of this (the redirects we have now) there is little chance anyone will have trouble finding this article. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article title is by no means the "official title" of anything, although it appears that some editors believe it is. In the case of incidents of this type, the title is and may forever remain a generic descriptive label. "Massacre" is probably a closer match for many people's emotional perception of this event, but it is somewhat childlike to "consequently" insist that Wikipedia reflect that perception and not "demote" the event to "just" a shooting. Dunno, that's the vibe I'm getting from most of the comments of people seeking to immediately move the article to the massacre title. It's just a generic descriptive label for our encyclopedic coverage of the event, not the gospel. --87.79.225.233 (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Massacre" makes sense, but right now I think we should just let the matter lie for the time being and focus on improving the article. That's the consensus of the experienced editors who have addressed this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• It it worth noting that many newspapers, especially in the Northeast, have already run print denoting the event as a massacre. Food for thought. 108.7.234.171 (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree, but perhaps in due time. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• The title of the article should be changed to "2012 Newtown massacre" because the article also covers the murder of Nancy Lanza, who was not killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. 3193th (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  Did another Newtown massacre occur in a different year? —David Levy 23:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  Well, if you consider the Murder of Helle Crafts a massacre, then yes. Plus there's other cities called Newtown in the world or the United States in which massacres or mass murders have happened, so it would make sense to include the year of the massacre to distinguish it from other massacres in cities that share the same name. 3193th (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  By definition, a massacre involves the killing of a large number of people (or animals, but that connotation isn't relevant), so no, the murder of Helle Crafts wasn't a massacre. In which of the other Newtowns have massacres occurred? —David Levy 00:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  Okay, then it should be called "Newtown massacre". 3193th (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  That probably is among the more likely possibilities. We just need to wait and see what ends up predominating among reliable sources. —David Levy 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with title change from "shooting" to "massacre". "Shooting" is ambiguous for when this becomes old news. Also, shouldn't there be consistency (re Columbine). There's so much stupidity coming out of the woodwork whenever a tragedy like this happens. (Just heard out of the mouth of an educator reported on ABC News "World News Now", kids returning to school are being told: "[...] was a very sick person, and some very poor choices". [Amazing! Water-down much?]) A "shooting" sounds like a sporting competition. Name a spade a spade. (Isn't common sense, in lieu of what the "media" does, which is driven by advertising dollars, a WP pillar? If not, it should be.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We use the title Columbine High School massacre because that's what the event is commonly called, not because we decided on our own to label it a "massacre" (which is neither more nor less accurate/precise than "shooting" is). —David Levy 09:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How can you say word "shooting" is equally accurate/precise, when that word does not necessarily imply any deaths? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Massacre" doesn't specify the method of attack. That's the tradeoff. —David Levy 09:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed.): massacre: 1. The act af killing many humans indiscriminately and cruelly. shoot: v. shot, shooting: 1. To hit, wound, or kill with a missle. 2. To fire (a missle) from a weapon. 3. To discharge (a weapon). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We're discussing the noun form of "shooting". In this context, it's widely understood to refer to a firearm attack. —David Levy 10:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've butted heads with David about the name change timing, but I think we're largely in agreement that the general trend on wikipedia is that school tragedies like this are termed "massacres" and not "shootings" or "bombings" or whatever subset of attack. That's the trend in most of these articles, and it also avoids the obvious fact that the tragedy is homicide, rather than the method. And if the method is the tragedy, then that deserves a separate discussion, but it shouldn't be the article's title.
  Waiting is fine for both a name change and for any extraneous bios, but we should consider starting a wide discussion, and leaving it open for a while. Shadowjams (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, we're in agreement that school shootings resulting in large numbers of deaths tend to be labeled "massacres". My point is that this occurs outside Wikipedia. If an event is commonly known as a "massacre", we call it a "massacre". If it's commonly known as a "shooting", we call it a "shooting". We don't override common usage with our personal opinions of what terminology should be used. —David Levy 10:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Common usage should be a factor, but it doesn't trump everything. (If you are for applying black & white principles, then it seems that goes against Jimbo's precept that editors use "conscientious editorial judgement" as well. Jimbo explained that Wikipedians are, afterall, 'editors'.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that common usage trumps everything (and I previously commented on scenarios to the contrary). I'm saying that it trumps Wikipedians' original research and advocacy. —David Levy 13:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Personally in favor of letting the media determine (in general) what the this will most commonly be known by, then renaming it then. More for the benefit of preventing confusion in people who might get initially confused that it is referring to another incident than the one they were looking for. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

More soapboxing?

I removed this:

In addition to tipping off debate about gun control, evangelical Christians spoke out blaming the ultimate cause of the massacre on "removal of God from schools". This point of view was presented by former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and echoed by both the American Family Association and Christian Broadcasting Network. Huckabee made similar blame comments about the 2012 Aurora shooting.

Which was previously removed, and seemed to have consensus for exclusion from the article as WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. - MrX 00:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was about to remove it as well, as it is def WP:POV info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The gun ban link in See also looks out of place as well (someone else pointed it out), and a lot of cites are broken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is easy to see that it will take a firm but polite hand to keep the soapboxing and theories out, due to well meaning newbies. Again, it is better to have less that is neutral and properly sourced than more that is not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • These are political opinions (disguised as religion) which offer no practical solutions. A couple of guys on The View today actually offered practical solutions: Putting armed guards in schools (like they have in banks); and urging parents to stop funding the violent portion of the video game industry, and to start paying better attention to what's going on with your kids. I'm not saying those guys should be quoted here either - only that their opinions are a lot more informed than politicians like Huckabee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Attended St. Rose of Lima Middle School?

In the "Perpetrator" section, I put a "citation needed" tag next to the statement that he attended St. Rose of Lima Middle School. The citation is a link to a Hartford Courant story. At the time I looked at the linked story, about 7 p.m. 12/16, I couldn't find anything in that story about his having attended that school. Perhaps this is just a story whose online version is being frequently revised, or maybe I just missed it somehow. I'd like to see this get a good citation. I wasn't able to find one myself in casual Googling. (Perhaps I should disclose my motive for wanting this is that I mentioned it to a friend in a discussion of Mike Huckabee's claim that the crime was no surprise because we have "systematically removed God" from public schools. If Lanza in fact attended St. Rose of Lima Middle School, which is a Catholic school, this would bear on that discussion. By the way, yes, I agree that Huckabee's speculations on the root societal causes of the shooting does not belong in the article.) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had read that he (and the family) attended the church as parishioners, not the school (as a student). But, I am sure that there is a lot of confusion in these early reports. So, who knows, for sure? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Yes there is a consensus to exclude that content and I support that.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This link from ABC News (Connecticut School Shooting: Adam Lanza and Mother Visited Gun Ranges) shows a photo with the caption "Adam Lanza is pictured at St. Rose Middle School". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Manual archiving again

I am going to archive a chunk of the talkpage again folks. It has become ungamely to edit again. Since discussions come and go quickly we may need to do manual archiving for a short while.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The best thing to do is usually to adjust the bot archiving time except in extreme cases. For some reason it was 36 hours (last time I looked it was 1 day). I've adjust it to 18 hours, although this is a fairly short time it's sometimes needed on very active pages. While the bot only runs once a day, it's still helpful to have an archive time under 24 hours as it means when the bot does run, discussions which have died down are more likely to be archived. Allowing the bot to work is usually best since it's both faster and reduces the risk of controversy if people disagree with what was archived. In particular, when manually archiving it's fairly easy to make a mistake and archive an old discussion which is still active. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please try to let all the archiving be automatic unless it's absolutely necessary. The automatic archiving makes it easy to look at the archive page and make sure nobody's modified past discussions, and it also, like Nil says, ensures objectivity and squashes any debates about fairness. If a section's not being archived but it's stale, make sure it has a proper date tag on the comment (otherwise the bot won't flag it). Shadowjams (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've templated some of the discussions for archive purposes, on cleanly settled issues. That should reduce some of the need to manually archive and give people a reference on discussions on this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As a bit of an off-topic question, can the top section of the talk page have a message, such as in the page notice, about some of the commonly asked questions? It seems that there is a new section about the Bath bombings and renaming the article each day. Since the sections are being archived, someone else ends up bring it back up since they do not check the archive, thus my question. Super Goku V (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, there are templates for that. Just go pick your favorite super-controversial topic and check out the talk page. There are FAQ templates for most of them. Just follow those and check out the documentation. You might want to userspace it first and get it checked out to be on the safe side, and avoid conflict. Every monumental breaking-news story has similar talk page issues. This article and its talk has been overall very calm and thoughtful. Shadowjams (talk)
      • Alright, thank you for the help with that. Hopefully it helps instead of harming. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Alright, that might do it. I didn't remember to add everything I thought of, but it should be good enough for now at the least. Thanks again for the help. Super Goku V (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Evangelical reaction is significant

OK according to some there was no "consensus" about including Huckabee's reaction, but now the head of the American Family Association has echoed these remarks and CBN News has placed an editorial about the issue. The text I have added is as follows:

The shooting did not only initiate debate about gun control, but also among evangelical Christians about the place of religion in public schools. Key evangelicals spoke out, blaming the ultimate cause of the massacre on "removal of God from schools", including former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and echoed by both the head of the American Family Association and by Christian Broadcasting Network Huckabee made similar blame comments about the 2012 Aurora shooting.

So, not only Huckabee made headlines in the US and abroad, but this has been echoed by primary evangelical organizations.

The fact that some of us find this extremely distasteful does not change the fact that this is a major phenomenon triggered by the shooting. I feel that many of the efforts to suppress it are because those opinions are seen as outrageous - but this is not a reason to suppress the fact that those opinions exist and are widely and prominently reported on.

Aside from that, I think the article does not really reflect the kind of debate that the shooting tipped off, i.e. major discussion on gun control and by evangelicals on the place of God in schools. I think the Reaction section should actually have sections for "influence on gun control debate" and for "influence on religion in schools debate". Maybe there needs to be a sub-article about the Reactions and the Influence on Political Debate that the shootings triggered. Keizers (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is still a POV (selecting one view to highlight). --MASEM (t) 02:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• The key is that at first, we document the facts. Opinions are pouring out by the minute and it isn't wise to just dump them into the article as they come out. We are an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. When opinions are popping up like this, it is impossible to determine the proper weight to give them. Facts are easy to determine the proper weight to, facts are facts. An encyclopedia requires a little hindsight and patience, otherwise you end up with bipolar viewpoints and no balance. In other words, it is better to leave out all opinion in the short term, with the understanding that as the events settle and the facts come out, and news cycle gets back to normal, it is easier to add theses ancillary bits about the effect of this event. We can't honestly say what the effect is, as we are barely outside the cause. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• It seems to me that the article is not about Huckabee's or anyone else's response. I'll defend the inclusion of the Feinstein information, since the announced introduction of legislation is far, far more than a reaction, but the evangelical reaction, no--and besides, "evangelical" is much more broad than Huckabee, the AFA, and the CBN. To call them "key evangelicals" is cherrypicking, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that the gun control aspect is fine because something is actually being done (at least, we expect, we'll know tomorrow) in specific response to the event. Everything else is talking heads pontificating for their own political gain. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • As long as we don't include the "opposition to gun control" information from 2005. I've been busy on this page and about to go off for the evening, but the sources need someone to review again. And again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • {ec with DB--we have to stop meeting like this.] Yep. There's plenty of valid reactions (the mental illness aspect), but that doesn't make them encyclopedically relevant. Masem, I think you and Dennis are doing a stand-up job here: thanks to both of you, and to the dozens of other experienced editors. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed as well. This is not encyclopedic in my opinion. It might be on the Huckabee article but in the scheme of his entire life it may not gain consensus even there. And another thank you to Dennis and Masem.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• I am opposed to including the reaction from Huckabee et al, as they are merely politically motivated attempts to capitalize on this tragedy. To a slightly lesser extent, the Feinstein material does the same thing, but at least will likely result in tangible legislative action, partly as a result of this shooting. However, until there are longer term outcomes that reliable sources connect to this event, it does not belong in the encyclopedia. This includes evangelicals, gun control advocates, 2nd amendment advocates, mental health pundits, etc. After the longer term outcomes are established, known and reported on, then is the time to add them to the article, IMHO. - MrX 03:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Feinstien stuff isn't a reaction but a developing outcome from this situation and is directly related. The Huckabee stuff is some guy on TV gaming for attention and has no place on the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Huckabee's ill-informed comments have no place in the article. Every politician in America is likely to comment on this for the sole purpose of scoring political points. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, but there's a strong case to be made that this has little to do with the shooting, since her plans predate the shooting. In fact, the HuffPo article says "In the wake of Friday's mass killing at an elementary school in Connecticut, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday that she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress." Correlation does not imply causation, and all that. - MrX 03:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The "evangelical reaction" was very similar after Columbine, but it is not included in that article. No point in including it here. JayHubie (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus Restore International Reaction

Proposed/archived text

Reaction from world leaders President Obama's remarks on the day of the shooting United States President Barack Obama gave a televised address at 3:16 p.m. EST on the day of the shootings, saying, "We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics." Obama paused twice during the address to compose himself and wipe away tears, and expressed "enormous sympathy for families that are affected". He also ordered flags to be flown at half-mast at the White House and other US federal government facilities worldwide in respect for the victims. Within 15 hours of the massacre, 100,000 Americans signed up at the Obama administration's We the People petitioning website in support of a renewed national debate on gun control. Obama attended and spoke at an interfaith vigil on December 16, in Newtown. Australia Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard issued a press release, stating that the Australian people "share America’s shock at this senseless and incomprehensible act of evil. As parents and grandparents, as brothers and sisters, as friends of the American people, we mourn the loss of children, aged only five to ten years, whose futures lay before them. We mourn the loss of brave teachers who sought only to lead their students into that future but were brutally murdered in a place of refuge and learning". Azerbaijan Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev sent a letter of condolence to Barack Obama, saying: "I was deeply astonished and grieved to hear about the terrible tragedy that happened at the school in Newtown, Connecticut. Sharing in your grief on behalf of the people of Azerbaijan and on my own, I would like to express my sincere condolences to you, families and friends of those killed and all the American people". Canada Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrote on Twitter: "The news is just awful. The thoughts and prayers of Canadians are with the students and families in Connecticut affected by this senseless violence." United KingdomCommonwealth of Nations Queen Elizabeth II said in a message to President Obama, "I have been deeply shocked and saddened to learn of the dreadful loss of life today in Newtown, Connecticut; particularly the news that so many of the dead are children." She added that Prince Philip joined her in extending their heartfelt sympathy to Obama and the American people. European Union European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton said in a statement "I want to express my shock after the tragic shooting at a school in Connecticut today," She also said, "I think of the victims, their families and the American people at this difficult time," European Commission Chief José Manuel Barroso said, "It is with deep shock and horror that I learned of the tragic shooting in Connecticut," European Commission Chief José Manuel Barroso said. "On behalf of the European Commission and myself, I express my sincere condolences to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy," FranceFrench President François Hollande commented that he was "horrified" upon hearing about the event. Iran Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast condemned "the massacre of American children" and expressed his condolences to the families of victims. Japan Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda sent a condolence message to President Obama saying, "We express our condolences to the families of the victims... the sympathy of the Japanese people is with the American people." Lithuania Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė stated that she was deeply distressed by the Connecticut tragedy. Grybauskaitė wished "great strength" to the families of those who had perished. Malaysia Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak extended his deepest condolences to the families of victims. "It's a tragic incident and Malaysia stands by your side," stated the Prime Minister via Twitter. Mexico Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto expressed his condolences via Twitter, saying, "My solidarity is with the American people and President Obama". Norway Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg wrote on Facebook: "My thoughts are with the families who have lost their loved ones in the horrible shooting in Connecticut." Philippines Philippine President Benigno Aquino III stated that he and the Filipino people stand with the United States "with bowed heads, yet in deep admiration over the manner in which the American people have reached out to comfort the afflicted, and to search for answers that will give meaning and hope to this grim event." "We pray for healing, and that this heartbreak will never be visited on any community ever again," he added, in a statement tweeted by deputy presidential spokesman Abigail Valte. Russia Vladimir Putin, Russian President sent a telegram to Barack Obama expressing Russia's heartfelt condolences and "grief" at the fact that the victims were mostly children. He asked Barack Obama to convey words of compassion and sympathy to the victims' relatives, saying he empathized with the entire American nation. Spain The Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation announced that Spain expressed its "deepest condolences" and that "in these sad moments, Spain shares the pain of the families of the victims and their friends, the people of the United States. Turkey Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent a message to Barack Obama saying “Mr. President; I am very sorry to hear about the shootings. We deeply share your sadness. In the name of Turkish People, our government and myself we hope well beings for the wounded.” British Prime Minister David Cameron wrote on Twitter: "My thoughts are with those who've been devastated by the Connecticut shootings." United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon voiced his "deepest condolences" over the victims, calling the rampage "shocking murders," spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters in New York. "The secretary-general said that the targeting of children is heinous and unthinkable, and extended his thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims and all others traumatized by this horrendous crime," said the spokesman. Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone issued a letter of condolence on behalf of Pope Benedict XVI, which was read aloud at a Newtown vigil, saying, "In the aftermath of this senseless tragedy, [the Holy Father] asks God, our Father, to console all those who mourn and to sustain the entire community with the spiritual strength which triumphs over violence by the power of forgiveness, hope and reconciling love." Leaders from many countries and organizations throughout the world also offered their condolences. Also, there is information there other countries have had reactions, such as China, Singapore, Denmark, and Belgium This information may be important because all these countries usually don't comment on a crime in the U.S.

Discussion

Why the rush to remove international reaction to the shooting? World leaders from all around the world reacted. Even naming the countries was too much? The shooting is being covered on many international news channels and being watched around the world. Many articles have international reactions to a tragedy, no matter how much they all sound alike. Could we discuss this again? There were only three responses to the last discussion and suddenly it was a consensus here, [1] enough to delete any mention of international reactions? Two users and an IP is not a good enough consensus. There are many contributors to this page. All three supporters of the last discussion made 6 edits or less to this page. 2 hours.. 5am to 7am GMT (12am-2am EST), was not enough time to get any consensus among the many people that edited this page. I would like a better discussion for more than two hours. People are going to bed in the United States and and there's 4 hours until those following GMT will awake. More time is needed.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

From the archives: [2].--Amadscientist (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is this too (Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 3#international reaction), which shows a much stronger consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There does appear to be a consensus on this issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. I was viewing a later archive. I still think there should be another discussion.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note that that is also not a good enough consensus. It was "Go Phightins" and "Knowledgekid87" vs MrX and TheArguer. That's a tie.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that another discussion is necessary. Also, I think the archive time on this talk page is a little to quick. I'm going to boldly change it to two days, rather than one. Go Phightins! 03:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please remember it's one day (24 full hours) without comments. Even with that, we've had to manually archive at least twice now. Please change it back? :) gwickwire^talk_edits 03:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I for one have been regularly monitoring this page, and completely missed the discussion which is being cited here. I'll change it back if a couple more editors disagree, but for now I'm going to let it go. Go Phightins! 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, it came up earlier--I spoke my own mind on it, probably covered with dust by now. Problem is that this talk page also fills up very quickly and it's hard to see the forest for the trees if stuff isn't archived quickly. It'll calm down in the next few days--I think for now we should all take it easy and try not to double the article in size overnight. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(Several edit conflicts)Consensus can change and there is no reason it can't be brought up again (although I am not for an extensive international reaction) As for the archives, changing the bot won't matter. I have been archiving manually. When the page gets too long we have little choice. But you can place any and all blame for the archiving squarely on my shoulders. This page is moving quickly, so the archives are probably going to have to be subject to some ignoring of the rules for a bit. But of course, I won't object or revert if someone feels that the archives need to be reverted, but be careful with that. the slower you make this page the harder it is to collaboarte together, discuss and forma consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Amad, thanks for your archiving work. I agree that the page gets way too long, but I think that at least two-three days is necessary to form a consensus on an issue such as this one. I trust your judgment. Go Phightins! 04:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if others would agree to the time period you mentioned but somethimes it becomes clear quickly that there is no support, and sometimes it does take several days. Really depends on the forming of a straw poll !vote and reaction itself. Always a bit different with so many editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think we need to detail reactions from every single country. A simple summary that many countries have expressed their condolences is enough. LadyofShalott 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose anything other than a brief one sentence to state the obvious: world leaders expressed condolences for one of the worst mass murders in US history. It doesn't even need to cited. More than this, adds nothing of value and does not serve to inform the reader.- MrX 04:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - the world is watching, but we do not need to add all the comments. It's not a reality show with the worst massacre getting the most condolences.Parkwells (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support It shows the significance of the event. I'm going to have some comparisons here. Tucson shootings and Aurora did not have as much international reaction, if any, as this shooting. The world is watching. Serves the same purpose as the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting mentioning the MPs in India joining ranks in Parliament. Mentioning world reaction and the countries inform the readers that the world is watching, and who was watching. I don't see the difference between showing world reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi for example, and mentioning the reaction to this shooting, except the agreement. We could have simply added "Iran, a, b, c, and d condemned the violence". But we didn't. This is an encyclopedia for an international audience. Would you also say that it doesn't inform readers to mention media coverage in an article like Dunblane school massacre for example? mentioning the international reaction here shows the significance of what happened, the way mentioning Media coverage in the Dunblane article shows the significance of what happened in the Dunblane article..--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Don't reinstate that content without a clear consensus, please. I've already had to block one editor for edit-warring tonight and I don't want to be a winner in that reality show. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's understandable, I won't fight anyone on this. However, I have brought back a sentence that was not against any consensus. The consensus was for either against a bulleted list (with a tie, not a consensus) or a detailed section (depending which discussion is being looked at). The sentence was removed recently and it was the only mention that there was any reaction around the world.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not at all happy that you did that. I won't edit war....even if you feel so inclined.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, as far as I'm concerned, that sentence should go too. It's a platitude. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I also don't want to lose that reality show. (Dammit Malcolm should have been in the final three)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It's cruft, but cruft can sometimes be effectively handled by creating a separate article, International Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree, also someone removed my comment. Why? Auchansa (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I moved a comment you made up here.. might be what you was talking about. You made a section called "reactions", probably by accident.. And I decided to move it up here. I've been editing since 2006 but I wasn't sure if I was allowed to do that, so I decided to move it back. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• • I hope that doesn't happen... Drmies (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't create a reaction article out of the blue. I would like to say something about the reactions sections of a number of controversial articles and how they are little more than quote archives and how they usually end up being cut out of the main artcile as soon as they become large enough. This gains consensus because they are not very encyclopedic and many editor would rather have them seperated from the main article just to get them off said article. Wikipedia is not the best place for such writing for a very simple reason....most reactions from notable people are simply attempting to glom onto the subject to boost their own image. Some reactions are notable, but still not encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! We can't have coverage of the international reaction to these events because non-US nations aren't notable and can't be sourced to reliable sources. Plus, we're a paper encyclopedia, and deforestation increases global warming. Seriously, providing a safety valve can be an effective way to deal with this sort of content. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't valid reason to oppose creation of such an article, and anyone who'd nominated such an article would have an impossible task of proving such an article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Anyway, whatever. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies already said that they hoped it does not happen, not that it should occur. Super Goku V (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say that "Some reactions are notable, but still not all are encyclopedic".--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support We have an event, the shooting, that was highly notable in the US and a, rare, international reaction to the shooting that hasn't occurred for other similar occurrances. If the international section was unimportant, then why do we have a section on reactions to the shooting? It can be said that it is common knowledge for local reactions to occur, but it wasn't so obvious that there would be an international reaction as the shooting did not effect them. We should not just cherry pick between a national reaction and internation reaction, but we should equally include details and quotes on both for balance. Super Goku V (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support The International community offering their support which includes people in Moscow setting up a makeshift memorial at the US Embassy is notable and I feel that reactions such as there should be included as it is rare to see with a shooting here in the US. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No need to document every leaders reaction. The one sentence sums it up perfectly. AIRcorn (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Including a list of the international reactions is how we can show that there has been a worldwide reaction. I thought about a separate article much like Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden but believe the reactions to this shooting will be limited to short statements from various leaders and that the separate article will be an orphan. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I just read a transcript of President Obama's Sunday night speech and believe it should be included as part of the "reactions". That would make "reactions" long enough that we should make a separate page for it. Plus, the gun control debate is picking up and likely should be a section of the "reactions." --Marc Kupper|talk 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, Unnecessary and adds nothing of value.--Mor2 (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The article is on the English Wikipedia, not the United-States-Only-Wikipedia. To have the President's reaction statement is certainly important to the article, but equally the reaction of the international community. All the information is verifiable and directly related so intentionally leaving it out is simply a measure to make this article only about the events that occurred on the day and not the aftermath or consequences. Columbine massacre has been the most heavily cited precedence in regards to inclusion criteria and the article is largely focused on the aftermath. Mkdw^talk 07:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Where in Columbine High School massacre is anything that even remotely resembles a list of international reactions? If that article is to be used as precedent, then we should definitely not include such a section here, because there isn't one in the Columbine article. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Reactions by global heads of states and governments is relevant. Ryan Vesey 08:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion kept open for 24 hours - It appears the previous discussion topics have been closed or abandoned prematurely resulting in very few contributions from a spare sampling of editors. Many with IP's with very little editing history or at all. Also, the decision to proceed with the 'consensus' was usually made quickly and before the discussion could mature. I recommend this discussion be kept on the active talk page for at least 24 hours and any subsequent attempts at creating a new discussion be directed here. Mkdw^talk 08:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per MrX and Parkwells. The one sentence adequately sums up the obvious fact that governments across the globe expressed their condolences. Anything beyond that rapidly approaches a violation of WP:MEMORIAL, WP:UNDUE and also, imho, common sense. And for the love of god, please at least write it up as proper prose, not as a list with gratuitous use of flag icons. That's even designed to look like a memorial. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Many bloated Reactions sections have been created in response to major tragedies, and this article is no exception. The flag icons look awful, and a summary of reactions in WP:PROSE is the best approach.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support I agree with all of the statements in Support. It DOES shows the importance of what happened and it doesn't memorialize it. Does the 9/11 reactions page memorialize 9/11? Why don't you say every reaction page/section memorializes? One sentence is not enough to sum up the significance of this shooting. I agree, the world is watching. Is this enough to sum up a reaction? "Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson and a lot of people were sad." How about "People in India was upset over the Sikh temple shooting"? Obviously not.--199.231.184.178 (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support A shooting in America has not had this much reaction before. It seems silly to ignore all the reaction from everyone, the pope, eu, uk, etc.. It's hypocritical. Other articles deemed worthy of an international response section, why not an article about a shooting that killed 20 children? By the way, while I support this, flags isn't something that should be allowed.--Beeman86991 (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support I thought that my !vote was saved last night, but apparently not. Don't tell me for a second that it's a given that Iran would express condolences, or for that matter any of the other countries in N. Asia like Azerjiban or however the heck you spell that. Western Europe is a given, ok, I get that. But the amount of outlandish countries and countries with whom the United States is far from allies, such as Iran, that have expressed condolences certainly is notable. Go Phightins! 11:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Why? An answer is suggested in your comments: "even though they are political enemies ("outlandish"), they all share common human et cetera." That's original research, speculation. What, are we waiting to hear from North Korea? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What I'm saying, and perhaps I didn't phrase it too well originally, is that I think it's notable that such a broad range of countries have expressed their condolences, far more than in other tragedies. Go Phightins! 02:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with info being presented, I just want to remind us that again, material related to the "aftermath" should be put in carefully, or delayed, as we are still in the eye of the storm and it would be easy to give improper weight. Bringing it here and leaving it open at least 24 hours is the right way to do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If you put all of the international reactions in there, it would be a significant portion of the article. And these reactions don't really say much of anything. Just how it's bad and they're sorry for the loss of life. No real substance. Having that message repeated twenty times does not add much. I am okay with a single sentence listing all the countries leaders who expressed condolences. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think I mentioned above that I don't see the information as relevant in the first place, unless it's a response that is reported to be uncommon or extraordinary. If the North Korean government sends a check to rebuild the school, that would be notable, but standards expressions of sympathy are not. In addition, I sense the desire for synthesis, original research, and speculation--in the list of responses (now hatted), I read "Also, there is information there other countries have had reactions, such as China, Singapore, Denmark, and Belgium This information may be important because all these countries usually don't comment on a crime in the U.S." First of all, it's bullshit (why would the Dutch ordinarily comment on US matters but not the Belgians?), but second, it suggest that in the selection of what to include there's other things at stake than relevance. Again, are we waiting to include responses from all governments of the world? And single out those unfriendly to the US? But California has a much bigger economy than Bhutan, not to mention more weed and beaches, so should California's governor get a response in? And those of the other US states? It's an all or nothing deal: we could decide to give all the countries a response, and then totally overwhelm the article with platitudes, which may or may not be heartfelt, but are of no encyclopedic relevance except to note, hey, Bhutan is sympathetic but Nepal isn't (however the case may be). Drmies (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Drmies, could you please be respectful to others and their opinions? Your response comes off as attacking when you mentioned that, " '[...] This information may be important because all these countries usually don't comment on a crime in the U.S.' First of all, it's bullshit [...]" (emphasis added). Granted, I do note that you are exaggerating to make a point, but it didn't come off well to those who support this. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Ok with small section, oppossed to a long or seperate section/article - A small, relevant section of international reactions (not bullet points) summarizing the notable ones, and indicating maybe a number of the rest, is appropriate. But a huge seperate article is out of the question. Shadowjams (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• International reaction to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is where the information is at. International reaction articles are common now for events notable enough to have the leaders of many nations make statements for them. A proper encyclopedia records such historic events properly. Dream Focus 03:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• This page is now pushed to Archive 4? Can we move this back to the talk page? This is what happened last time. There was no consensus, it was pushed to the archive, and people said it was a consensus.--Joey (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

witness states saw man in handcuffs taken out of woods

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

---

I added this to the site with reference and it was removed. Why is this not relevant? A number of news sources presented this. it is a fact taht someone saw something that was reported. AMDS (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)AMDS

Give us the sources. We don't do anything without sources, that includes discuss on the talkpage here. If you give me sourcing, I can look at it. More than likely this was 'spur of the moment' reporting that was later deemed false, but like I said show me your sourcing and I'll look. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of original news stories that reported this. here is the utube video someone saved. [3]

I agree rumors shouldn't be posted but this person clearly saw this and it should be documented. Hopefully someday with an explanation. AMDS (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)AMD

I googled this and the only article on Google News that I could find was [4] which mentions that it was reported that a "second gunman" was taken out the woods. Fox News also posted a picture from a Facebook page of someone that had nothing to do with the event. Details were flowing, and information gets thrown around. I don't think this is worthy of a mention.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• No way. It's a video, it's a local news station in the heat of the moment, it's some individual who may have seen a lot of things, including Bigfoot. Besides, it's not relevant at all, even if it were true. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

For all we know that man could just be a person trying to get his 15 minutes of fame by making this up. This is why we need a news organization to have a staff writer write a story, not a man to be filmed in 'spur of the moment' style saying it. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Although that wasn't mentioned, 60 Minutes tonight pointed out several initial rumors that were totally mistaken, perhaps the grossest one being that they named the wrong brother. It happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is notable, you should easily be able to find reliable sources (with editorial oversight) to corroborate that first hand account. Just because someone said something on camera does not make it notable. - MrX 04:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Google news for "sandy hook" woods handcuffs gets 773 hits. Apparently someone in dressed in camouflage was intercepted in the woods near the school. He was detained but apparently not arrested. I would not bother with including this in the article unless that aspect of the story gets bigger. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I had created a TP section on this the other day, because I saw the interview with a couple of parents in the parking lot on ABC news over this, and was trying to find out if it was Lance's brother (very confused time in the media). The guy, in handcuffs, passed them and looked at them and said "I didn't do it." (which of course he didn't) - yesterday a friend informed me he was a neighbor living in the area, who happened to be basically in the wrong place at the wrong time, and probably dressed (he had on a dark shirt, camo pants) that - in the heat of the moment - may have triggered some LEO interest. There's no mention anywhere that he was arrested, just detained momentarily per the ABC news clip of a few days ago. I don't think this is notable.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• At this point, it is vague speculation as well. These kinds of side issues, wild goose chases, are common during events like this. This is why we don't include unless there is solid sourcing to indicate that it is relative to the actual event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the guy being detained actually happened - that's not speculation - but he was just a local who was in the wooded area, and police, doing their job at the scene, wanted to know what he was doing there. Questioned, verified, released. The fact is not notable to the story, nor more so than someone is stopped at a police roadblock because the make/model of their car matches that of a getaway car.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It's not been brought up on the national news stories that I'm aware of. Assuming it actually happened, it's nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe he was chopping down logs of wood or some such. Some innocent and innocuous activity. Not relevant to the murder or to the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else, it tells him how effective his camouflage was. I do recall a clip they showed early in the coverage, of some guy in handcuffs, apparently near the police station. That piece of the story disappeared quickly, for obvious reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 17 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.

Article about school shooting and listing mother as victim of this incident

Although originally Adam Lanza's mother was reported as being a teacher at the school, and that she was killed at the school, neither of these facts were true after all. Therefore, I have removed Mrs. Lanza's name from the sidebox list of victims of the school shooting incident. Of course she should be mentioned as a victim of Adam Lanza, I do not believe she should be placed on the list (let alone at the top of the list) because she was killed elsewhere. People are, sadly, killed in their homes by other family members (much more) frequently than mass shootings in public locations like a school. As Mrs. Lanza's death is clearly reported in the article, I do not see why she needs to be listed among those killed in the school's list. Using rationale such as "place her on the list to avoid confusion" ignores the fact that it can confuse those who read initial reports, that Adam Lanza killed his mother at the school — which would appear to be his motivation for going to the school at all — and this is not what happened.--SidP (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that the scope of this article extends beyond the shootings at the school to all events associated with the shooting including the shootings not at the school. His mother was a victim of those shootings. The scope in this case, is larger than given by the title, but it appears we are intentionally holding off on title considerations until it can be clearly seen what the common name is. Ryan Vesey 04:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all one event. LadyofShalott 04:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I just realized it might not be clear what the comment I am making is. The scope of this article does and should include everything associated with the shootings; therefore, his mother is a victim and should be listed. Ryan Vesey 04:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You were clear (but I guess I wasn't). I was agreeing with you and disagreeing with the OP. LadyofShalott 04:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is even controversial. She was victim of her son's killing rampage. Why does it matter where she was killed? Two of the children died at the hospital. Should we omit them also? - MrX 04:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Children who were shot at the school and died at the hospital are clearly victims of the school shooting. But Nancy Lanza was NOT a victim of the school shooting, she was a victim of Adam Lanza's crime spree (or rampage), which consisted of her murder AND the school shooting. The crime spree and the school shooting should not be conflated like this, because they are NOT the same thing. Imagine if his crime spree had included a mass murder of dozens of people elsewhere, such as a shopping mall, followed by this massacre at the school. Should both totals be included in the death toll of his crime spree, in that case? Obviously. Should the number of victims at this hypothetical shopping mall massacre be included in the death toll? Obviously NOT, because those additional victims would NOT make this school shooting deadlier than the Virginia Tech massacre. This page should provide the death toll of the school shooting. There should be a SEPARATE page for Adam Lanza and/or his crime spree that includes his mother in the count. She was a victim of Adam Lanza, but NOT a victim of a school shooting. I also fail to understand why this is even controversial, but we're arriving at opposite conclusions, so it obviously is. Deven (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

AuburnPilot beat me to the revert. Their edit summary: "he mother was a victim of this shooting; claiming otherwise is beyond ridiculous". I concur. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree per Ryan Vesey. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As above, I find the removal of the mother's name to be ridiculous. The location of her death does not change the fact that she was a victim of this incident. --auburnpilot talk 04:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

While focusing primarily on the school shooting, the article covers the entire killing spree, so I agree that Nancy Lanza's name should appear on the list of victims. —David Levy 04:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course it should. Coretheapple (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/David.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I think you all are missing my point. It is not that she wasn't a victim. It is not that her death was irrelevant or not a part of his rampage. It is that she wasn't involved in the school shooting itself and therefore the LIST in sidebox -- not the article, just the list -- makes it misleading. If this article indeed becomes "The Adam Lanza shooting spree" (which it never will) then putting his mother on the list would be the most significant. For another example, if there becomes an article (doubtful) about Adam Lanza itself, listing his victims, then of course Nancy Lanza would be on that list. Please remember that this is an issue of accuracy; not one of disrespect. And please also recall the misleading information initially in news reports about where Nancy Lanza was killed.--SidP (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that the list is intended to include victims of "the school shooting itself". That simply isn't so; like the article, it pertains to the entire rampage. This is the point that you seem to be missing. —David Levy 16:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

An article about Adam Lanza or his crime spree should include his mother among his victims. This article is currently titled "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" and can be reasonably expected to describe the massacre AT THE SCHOOL. After the basic facts became clear, all recent news sources appear to universally cite the same death toll: 20 children, 6 adults and the perpetrator. (Some include the perpetrator in the death toll for 27 total, others cite 26 victims and exclude the perpetrator from that count.) Including the mother in the count of victims in an article about the school shooting is *very* misleading and contradictory to ALL cited sources. NOBODY but Wikipedia is citing the death toll as 28. The mother should certainly be mentioned as a related crime, but NOT included in the death toll at the school. Deven (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Lanza's spree, from the morning murder at his home until the later murders at the school. It was one entire event. The name of the article may not reflect that very well, at the moment. It has been decided that a rename debate will occur after some time has passed and some dust has settled (as to what the media and news sources will be calling the event). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a need for BOTH pages -- one about the school shooting and one about Adam Lanza's crime spree. They should be separate, because they are likely to be referred to separately. When speaking about Adam Lanza, the crime spree would be the reference of interest. When talking about the deadliest school shootings, the incident at the school is relevant and the murder of his mother is a separate issue. She should certainly be mentioned on this page, but not included in the count. Conversely, she should be included in the count for the separate page that should exist for Adam Lanza's crime spree. Renaming this page is a poor solution, because there's a need to reference the school shooting as an independent event from Adam Lanza's overall crime spree. Deven (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How, in your view, is the school shooting an independent event from Adam Lanza's overall crime spree, and what reliable sources have treated it as such? —David Levy 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Lanza was a victim of Adam Lanza's murder spree, but she was NOT a victim of a school shooting. Therefore, her murder has absolutely no relevance to the issue of school safety, even though it was part of his overall crime spree. Hence the need to treat the school shooting as a separate event AND to have a page about his crime spree as a whole. Deven (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't state that Nancy Lanza was "a victim of a school shooting" or that her murder has "relevance to the issue of school safety". We explicitly state, in the very same section, that she was killed at home.

Again, what reliable sources have treated the school shooting an independent event from Adam Lanza's overall crime spree?

Are you proposing that we have an article about the school shooting and a second article about the school shooting and one additional killing? —David Levy 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I realize that the article states that she was killed at home. Nevertheless, one of the most likely reasons for someone to be looking up this event in the future will be in the context of school shootings in general, when referencing deadliest school shootings. In that context, the mother should not be included in the count because she was killed at home. Just because the text explains that she was killed at home doesn't justify spreading misinformation about how many people were killed IN THE SCHOOL ATTACK. Why is this so hard to understand? The current version of List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States does explain that the mother was killed at home, but it ALSO lists this shooting in the "List of notable U.S. school attacks" table under "Number of Victims" as 28, not 27. This is EXACTLY the sort of misinformation that Wikipedia should avoid spreading, and the reason why the mother shouldn't be included in the total for the school shooting itself.Deven (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I updated the page referenced above to show the correct count of 27 in that table instead of 28. Deven (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's appropriate, as the article is specifically about school shootings. (Also, the "Number of Victims" heading should be changed to "Number of deaths", as a shooting's perpetrator generally isn't considered a "victim" of the attack.)

Conversely, this article is about the entire killing spree. Why is that so hard to understand? —David Levy 21:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources refer to 27 fatalities (including the perpetrator) in reference to the school shooting. In our article's lead, we explicitly state that the gunman "first killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their nearby Newtown home" and "then drove to the school and shot the students and employees before killing himself." In that context ("the overall death toll"), it would be misleading to exclude Nancy Lanza from the count.

Your assertion that "NOBODY but Wikipedia is citing the death toll as 28" is incorrect. Recent examples:

• USA Today ("claimed 28 lives")
• Los Angeles Times ("28 dead, including 26 elementary school students and staff")

Other sources refer to 27 victims (with the perpetrator excluded). —David Levy 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Neither of these sources was cited by the death toll on this page. Nevertheless, it remains patently false to describe Nancy Lanza as a victim of a school shooting when she was murdered at home. Deven (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

She was a victim of Lanza's December 14 spree, not of the school shooting per se. Despite the name, this article is about the spree. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We aren't describing Nancy Lanza as a victim of a school shooting. I just quoted our lead, in which it's explicitly stated that she wasn't. —David Levy 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution to the above "problem"

Some of the above comments and complaints are indeed legitimate. Perhaps an editor can revise the "victim's box listing" to make it clear that the mother was not a part of the school "count". I am not good at fiddling with those boxes and charts, so I will leave that to another editor. But, yes, the chart/box can be confusing and misleading. I can see how some will think that the mother died at the school (by looking at the box, without reading the prose of the article). This is further exacerbated by early false reports that the mother actually worked at the school. It is not a great burden to simply revise the chart a little, with some asterisk or footnote. Great benefit to allay confusion; great reward; little burden. Would someone do so? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I think separate pages are probably called for, it would certainly be helpful to edit the page to make it clear that the death toll from the school shooting was 27 (including the perpetrator) and the overall death toll for the rampage was 28 total. That would be a definite improvement. Deven (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that the murder of the mother at home warrants a separate article. It is part of the entire spree ... and this article is about the whole spree. The bulk of which, of course, occurred at the school. Renaming of the article, perhaps, will be done in due time. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In the parent section, Dcorzine opined that we should have "one [article] about the school shooting and one about Adam Lanza's crime spree" (not his mother's murder in particular). I don't understand why. —David Levy 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We already state that in the lead (the section in question). I quoted the relevant text above. —David Levy 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible idea. —David Levy 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've appended such a notation to the infobox and list of victims. —David Levy 21:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the page to more clearly state BOTH death tolls, 27 from the school shooting and 28 total, so nobody is likely to walk away with the wrong number from a quick glance at the page. I think this obviates the need I saw for separate pages for the school shooting vs. the killing spree. Deven (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Should refer to the .223 rifle as an AR-15...

... http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/More-Details-Emerge-About-Lanzas-Past-183711811.html Clearly lists an AR-15 as a police confirmation of the weapon. So please correct the Infobox accordingly! Thanks... 2602:306:BCA6:89B0:A4C3:70FD:1AF9:23FB (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"AR-15" is a type of weapon contracted by the US military; the weapon used was one of several third party approximations of that type: it wouldn't be accurate to simply call it an AR-15. The manufacturer and model should probably stand, but discussion of the particular weapon and the relation of it's class to civilian violence might start from today's Times article.  ^davidiad_.:τ 05:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed this to both link to the model of the weapon used and to include "AR-15" in its description. Earlier in the day it had only said ".223-caliber Bushmaster" and linked to the Bushmaster article. I had no idea what that was, clicked, and was surprised to learn it's an AR-15 semi-automatic assault weapon. Later in the day, someone changed the infobox to ".223 semi-automatic rifle" which seemed extremely misleading as the picture on that article is of a gun from 1941 and is nothing like the gun used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I've updated the infobox to have ".223-caliber Bushmaster AR-15 rifle" though information it's long enough that it the text wraps. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• AR-15 is a registered trademark of Colt. Unless the brand is Colt, it is inaccurate to use that registered trademark. The gun is modeled after one, but in this context A-15 would be a comparison, not a correct model. I would suggest someone please remove that part. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Although some sources have referred to it as a Bushmaster AR-15, most I've seen are just calling it a .223 e.g.cnn. Readers can follow the wikilink to get more information on the weapon. NE Ent 12:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Dennis - I'd forgotten that "AR-15" is a Colt trademark. I chanced on this Wall Street Journal article where a law enforcement official identifies the weapon as a "a Bushmaster XM-15 model." I've updated the article plus removed ".233" from the infobox which got made the description short enough that it no longer wraps. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reactions

The section that says "Obama paused twice during the address to compose himself and wipe away tears" needs to be changed to "pretended to wipe away tears." Zoom on the HD footage showed that Obama was not actually crying.

It may be ok to have some reactions then, when it is too big, to have a separate article. Auchansa (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See above section: #Consensus Restore International Reaction. LadyofShalott 05:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Blogs and Chinese newspaper reaction

Why are the reactions of the blogs and a random Chinese newspaper discussed on here? These items are extremely irrelevent. It was obviously placed there by someone who wants more gun control and who used a newspaper half way around the globe (which had nothing to do with the story) to support that stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.75.159 (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I added the section regarding the related primary school attack in China because the attack on Sandy Hook was mentioned there. Additionally, please observe WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. My nationality or stance on gun control has nothing to do with my edit. —Entropy (T/C) 07:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that Americans can be somewhat isolationist in their worldview but given that this event has had global coverage... why shouldn't Chenpeng get coverage here? So far, we're seeing state and county reactions, despite the fact that world leaders elsewhere have voiced opinion.

By the way, "Xinhua" is not some "random Chinese newspaper". It is one of the world's biggest newsagencies. That just shows your ignorance. They are a mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist party, but it's still relevant here. I'm going to replace this matter at some point. It is highly relevant. Especially from a psychological point of view, since it suggests that the Chinese are catching a Western disorder just now... (If Maoist violence itself wasn't a manifestation of it)--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The material can be included if it comes from reliable sources and adds to the encyclopedic knowledge of the shooting, the perpetrator, his motive or the aftermath. If, on the other hand, it is merely an expression of condolence or a political statement, then there is current no consensus to include such content. Also the WP:DUE guideline may apply. - MrX 14:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

At Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing#Reactions, the connection is mentioned briefly and succinctly. A discussion on the talk page for that article prevented its removal there. If we're mentioning Sandy Hook on the page about Chenpeng Village, we should mention Chenpeng Village on the page for Sandy Hook-- that's just logical. Note that I am not speculating whether or not there is actually a connection between the events. I just think it's important to mention that there's a substantial amount of discussion from a variety of sources regarding the potential connection between the events. —Entropy (T/C) 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The connection being potential is what makes it speculation, even if a few sources are talking about it. As we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or blog, we can't include that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes critical reviews as sources in our articles. There are sections on many pages regarding public reception and public speculation. This case is no different. A mention should be made. Also, you didn't address the fact that the reference exists on the Chenpeng Village article but not on this one. —Entropy (T/C) 03:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The connection has been made in numerous sources, either just noting the tragic coincidence, but some specifically noting 1) That even in countries with gun control, mass attacks happen anyway - BUT 2) Attacks not involving a gun tend to be significantly less lethal.

• http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2012/12/china-watches-newtown-guns-american-credibility.html
• http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/15/gun-control-obama-shooting/1771417/
• http://www.krqe.com/dpps/news/us/sympathy-over-us-school-shooting-stretches-globe-nd12-tvw_5089960
• http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-14/news/chi-school-shooting-editorial-20121214_1_dunblane-primary-school-kindergartens
• http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/12/is_the_newtown.php
• http://hiphopwired.com/2012/12/14/22-children-stabbed-in-chinese-primary-school-photos/
• http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/15/schools-targets-worldwide/1771075/
• http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339118
• http://www.costaricantimes.com/a-genocide-of-innocence-meditations-after-the-connecticut-shootings/9059

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If those are the points that these articles are focusing on, that is sensational reporting to make a correlation without causation. Definitely not appropriate to include in either article. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, these are a combination of opinion pieces and really bad tabloid-style journalism. Worse than that, they are all over the map. What, if any, encyclopedic value can be derived from these? Perhaps the temporal proximity of the events? - MrX 03:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We do not second guess the associations made by reliable sources. If "Dont include things that are sourced by sensational reporting" is the standard, then this entire article should probably be culled. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do, or at least the weight they are prescribing to the connection, as we can't say they are factually wrong. NPOV and FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We certainly do second guess them.That's what editing is all about. We have to judge the quality and the reliability of sources, and these mostly fail on all accounts. There's not even a central theme to some of them; it's more like meandering free-association. For example, statements like "Defenders of China’s non-democratic system point out that even as the United States is lashed by growing effects of climate change, we have failed to compel our elected leaders to do much of anything about it." or "...a 36-year-old man a half-a-world away in China attacked 22 children at a primary school. None of the kids died. The reason? The man in China had only a knife." Really? Only a knife you say? - MrX 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

re read npov. It applies to OUR POV, not the POV of sources? USA today, village voice, Chicago tribune, the newyorker... Well known as crackpot fringe sites round the world! Gaijin42 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

FRINGE can apply to reliable cites as well, if they are primarily opinion pieces build around weakly linked facts. But more importantly, this is not information to be covered in this specific article, but likely in a larger one about school attacks and gun control. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

[5] shows how opinions on gun control is just one way these events are related. I agree that at the very least, articles on gun control should draw a connection between them. However I still think it's worth mentioning in these articles as well. —Entropy (T/C) 03:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

At best, this would be "aftermath" and we are still in the eye of the storm. There is no shortage of people posturing to make political points and statements, which are arguably exploiting this event for their own gain. Assisting them isn't without our scope. After the news cycle is more complete, an "aftermath" section could make more sense but the entire concept of aftermath requires contemplation, and there simply hasn't been enough time for it. In other words, the timing is wrong for adding this kind of material. This is like how everyone reported the perpetrator was Ryan at first, yet that was wrong and caused problems, we exercise discretion in our timing because we are an encyclopedia, not a newpaper or blog. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Associated attack in China

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.

---

Information I added to the article regarding an attack several hours before the shooting was removed despite a multitude of references regarding the relationship between the events as well as a reference to Sandy Hook on the other article. I disagree with this removal of content. I think it's important to mention the associated event in the article. —Entropy (T/C) 07:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• You used blogs and op-eds, which are regarded as unreliable sources on Wikipedia. There is no known connection between these events. Abductive (reasoning) 07:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There's zero relation between the two. Unless we are saying that the Chinese knifing affected the event or the reactions to the event, the information is trivial. Ryan Vesey 07:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. The fact that the events happened hours apart, in addition to the references provided and the fact that the Xinhua News Agency called for stricter gun controls in the U.S. following the Chinese attack, means the relationship should be mentioned in the article. —Entropy (T/C) 07:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cannot begin to understand what logic you are using to draw this conclusion. My mind ... it reels - it's like trying to imagine what lies beyond the known universe. STRONGLY oppose any mention of the event in China in this article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What connection is drawn by the cited sources? The simple fact that the two incidents occurred on the same day does warrant mention. And frankly, I couldn't care less what Xinhua News Agency has called for. What relevance do they have? --auburnpilot talk 07:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems I'm alone in my opinion and that consensus favors leaving the reference out. Very well, I withdraw my objection. —Entropy (T/C) 07:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is definitely a strong link between the two events in public discourse, and it isnt limited to blogs and op-eds. See also Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing. Some people in the world are dispassionately discussing these events. However the weight of those discussions are not very strong when compared to the volume of coverage the Sandy Hook incident is receiving, so I question whether it should be included in this article.(I am glad that statements made by some of the religious nutcases have been removed from this article) The call by the Chinese state press agency for tighter gun control in the US however is important and is almost as relevant as the condolences made by state leaders around the world, including China. But weight is a balancing act, and China alone saying this is probably not enough to warrant mentioning it yet. OTOH, the US incident is a strong theme in the public discourse about the Chenpeng attack, and definitely merits mentioning in the other article. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The comments from the mouth of the Chinese government should only be included if the determination to include international reactions is made and it should be limited to that section. It would be undue to give the Chinese any weight in a section on gun control in the US. Ryan Vesey 08:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Again, this article is about the event. In due time, some material will likely work its way in regarding the aftermath but we are still in the eye of the storm. Predicting the aftermath would be just that, predicting, and not encyclopedic. Until there has been time to have the benefit of hindsight to determine what other analysis is properly weighted for the article, less is more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

They are not unconnected. The two killers had absolutely no personal connections with each other, but they are manifestations of a sickness in Western society and a society which is becoming rapidly westernised. People want to just blame the weirdo, but something is wrong in the state of consumerism.

It is somewhat parochial to ignore the international angle here. I notice you don't even have comments from other national leaders on here... A classic manifestation of Americans' introversion.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your post is classic SOAPBOX and FORUM and is not allowed under Talk Page rules. Take your editorializing elsewhere.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Classic example of trying to mug the debate, Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is international. My comments are perfectly valid in this discussion. You have singularly failed to prove otherwise.

Your views on America are neither relevant or substantiated and are WK:SOAPBOX violations, nothing to improve the quality of the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that someone actually describes Xinhua above as "a random Chinese newspaper" (or whatever the quote was) shows the general level of debate and ignorance here. This story is no longer just American or parochial. You can thank the global media for that.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

From an encyclopedic POV, the only connection between these attacks was that they happened to students and occurred on the same day. There is no relevance otherwise (and extremely unlikely they are any more connected than that), and thus mentioning here the Chinese school attack is out of place. There might be cause for an article that is critical of the media's handling of this event (a lot of misinfo being put out early) and would include the fact that the Chinese incident was nearly ignored by the press, but again, that's not to be included on this encyclopedic article about the actual shooting. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that this is not an article about "sickness in Western society". If there is content relevant to the scope of the article, that complies with our policies and guidelines, and comes from reliable sources, it can be added. There is currently a discussion about whether or not to include a list of international reactions (mostly condolences) here. Consensus will determine whether or not the international reactions can be included. - MrX 14:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes it is. There is always some analysis of why these things happen. If we are discussing the killer's mother, then we should be able to discuss this too.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental misunderstanding: (in the article) we are not discussing anything. We are discussing, on the talk page, what to put in the article and what to take out. There's nothing remotely reliable stating some sort of connection, and while some blog may find it exciting to speculate on the weather and the relative position of Mars and Mercury, we don't include that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 December 2012‎ [6]

I very often casually use the verb "discuss" to refer to the content of the article, and so do many editors. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worthwhile to note that because these incidents did occur so closely in temporal proximity that they are being being mentioned on opposite side of the globe is an indication that simultaneous debate and concern, perhaps by all corners of the world, is occurring. Merely occurring in proximity is not itself enough of a connection for subject matter, but because these two incidents are being mentioned as indications of coalescing phenomena makes it relevant.--SidP (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that there is a connection. I suspect winter's something to do with it, but you can't prove that.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. You can't. So let's not continue this--it will not lead to article improvement. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 17 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.

Talk:Child protection#Protect the children?

See there. Thanks, Nemo 10:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked there. But what was I supposed to see? Go Phightins! 11:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mother was a survivalist

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4701837/gunman-adam-lanzas-mum-was-survivalist.html Mother of Sandy Hook school gunman Adam Lanza was a 'prepper' preparing for economic and social collapse, therefore caching weapons. Obviously she was rich and wanted to protect her belongings. --91.6.71.29 (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC) PS: Here is another source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mother-of-sandy-hook-school-gunman-adam-lanza-was-a-prepper-survivalist-preparing-for-economic-and-social-collapse-say-reports-8422298.html

It's already included, in the Perpetrator section:

"Marsha Lanza also recalled that Nancy was a survivalist, and that Nancy had turned her home into "a fortress" in which she was stockpiling guns and food to prepare for what she believed was an apocalyptic event associated with impending economic collapse."[7][8] --213.196.218.39 (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic? She would have survived if she had not been a survivalist... --91.6.71.29 (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

She also was a single parent and a divorcee. Middle class men raised by divorced mothers often crop up in these situations. Anders Breivik is another example.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this should be included, too. The similarity is too obvious to be neglected. --91.6.71.29 (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Theses are opinions, not documented facts that relate to this singular event. Adding comments about single mothers or "if she wasn't a survivalist, she would be alive" is so far outside of policy to not consider inclusion. The article exists to document the events as the sources reported them, not to editorialize on social issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• It's been widely reported that she was a gun enthusiast, and that seems sufficient until more facts are in evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  I tend to agree, as that ties in to the availability of the weapons he used. Not a huge point, but one worth a brief statement as long as it isn't a commentary on her lifestyle or the larger issue of gun ownership. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh. This is beyond hilarious.--Daniel Robert Sum (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no question, the irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife. But the reports I've seen indicate she was very close-mouthed about her home life, so it's going to take the investigators a while to get some clues. At least one report said he had killed her while she slept, so presumably she never knew what hit her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, are you threatening irony? Drmies (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to make any threats. I have too many irons in the fire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This page is very hard to find when searching.

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.

---

When I type Sandy Hook elementary massacre into google I expect wikipedia to be at least one of the main articles, but it's not, in order to get the wikipedia article I have to also type in wikipedia at the end. If wikipedia wants to be a fast and accurate source of information massacre should be included 69.243.175.9 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)ham

We can't affect how google sorts search results. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by having a title that is accurate to the event you totally avoid this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.175.9 (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook massacre exists. Hopefully we've developed sufficient reputation that users will come directly here looking for information rather than starting at google. In any event after the furor dies down, Wikipedia will come up in the rankings.NE Ent 15:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Try typing the word school after the word elementary. - MrX 15:29, 17 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.

Where will they go to school?

This article mentions the topic briefly. It doesn't appear the article has covered that yet. There is also doubt that the school building will reopen.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Probably need more info before adding here, that being one more aspect of the "aftermath", but I'm sure that it will be included in when the outcome is confirmed since that is relevant to the event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Try http://www.wral.com/newtown-plans-burials-as-school-s-future-debated/11886058/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a much better source, but I would still recommend waiting until the school system actually releases a statement with a definitive answer. It is still speculative at this point, and an answer will probably be forthcoming in the next day or two. Not sure the policy, but it seems a best practice issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Injuries

Resolved

 – Above

The info box says just 1 person injured. Is this right? It seems a very low figure - or was the shooter so deadly that of you got shot, that was that? And if the latter is the case, shouldn't that be made explicit in the text?

This article's listing in ITN, coming immediately above the China School stabbings where there were 23 injuries and 0 fatalities, is very striking for the reason that there is a school incident with 28 fatalities and 1 injury when a gun was involved, and 0 fatalities and 23 injuries when it was a knife. Is this awful synchronicity of school attacks with very different modes and outcomes worth mentioning in the article? 86.134.49.201 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• This has been discussed above. No comparison to the two events is made because they are unrelated to each other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Helpful reader feedback on this article

Thanks to all the editors who contributed to this article!

It's exceptionally well done, and keeps getting better. It's getting a lot of praise from our readers, as well as some helpful suggestions for improvement, on this feedback page.

Some of this reader feedback can be used to improve the article, and I invite article editors to check it from time to time. If you come across particularly useful suggestions, you are encouraged to feature them, so they appear first on the page. If a suggestion has already been implemented, you can simply mark it as resolved.

Overall, I'm really impressed by the number of constructive comments on this page, which is a testament to all your great work. Here's a typical post:

"This is an example of Wikipedia at its best: aggregating facts from disparate sources, and articulating them in a dispassionate, sober and coherent way, Great work."

Thank you, Wikipedia editors!

Fabrice Florin (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

College

Resolved

The addition about his college credit makes assumptions that are not in the source. The addition says "He excelled in computer science and economics courses, but struggled with philosophy and German" The source that was originally conected to the entry [9] says "Lanza dropped out of a German language class and withdrew from a computer science class, but earned an A in a computer class, an A-minus in an American history class and a B in a macroeconomics class. He did not do so well in philosophy, earning only a C." Dropping out does not mean he struggled with German, there are many reasons to drop out other than struggling. We can not make the assumption it was because he was struggling. I am not so sure that we can even say he struggled in philosophy or excelled in economics. We don't know why he got those grades. GB fan 17:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right and I tweaked the sentence some. He may have missed a paper or whatever. "He excelled in computer science and economics courses, but not in a philosophy course"--and I added "course" since for all we know he mastered Kant but the class was on Heidegger. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A computer class != Computer Science. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The formulation is computer science course: "He excelled in computer science and economics courses." --87.79.230.214 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The source: Associated press (17 December 2012). "Adam Lanza Took Western Connecticut State University Courses When He Was 16". Huffington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2012. says "a computer course" and so does the article now. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Rumors begin

Resolved

In the wake of the Sandy Hook School shootings, several alternative media and blog comment writers came up with variations on "The father of Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza, "Peter Lanza", was the tax director for General Electric, a corporation that paid -0- taxes on 14.2 billion dollars in profits last year, and He[sic] was scheduled to testify in the ongoing global LIBOR scandal. The father of Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes is Robert Holmes, the lead scientist for the credit score company FICO, and He[sic] too was to testify before the US Sentate[sic] in the ongoing LIBOR scandal. That's right, BOTH men were to testify before the US Sentate[sic] in the ongoing LIBOR scandal. Coincidence?" [10] [11] I saw several variants on that in comments on various news media and it seeped into one news story that I have seen so far. I read several media sites who attempted to verify the statement and found that Mr. Lanza is not connected with the LIBOR scandal nor scheduled to testify at any upcoming U.S. Senate hearings on LIBOR.[12] Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for noting that. Let's try and keep such unrelated content (gossip) out of the article. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture of rifle used in the Weapons section of the article

Resolved

 – When a more reliably sourced image that doesn't depend on original research is available (preferably the actual gun), it can be reviewed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

223-caliber Bushmaster rifle (with magazines); similar to the primary weapon used in the shooting.

((REF USED)) Candiotti, Susan & Yan, Holly. December 16, 2012. Connecticut school shooting: Latest developments. CNN. "Carver, who performed autopsies on seven of the victims, said the wounds he knew about were caused by a "long weapon" and that the rifle was the primary weapon used." Retrieved: 16 December 2012.

I've added this picture with a source numerous times and it keeps getting removed. Can someone please explain why it can't be in the article? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Remove image. Unsourced / OR "similar to" Wrong type, significantly shown one would be illegal to own there". I have some faith in North8000, but maybe they can explain here. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There are so many different versions of the Bushmaster .223 that we don't know at this point if that one is similar to the one used. See [13] GB fan 18:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

North8000, you stated "Wrong type, significantly shown one would be illegal to own there". Please explain. GB fan, the caption says "similar to", so the picture isn't a problem. Drmies, the link you provided clearly states, "Custom modified Bushmaster .223 caliber", which makes your link irrelevant. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, but I can't speak for Noth8000, "wrong type" seems pretty self-explanatory, but perhaps North can come by. I can't speak for GB fan, but "similar to" is vague--in many ways, a stick of gum is similar to a gun (susceptible to gravity, man-made, easily available, et cetera). I can speak for me, though, when I say huh? What link? I linked to an odd and scary myspace page for the hell of it, not to make a point about any kind of modification, about which I know nothing and in which I have no interest. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't mean to suggest we need to have the exact photo of the gun used in the shooting, right? This is the photo from the Wikipedia article about the Bushmaster .223. Chisme (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No we don't need an image of the exact gun used but we should have an image of the model used. GB fan 19:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's not the weapon recovered from the scene but a "similar" one. The actual rifle may be in an entirely different condition, modified/sawn/redecorated... that's like showing a "similar school" somewhere in the area. The image also includes seven different magazines while it's not known how many, or what kind, were actually used in the shooting. Skullers (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The "illegal to own" part, would be in reference to conneticut's assault weapons ban. The weapon pictured would be illegal in conneticut. as it has a removable magazine, a pistol grip, and an adjustable stock (magazine + 2 "evil features"). So either we are making an additional accusation of an illegal weapon (unsourced), or the picture is not accurate. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap943.htm#Sec53-202a.htm Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Careful: "Illegal to own" is different from "illegal to buy". There's a grandfarter clause. Toddst1 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut's Assault Rifle Ban specifies selective fire weapons and a limited list of AR, AK, and SKS variants. The only Bushmaster variants listed in the ban are Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol. http://www.ct.gov/dps/lib/dps/special_licensing_and_firearms/assault_weapons.pdf Aneah|talk _to ^me 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Some models are listed explicitly, but they are also banned by feature.

(3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

(i) A folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

A Wall Street Journal article identifies the weapon as a "a Bushmaster XM-15 model." The proposed photo is apparently of a "Bushmaster XM15-E2S" and includes several magazines. Ideally, someone would post to Wikipedia a photo of their XM-15 (not an XM15-E2S) with just the magazine you get with the rifle. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Within the XM-15 line, there are still several models, and the regardless, it is the accessories (grip, stock) that would make the rifle subject to Conneticut's AWB or not, so unless we are just illustrating the general concept of "Assault Weapon"/Generic AR-15, that still would not help us. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Law enforcement has already said the weapons were legally obtained/registered. Thus it's unlikely the X-15 Adam Lanza used was a model banned under Gun laws in Connecticut#Assault weapons. It also seems the Lanza's X-15 was a recent purchase meaning it's unlikely to be a pre-1993 weapon grandfathered in. I suspect a picture of a generic, and legal XM-15, would do. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What about File:Bushmaster.jpg? It's an xm-15, has a generic stock, no bayonet mount, no rails, it certainly seems like it doesn't have any of the bells and whistles that would make it an inappropriate description. It fires 5.56mm NATO which is very similar to the .223 caliber Ryan Vesey 23:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of the picture and the caption has a whole list of problems. (including the lack of sourcing for the assertion of similarity) But one of them is not only it not the type used, it is different in significant ways, as in legal vs,. illegal there. North8000 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think North8000 is right here. If we had a picture of the exact gun, and yes, we likely will have a fair use copy in time, then it would be less problematic, but we are adding original research if we are putting up images that are "kind of like" the gun used. That alone is enough reason to pause. Secondarily, we have to ask the question we ask of all photos: Does this add context to the article? I would argue that the value of the image is very limited. Semi-automatic weapons of the AR15 class are hardly rare, and the image doesn't add much more than the description does, which being wikilinked, means that anyone truly ignorant of what an "assault" rifle looks like in general can click over. By adding a gun image that is potentially significantly different in modification than the original, we may be adding more disinformation than information. When faced with this possibility, weighed against the dubious value the image adds, then excluding an image until the real gun picture can be obtained, or at least an image with a very high possibility of being identical, is the better option. WP:OR seems to be the primary factor here, as it is obvious we don't have enough information to determine exactly what the gun and its modifications look like at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lanza reportedly did not perceive pain normally

I am un-archiving this section because the ABC News video at 1:45 here shows Richard Novia, Lanza'a high school security director, stating that Adam suffered from congenital pain insensitivity (a serious mental health condition affecting empathy which while very rare, is recognized by authorities as a profoundly serious neuropathy) along with other serious conditions for which Adam was seeing school mental health professionals. 67.41.200.185 (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

was: archive top|result=Relevance and reliability not established. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That comment was by the school's "security specialist" in the Tech Club. Interesting factoid but it wasn't established that this was a motivation or a factor and he isn't an expert on the subject matter. Again, the relevance and reliability of the information isn't strong enough to put in the article based on that one ABC story. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

ABC clearly identifies Novia as the high school security director. What makes you think he was associated with the club only? Why isn't the school's security director an expert on this? 67.41.200.185 (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The two questions are: is this relevant and tied into any motives or reasons for the acts? The answer is no at this time. The next question is, is this person qualified to make a medical determination or claim against the perpetrator, and the answer is no. We don't publish everything that the media says, we aren't a newspaper trying to fill up column inches, we are an encyclopedia, so we summarize events. If multiple sources come out that claim there is a definitive link that this factoid is relevant, then it can be reviewed, but at this time, it is little more than suspicion and speculation, thus we do not publish it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

---

The following material was removed, with the editorial comment, "no, it is not so that 'Lanza had a medical disability'--there are reports by people who are not medical professionals that he could feel no pain. too speculative":

A family friend said that Lanza had had a medical condition in which he was unable to perceive physical pain normally: "Nancy was teaching him to cut up fruit. Because he couldn’t feel any pain, he had to be careful with the knife."[107] A former security official for the high school that Lanza had attended, who had served as an advisor for the high school technology club and had been responsible for ensuring that the students used soldering tools and electrical equipment safely, similarly recalled, "If that boy would've burned himself, he would not have known it or felt it physically."

sources: NY Post - "At home, Adam often stayed in his room, said family friend Ellen Adriani.... The shooter, she said, had a medical condition in which he couldn’t feel pain. 'Nancy was teaching him to cut up fruit. Because he couldn’t feel any pain, he had to be careful with the knife,' she said."

NPR/AP - "Richard Novia, the school district's head of security until 2008, who also served as adviser for the school technology club, said Lanza clearly 'had some disabilities.' 'If that boy would've burned himself, he would not have known it or felt it physically,' Novia told The Associated Press in a phone interview. 'It was my job to pay close attention to that.' Novia was responsible for monitoring students as they used soldering tools and other potentially dangerous electrical equipment."

Can we discuss specifically what it is about this information that is objectionable, and whether there is a way to rewrite it so that it can be included?

It is absolutely correct that this information is being provided by individuals who (as far as we know) are not medical professionals. But the article never said or implied that they were medical professionals. It presented them as lay people - a friend of the family and a school employee/advisor. If the material had said, "Lanza had a medical condition in which he was unable to feel pain," then there would be a breach of our responsibility in describing these events, but that is not what the article said. It simply reported what individuals who had some personal familiarity with Lanza or his family have said.

Would this material be non-objectionable if it were reworded as follows?

Two acquaintances said that Lanza had had a condition in which he was unable to perceive physical pain normally. A family friend said, "Nancy was teaching him to cut up fruit. Because he couldn’t feel any pain, he had to be careful with the knife." A former security official for the high school that Lanza had attended, who had served as an advisor for the high school technology club and had been responsible for ensuring that the students used soldering tools and electrical equipment safely, similarly recalled, "If that boy would've burned himself, he would not have known it or felt it physically."

Dezastru (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear - the people claiming this are not medical professionals and their statements are based on observation. Only medical professionals that had seen to Lanza can be reliable sources for this statement. Also - so what if he didn't experience pain normally? --MASEM (t) 18:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Masem, the latter proposed wording --which I also reject, but simply based on a lack of demonstrable relevance-- is a simple formulation about a thing someone said. If it could be shown that the opinions of these two people are in and of themselves somehow notable in the context of the shooting, then we would add them, without needing a health professional to verify the content of those opinions. These are two distinct things, don't you realize? The opinions and their content. Sometimes opinions are notable regardless of their content. They aren't in this case, but I've repeatedly seen you terribly conflate assertion of facts (e.g. "person X said Y") with assertion of opinions (e.g. "X was correct"). The latter case would require qualified professional input. The former does not. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, reporting that person X stated their observation Y that makes them beleive conclusion Z is true, isn't a problem normally. But for one, if the only way to prove Z to be true is to be a medical professional, and X is not one of those, then all that is is a an extra quote from someone not involved in the investigation, making it not notable. And importantly, so what if he couldn't feel pain? Did that cause him to go on the shooting rampage? There's zero proven connection between that and what he did, so inclusion of these at this time is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for inclusion of any of it. I'm merely disputing part of your reasoning, but wholeheartedly agreeing with the rest of it. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• [ec] I was the one who removed that after reading your edit summary: "Lanza had a medical disability in which he could not perceive pain normally". Well, that edit summary is incorrect (unproven), of course), and in my opinion this is way too speculative. These people are not medical professionals, far from it. So what if Novia observed, for instance, the guy burning himself with a soldering iron? How would he know that he didn't feel pain? Maybe he hid it really well. At any rate, besides being speculative, what does it matter? His possible lack of pain sensation is maybe symptomatic of something (more speculation) but has no direct relevance, at least according to the sources, to his actions. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)In reference to not feeling pain, the AP article referenced above says of Novia: "He recalled meeting with school guidance counselors, administrators and with the boy's mother, Nancy Lanza, to understand his problems and find ways to ensure his safety" I don't see a problem with saying that Novia had met with the mother and others at the school because they wanted to make sure that Lanza's inability to feel pain wouldn't compromise his safety. We're not providing a medical diagnosis, we're just reporting a situation that the mother and the school were concerned about. Is it relevant? The media seems to think so. It certainly is unusual. GabrielF (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that - if there is any substance and relevance to it - will become clearer as the investigation continues. For now, it is highly speculative to assume it is true and that it has anything to do with his actions. LadyofShalott 18:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There are many things that may be true or not, but the question is relevance to this event. Until that is established, it would be irresponsible for us to assign reasons or motivations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

At this stage in the reporting, NOTHING has emerged that clearly explains why Lanza committed the shooting, yet the article already includes more than 2,000 words describing the events and background. In fact, the article describes in some detail recollections that his fellow students and acquaintances have of his quirks. Is there any evidence that Lanza's having been "socially uncomfortable" and not having many close friends and being a computer geek and a part of the goth subculture had anything to do with the shooting? An inability to feel pain normally, to the extent that those around him were told that extra care needed to be taken to ensure that he did not harm himself, is certainly a remarkably unusual characteristic of an individual. If all of these other unusual characteristics about him are being reported, shouldn't this particular characteristics demand as much attention? Not perceiving pain normally is a far more rare characteristic in an individual his age than any of those other things. Further, abnormal pain perception, including hyposensitivity to pain, is also a well-established feature of Asperger's syndrome and other autism-spectrum disorders. Dezastru (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the article describes in some detail recollections that his fellow students and acquaintances have of his quirks. -- That is a very valid point. We should take care not to unduly imply significance of any of those gossipy items (e.g. "mother was a survivalist" etc). --87.79.230.214 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Too much of this already exists, adding more isn't the solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Bullet Proof Vest"

Resolved

I am concerned about this being referred to as a bullet-proof vest until a later date. While there is a single source referring to a bullet-proof vest, other sources indicate that it was merely a load-bearing vest. As the two are frequently mixed up (aurora shooting, oregon mall shooting) it would be best to omit it until a later date.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html 70.90.74.161 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the "bullet proof" part for now until this issue clears up. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We usually go with RSs over personal guesses that the RSs are wrong. Here, that would have been the way to go as well. Multiple RSs report it as a bulletproof vest. Including ABC and Huffington Post.[14] Please don't edit based on OR, without RS support.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of Fatalities

It is very confusing for this page to cite 28 fatalities for this school shooting when multiple sources agree that the perpetrator killed 20 children, 6 adults plus himself at the school. The murder of his mother is a separate (though related) crime that shouldn't be included in the death toll of this event, since it did not occur at the school. This should be changed to read 27 fatalities (including perpretrator) and reference the additional fatality of his mother separately. Deven (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You may want to also have a look at the discussion about this here: #Article about school shooting and listing mother as victim of this incident. - MrX 19:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

Resolved

Fixing grammar, small futz. Advise if feedback. Ramwithaxe talk 19:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

um, what?HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am fixing grammatical mistakes in the article. Please advise if any feedback. There are actually too many edit conflicts right now, so will come back when the article has calmed down. Ramwithaxe talk 20:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What I have been doing is before I click on "save page" I copy the wikitext into the copy/paste buffer. If the "save page" works I don't need the copy/paste contents. If I get an edit-conflict I exit out back to the article or this talk page, hit refresh, re-edit the section, paste the previous edit, and then click on "Show Changes" to make sure I'm not wiping out someone else's recent edit to the same section. As I'm in edit mode for less than a minute the chance of a conflict is low. The real pain is dealing with messed up <ref> tags where you need to open up the entire article and it can take careful tweaking throughout the article to clean something up. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a good idea. Ramwithaxe talk 22:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Improper reference

Resolved

 – but cleaning up references is an ongoing challenge with so many changes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

He excelled in computer science and economics courses, but not in a philosophy course.[65]

Reference 65 makes no mention of this coursework. 68.118.197.60 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source that details his college career: Adam Lanza Took Western Connecticut State University Courses When He Was 16. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the reference, it was there when it was first added , but then it was changed to a different refernce. GB fan 20:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tracking Lanza's movements

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.

---

This piece from the Hartford Courant does a pretty good job of providing details that track Lanza's movements during the actual murder spree: A Methodical Massacre: Horror And Heroics.

Perhaps we can include some of these details into this article. The current article offers many conclusions (e.g., this teacher was found dead in her classroom). But, it does not say how exactly the killer moved about and how the spree progressed. I think some additional details and a bit more of a chronology are warranted.

For example: one teacher (Soto) hid all her students in the closet; Lanza entered and asked, "where are the kids?"; the teacher lied (to deceive Lanza) and said that the kids were down the hall in the auditorium; some kids hidden in the closet became frightened and ran out of hiding; they all were shot dead; some kids remained hidden in the closet; they all survived.

A more detailed chronology than we currently have is needed. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Those would be extraordinary claims and would require multiple high quality RS to include.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A reference to that can definitely be added, but I don't think we need to spell out every step he took in the school; we can allude to some of the steps, but as an encyclopedia we can summarize these actions and let readers if they want to learn more follow the references. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see a need or a reason to "allude" to anything. The Columbine article follows the killers, step-by-step, minute-by-minute, through each of the fifteen separate murders (and suicides). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because other articles do it doesn't mean it needs to be done here; from reviewing the Columbine article, there's a lot more that was known that actually happened because we have surviving witness there, while in the classroom shootings here, there's little to go on beyond all the victims having multiple bullets. (Personally, I think the Columbine article goes into far too much detail for an encyclopedia and ought to be trimmed down). --MASEM (t) 20:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Two points: (1) I am not saying that we don't need reliable sources. And there are living witnesses to this event. Certainly, more will come out about their stories in the coming days and weeks. (2) Columbine was a "featured article". I assume that it went through some scrutiny and vetting process to achieve that status, regardless of your personal opinions on the article. Thus, as a "featured article" and on an essentially identical topic, it serves as a model or template of sorts. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It was promoted in 2005, but subsequently delisted in 2007, and in terms of FAC, that's "last generation" standards, with current FAC requiring more strict adherence. So using that as an example is not a good idea. Again, keep in mind we are a tertiary source, not the final source people should be looking. We can defer to references to fill in what we don't. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Masem, I couldn't agree more. The Columbine article isn't an article--it is an overcomplete listing of events with so much detail that it's almost illegible. This is not what an encyclopedia should do. A link to a detailed timeline is fine, but the article should be a summary. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP suggest using a Hartford Courant news article to construct a step-by-step timeline. Over the years I've read quite a few "after action" reports prepared by law enforcement agencies. They take months to create. They tend to be detailed in describing evidence but nearly always state that the exact order of events can't be determined. The Hartford Courant article appears to contain a fair amount of speculation in an attempt to "link the dots" between a few official law enforcement statements, a few more non-official law enforcement comments, statements by witnesses, and statements/comments by others. I would not trust this article as a reliable source for a "step by step" description of Adam Lanza movements.

One puzzle is the article starts out with "It was about 9:40 a.m. Friday." All other reports have put the calls to 911 closer to 9:30 or 9:35. Has there been a law enforcement press conference where they detailed the times and content of the calls to 911? These will be accurately time-stamped to the millisecond. One of the investigation's tasks will be to compare the school's master clock against current time. The odds are their clock was accurate to seconds, if not milliseconds.

Another puzzle is the article claims "During a search of Lanza's mother's home, police found her body in her bed. She had been shot twice in the head." Law enforcement statements had been consistent that she was shot four times in the head. Has the official statement been changed and all of the editors of this Wikipedia article missed this?

I believe "Two law enforcement sources said the hard drive had been removed from Lanza's computer and broken in pieces" is also speculation. The law enforcement statements that other media organizations reported were that the computer had been damaged and that the hard drive had been removed. When I read those articles I made the assumption that law enforcement had removed the hard drive for forensic analysis.

Thus, I'm concerned about the overall accuracy of this news article. I have no problems with constructing a timeline for the WP article but at present we have far too little reliable data to do it. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hence the problem. This is an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Toddst1 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if we wanted to, I believe that we do not have enough details at this time to construct a detailed timeline at the moment. However, I would like to point out that it appears that the hard drive was removed from the computer by Lanza, instead of by law enforcement. Super Goku V (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of how much detail the sources have claimed, or how reliable the sources are, at the end of the day, we are an encyclopedia. Our job is to summarize the events, presenting a concise series of facts backed by quality sources. We leave it to the reader to pursue these sources if they want more detail. Just because a great amount of detail is published by one of the sources, this doesn't mean we are best served by publishing it here. When an official chronology is published, summarizing and linking would likely be best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why does the Columbine article include a minute-by-minute chronology? And how was that was a featured article? And, by the way, the Columbine article (like many other Wikipedia articles) is hardly a "summary" of events. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is simple: WP:OSE. Toddst1 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Very weak argument. Yet, used as the reliable old "stand by" when someone has no real argument to put forth. LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well Mr. LOL, that was explained above. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Granted, this was two seperate conversations until just recently. So, have we officially decided to wait on this? Super Goku V (talk) 02:15, 18 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.

Parents and brother are all registered Republicans, according to public records

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.

---

According to public records in Fairfield County, CT Adam's parents and brother Ryan are all registered Republicans. I added this, but it was immediately removed. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NV Researcher (talk • contribs)

This is an old argument on articles of this type. We just don't need this detail on this article it has no relevence.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I can see the implied relevance (GOP tends favor of gun allowance) but that's such a weak argument that it strikes of POV. Best to keep it out. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Best to keep it out. -- Well, unless and until the point is being notably discussed in reliable sources. If and when that happens, we will of course appropriately include it. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "irrelevance": It matters very much who you ask. I can assure you there are many, many people who would find it highly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NV Researcher (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 December 2012

So what? This is an encyc project, not a talking heads us-vs.-them online politico "rag", anon ip.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you there are many, many people who would find it highly relevant. -- Are any of these people reliable, published sources? That's all we really care for, quality sources. Blogs et.al obviously don't count as reliable. If you can provide good sources which explicitly discuss the perpetrator's Republican registration (ie. not just mention it in passing), then we will of course duly include it. But barring that, their party registration remains just one of many trivia items with no verifiable connection to the incident. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No relevance whatsoever.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes relevant! I could have bet my arse on that they are republicans or even teaparty maniacs. We say here, the apple does not fall far from the tree. Please include this important fact. --91.6.71.29 (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've alerted an Admin that you are now violating WP:SOAPBOX. Stop now.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mind the boomerang. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Haven't seen one since I moved to the States from Oz.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok then. :) --87.79.230.214 (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We need reliable sources to verify the relevance of this information. Reliable sources which explicitly discuss it in connection with the incident, not just mention it in passing. If you have reliable sources, please point them out. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and we should cover their races, religions and national origins so that we can imply cause-effect relationships from those things as well. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are the only thing that matters. Right now there are none, and as a direct consequence inclusion of this is out of the question. As soon as there are reliable sources, we can and will discuss the addition of that information. I hope the same people who are now appropriately opposed to its addition based solely on the lack of reliable sources will then appropriately argue for inclusion with equal vigor, regardless of their own political views. Also, Sarcasm is really helpful. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No relevance. This article is about an event, and the persons involved in the event. The inclusion of the person's political affiliation is best left to a truly biographical entry rather than a non-political event in which the person was involved. Aneah|talk _to ^me 22:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Lanza family's politics are nobody's business and are totally irrelevant here. Any mention should be rv on sight. Would we mention if either Son of Sam or Ted Bundy was raised by Democratic parents?? We don't demonize people based on political party; this isn't Northern Ireland. Quis separabit? 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It all depends on reliable sources. That's all that matters. If reliable sources start discussing the party registration in connection with the incident, we will of course duly note it in the article.

Would we mention if either Son of Sam or Ted Bundy was raised by Democratic parents?? -- Yes of course, if reliable sources discuss it. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes--if they discuss it, not just mention it. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly like I already explicitly pointed out twice in this section (ie. the distinction between a source discussing an item and merely mentioning it in passing). Thanks for the unwarranted correction. You know, I'm an IP editor, but not a complete idiot as you appear to believe. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Rest assured, we won't be keeping in information on political parties here at this stage. There is no evidence presented in the sources that indicates political affiliation played a role, making the comment inflammatory. It doesn't matter how well sourced it is, the issue is relevance in an encyclopedia article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this is not relevant unless it becomes a big issue in the media. Coretheapple (talk) 22:45, 17 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.

Shooter photo

Please delete the photo on the page, it is Ryan Lanza, not the shooter Adam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thortrac (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That will need to be deleted through speedy or nom.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a G3 (missinformation) speedy delete tag on it.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been deleted. Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that that was indeed a photo of Adam, not of Ryan. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on this, does anyone know what the photo was sourced to? Ryan Vesey 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact site name, but it was to something that began "hollywood" (but not a reputable source like Hollywood Reporter). It screamed "gossip rag" to me. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I have seen that exact photo in lots of places, and it was always listed as Adam (not the brother Ryan). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather wait until we have confirmation from a very reliable source of who that is a photo of. If we are accidentally using Ryan's photo in place of Adam' that's a huge BLP problem right there. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. Can someone explain? Adam's photo has been plastered all over the place. So has the brother's, making to relatively easy to distinguish between the two. No? What part am I not understanding? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The concerns of WP:BLP dictate that we proceed cautiously. Let's work out the problem between sets of images linked here on the Talk Page by posting links and comparing, and then move an image to the article if and only if there is consensus that we're sure it's Adam Lanza. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT all the websites which claim that the photo depicts Adam Lanza so far are part of the gossosphere with its unique take on journalistic standards. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just Google "Adam Lanza photo". You will get a million hits. And, you will see the same four or five photographs of him, posted at many different sites. Surely, one of those is a reliable site. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a particular photo you saw when you did that search that you want to "nominate" for consideration? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is The New York Times, with photo: A Mother, a Gun Enthusiast and the First Victim. Is that not reliable? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not the photo that was deleted.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems reliable enough to me. What do other editors think? Is the photo worth including? AzureCitizen (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is another, also from The New York Times: A Gunman, Recalled as Intelligent and Shy, Who Left Few Footprints in Life. He appears older; this photo seems more current than the one I linked above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The first NT Times image is consistent with others I've seen. I've also seen versions of that photo in color and with the people to the left and right of Adam visible. It's from a high school yearbook. A casual scan of other shooter articles shows that they tend to include a photo of the shooter. The NYT image, or one of the color versions seems fine.

The photo that was uploaded to WP this morning and deleted was a cropped version of this image which I don't think has been used by reliable sources. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if that link changed but that is not the image that I added the G3 Speedy to.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The second NY Times article image (the yearbook one) seems both legit and appropriate to use. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The second one is the best one as it appears to be the most common image of Adam Lanza.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm the deletion to be properly done and no mistake was made, here is a reference that shows the image uploaded this morning was indeed Ryan, not Adam. [15]. Scroll down a bit to the two images of Ryan with the image description: "Implicated: There had been confusion over the identity of the gunman, Adam Lanza, as he was carrying identification with his brother's name, Ryan Lanza (pictured left and right)". The image uploaded this morning was the one on the right. --Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Natalie Hammond

On the list of those killed and wounded, it lists Natalie Hammond as the vice principal. However, according to the staff directory on the school's official website, and the following reliable sources, her title was lead teacher: New York Times, Danbury News-Times, and Huffington Post. In fact, the Danbury News-Times cite says, "Hammond, the recently promoted lead teacher at the school..." That is the local, major newspaper for the Newtown/Sandy Hook area. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm looking into it--your sources seem to confirm what you say. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. Put all the sources together and she has both positions; I've added one to the "victims" list where both are mentioned. Check to see if I did it right: I just looked at half a dozen or more references. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action on this. Since she recently got promoted to lead teacher, according to her local newspaper (and the school's website), it's odd that some sources are saying she was vice principal. I'll bet because of her role supervising all the teachers (which wasn't a classrom position), she was looked at as a vice principal. In any case, can you please add the Danbury cite next to her name since that's the area's major newspaper? To make it easy, I put the full/completed cite on the edit page so you can just copy and paste it into the article. Thanks! Here's the cite: --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. But it wasn't easy, you kneuw. Thanks for supplying the reference. I hope it's reliable. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks! And you're very welcome. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

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

---

I have removed the following from the reactions section:

The members of Westboro Baptist Church announced their intention to picket the funerals of the victims and praised the shooting as "God's judgment" on a wicked city. In response, the hacktivist group Anonymous hacked the church's website and posted contact information for all of its members. Also, numerous petitions appeared on the White House's We The People website urging the government to revoke Westboro's tax-exempt status and legally recognize it as a hate group rather than a church.

I have seen this come and go at least three times here and feel it is WP:POV info, thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything POV about it. What about it makes you feel that it is POV? Ryan Vesey 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose the inclusion on this article as lacking real relevence. It really isn't about the subject at all but their own opinion which is not encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Westboro is really a tiny little church. Adding anything on them here is certainly undue, particularly over a simple announcement. This is also routine for them, not notewothy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Church" is being generous - this is a little group of goofballs with a political agenda pretending to be a church - and they have no relevance in this article, agree completely. While Wiki cannot censor, etc. officially, in this case, in the name of common decency, this little clique of moronic maniacs should be excluded here, at least. Until one of them sets themselves on fire in demonstration over this incident (I'd love to see THAT!) or something along those lines, their actions are pointless and not notable.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not about their opinion, it's about the fact that they're picketing the funerals and the reaction to that. It might be that we should wait and include it in the aftermath section. Ryan Vesey 03:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Same reason we've been removing other statements like Huckabee's; the WBC is just another opinion in the larger picture. This news is perfectly fine on the WBC page, but not here when we're carefully avoiding POV at the current time. If the WBC protest happens and causes a major stir that influences the resolution of the crime, then maybe it can be included but right now, no. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

So the funerals are now about the shootings themselves? I don't think so and niether is the protest by WPC. This is something for the article on the WBC, not here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Comment I tend to agree with Ryan. Whether or not you agree with WBC, if we comment on it in a neutral way, I don't see how it violates WP:POV. The real concern, I think is notability. I am having trouble leaving my personal feelings on the matter out of this to make an informed judgment as to whether I feel it's notable, so I'll remain silent on that issue, but I don't think POV is an issue. Go Phightins! 03:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It is a minor factoid. It might be ok on the church article, but in the scope of this event, it is like a fart in a windstorm. It is a meaningless and typical gesture by them. I don't care about their message, the messenger is insignificant in this context. They do this all the time, it isn't notable to do it here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Condoning heinous acts of violence in the name of the Lord Almighty is reprehensible, in my opinion, but you are correct in saying that this is hardly out of the ordinary for them. We need not give them mention, at least at this point, on the article. I think at least waiting to see if they follow through on their threat would be prudent. Go Phightins! 03:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Addendum - The aforementioned comment is my personal opinion. As you can see, it is rather strong, and therefore, due to that opinion, I don't think I can objectively judge the threat's notability. To reiterate, I would defer to others. We need to make sure that this doesn't turn into a giant case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Go Phightins! 03:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to say Non-Notable info as well, in any case consensus has so far been against including it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose with the heat of a thousand burning hypergiant suns! Fringe, POV, not notable, not nice,...these are attention whores of the highest magnitude. They picket for the sole purpose of gaining publicity and nothing more. - MrX 03:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It would be odd if Westboro didn't appear or threaten to appear: this is their standard mode of provocation and sustainment, something they've done at every opportunity. Hell, they announced they were going to picket Andy Griffith's funeral. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If details of all the victims' funerals are included in this article as verified facts after they occur or

if news about all the victims' funerals are included in this article as verified announcements in advance of the actual funerals

but this announced supposed picketing from a group unassociated with the event in any meaningful way before the funerals is included in this article before the actual occurrence, it would seem to me to be shading towards WP:CRYSTAL...

In the past the Fred Phelps Cult has announced events of this ilk that then do not happen for one reason or another. Shearonink (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Did al-Quaeda release a statement approving the massacre? Is the Taliban announcing their intention to celebrate? The WBC is a group which is unworthy of inclusion. Skullers (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It is boring and predictable that WBC has jumped on the bandwagon. Unless there is major media coverage, it is not a noteworthy feature of the case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait until it happens. Then it deserves little more than a yawn. Until then, irrelevant. Shadowjams (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Shadowjam's comment. Unless something actually happens, it's just political yakkety-yak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• That the WBC would threaten to picket is repulsive but hardly surprising. Leave it out for now; if they actually cause a scene at any funerals, it will probably need to be included (but not before). LadyofShalott 15:15, 18 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.

Notability of Adam Lanza

I added Adam Lanza to the 'Notable alumni' section of Newtown High School (Connecticut), since he did graduate from there. Several IP users have removed it, saying he is not notable. The latest removal is by Sundevil35 (new user), with the edit summary Killing children does not make somebody notable. I checked WP:BIO, but can't find anything relating to notability guidelines for criminals. The first criteria (A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.) seems to be met, but I can't be sure. This is a bit too complicated for me.--Auric 03:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is probably best handled over on that article. I would bet that soon enough, most would agree to include, but it isn't worth an edit war right now. There is enough going on just trying to get facts straight. Patience, start a discussion in a week over there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice.--Auric 03:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Auric, what you were looking for is in the "Crime victims and perpetrators" section on that page. See WP:PERPETRATOR, which clearly explains (unfortunately) why Lanza is notable. I think there's no doubt that Lanza will have his own article when the time is right, just as the murderers in the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres do. Have you looked to see if other high-profile murderers are listed on the Notable Alumni lists for their schools? --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI... a notable person can be added to a Notable Alumni list for a school even if they did not graduate from that school. As long as they attended the school, they can be added. But, generally, if someone doesn't have their own article it's strongly advised not to add them unless/until they do. There are rare exceptions when someone is unquestionably notable but there's no article for them; be sure to include great reliable sources to prove it. But it still may be challenged. Also, you may be interested in reading the WP:ALMAMATER essay. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I just checked to see if the Columbine and Virginia Tech perpetrators are on the Notable Alumni lists for those schools. They are.[16][17] --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in many ways WP is a MEMORIAL, unfortunately. They got what they wanted, I suppose. Pardon me for removing those names: they aren't really necessary here, and I think Morgan Freeman had a point. <soapbox/>Drmies (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand why you removed the names, but remember... we need to be neutral (five pillars). And I put the names there so that when Auric (or anyone else) goes to those Notable Alumni lists I linked to, they'll know what names to look for. It's relevant content for this thread. So can you at least put their last names back. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, you should consider creating WP:Notorious, which is completely different than WP:Notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability includes both the famous and infamous (notorious). So there's no difference. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Killed list - Nancy Lanza

Resolved

Does "(shot at home)" really need to be included next to Nancy Lanza's name on the Killed list of names? Someone recently added that. It seems very odd. Shouldn't the list go back to being solely be for names/ages/positions? The article itself clearly explains where she was killed. Any thoughts? --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

See the thread Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Article about school shooting and listing mother as victim of this incident above. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it! - MrX 04:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's way too long to read. Haha. But I'm not saying she shouldn't be on the list. She absolutely should. I'm just asking if "(shot at home)" should be next to her name? It wasn't there until today I think. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR: The notation was added to address concerns that the inclusion of Nancy Lanza's name otherwise might be misinterpreted to mean that she was shot in the school. —David Levy 05:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, but it's a little odd. And the article clearly states where she was killed. Anyway, can you at least change it simply to "(at home)"? The "shot" part is unneeded; everyone was shot. The title of the box is Killed, so it would indicate she was killed "(at home)". I mean, if she were strangled, would we say "strangled at home"? Or if she were stabbed, "stabbed at home"? The article makes very clear that everyone was shot.

And while you're at it, can you add a space below Nancy Lanza's name. Because if you're going to group her with the other adults, then she should be in alpha order. So just add a space below her name so she's in her own section, and the school adults are in their own separate section; just like we split the adults from the children with a space. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And the article clearly states where she was killed.

I agree (and noted this in the aforementioned discussion), but the addition of a notation seems harmless enough.

I've performed the requested edits. —David Levy 06:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks nice now. And logical. ;) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Killed list order

Resolved

Also, shouldn't all the names be in alpha order, regardless of age or position? But if the adults and children are going to be grouped separately, shouldn't each group have a heading? And if Nancy Lanza is grouped with adults, why not just list her in alpha order with the other adults? Personally, I think all 27 killed should just be listed together, in alpha order. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. Since we list the ages, it's easy to see where the adults end and the children begin. I think there is a certain logic to the order, though it may not be ideal. - MrX 04:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if the adults and children are going to be grouped separately, can we at least put a space in between the last adult name and the first child's name? It would look so much better than cramming the two groups together with no headings (Adults, Children). Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a div to separate the adults from the children, to make it a little easier to read. - MrX 04:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it looks much better and cleaner. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

TMI

Well, it's happening, that which was warned for in an earlier section: an editor started adding information about everyone's experiences here, for instance. I have removed that section: in my opinion this is extraneous detail that functions as nothing more than to add everything, a clear and present danger since the media (for all the right reasons, I suppose) will start printing and airing those stories in days to come. But this is not encyclopedic content: the major events (and possibly the relevant timeline) of the shooting are to be included, not everyone else's experience, which would number in the hundreds. I urge editors to keep their eye on the prize: we are an encyclopedia, not the news, and we should include information that gives the reader the relevant information, not every eyewitnesses account. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We're going to have to be vigilant to make sure this doesn't become like the Columbine High School massacre article, which is absurdly overly detailed. - MrX 04:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully disagree. I'm going to find a WP:RS to document the fact that in 2010 the perp farted. It's obvious it caused the spree. I can't believe you fools can't understand that it needs to be in the lede. :) Toddst1 (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Fart. Not every fart is notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cite errors

FYI... there are two red citation errors in the References section. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's because of the citation style, with the references separately. If an editor removes text and a citation but not the reference, that's what you get. But it's past 11 Central Time, which means that soon the gnomes will come out to fix things. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone... I mean, a gnome fixed it a while ago. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Since someone created this, I would like to ask if it is possible to merge References [17] and [53], [54] and [55], and [65] and [114] since they appear to be the same reference in each individual case. Super Goku V (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This is easy but time consuming to do. Since you have noticed this perhaps you would like to attempt it. First, locate the first use of the reference. Substitute the <ref> with <ref name="name"> placing any single "name" within the quotes (I generally use the author's last name). Next, go to each use of the same reference and replace it with <ref name="name" /> (Using whatever "name" you have decided on.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We ought to also consider investigating the removal of sourced information, it should at least have an explanation. As an aside, people who run auto wiki browser or similar tools should be aware of rapidly changing articles, and perhaps avoid doing the nice reference consolidation that we normally find useful, for this reason. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone already got it, so thank you to them. Super Goku V (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Student" after each name should be removed

Resolved

I'm sorry but I don't like the recent addition of the word "student" after each child's name. We know that it is a school shooting and we can see that these victims, all grouped together, were all 6 and 7 years old. It doesn't provide facts, it obscures readability and it makes the encyclopaedia look fussy and obsessive, not professional; it is not only unnecessary but actively a hindrance to the article. Sorry, hate to be rude, but I really think it should be removed. I would do it myself but am on a wikibreak. Thanks and best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. I don't necessarily agree with listing the names of minor victims, however this appears to have been consented to, and if the national news reported it, then I think that point can be dealt with separately. I've undone the student designation. Shadowjams (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add "had" to second sentence in lead

The second sentence of the lead currently reads "He killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their nearby Newtown home before driving to the school." This is fine except that it seems to mess up the sequence; naturally it begins with the murders at the school, so then it has to jump back in time, while the sentences seem to flow forwards in time, to mention his mother next. If we change the second sentence to read "He had killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their nearby Newtown home before driving to the school." then it preserves both the structure and the narrative flow. Please consider making this change. Thanks and best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a note in the lede commented out that can only be seen when editing. Details about the timeline of the shooting should go into the section called "Shooting." The lede needs some work, but I am not sure we need to change that part, at least not without some discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and for explaining about the comment, which I have now read. What I am asking for is hardly a significant change; it is more in the nature of a minor correction, but yes, let's discuss it if you wish. I do not believe that it falls within what is meant by "details of the timeline" in that comment; it is more a question of just making the sentences flow better, like replacing a clumsy comma with a semicolon or similar. It is no more getting into the detail of the timeline than is the mere fact that the third sentence occurred after the first two. All I'm saying is that the logical flow of the sentences is currently made wrong by the accidental omission of that one word "had", and that to put it right you need to insert it where it should be. The lead currently says (1) he killed the children and teachers; (2) he killed his mother; (3) he killed himself. All I am asking is that you respect the logical flow of the sentences and make it clearly go: (1) he killed the children and teachers; (2) he had already killed his mother; (3) he killed himself. It is an extremely minor but necessary change. It makes more sense and works better; it is absolutely not a matter of detail in the timeline and is not within the scope of that comment. Thanks and best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you simply make a proposal for the prose here?--Amadscientist (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add the word "had" into the second sentence, as its new second word, between "He" and "killed". This sentence: "He killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their nearby Newtown home before driving to the school." would thereby become this: "He had killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their nearby Newtown home before driving to the school." Thanks and best wishes, 138.37.199.206 (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That appears to have been  Done--Amadscientist (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Identified by authorities as

I have reverted the deletion of this line as important to the fact that the supposed shooter is dead and will never go to trial. This does require some qualifier in the lede as essential information on how we know this. It isn't an accusation, he was identified by authorities. I believe this is in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If the shooter was identified by authorities as Lanza, then he is Lanza. Writing a qualifying statement makes as much sense as "a person identified as Barack Obama" made a speech. The identification only needs a rider if there is some doubt, which there clearly is not. WWGB (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

They did improperly identify him to begin with, and the investigation is still "ongoing", so I can understand the prudence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and eventually history (overall) will show the shooter as unquestionable. But three days afterwards and while we still have people uploading the wrong picture from incorrect reporting....seems we should keep it for the time being.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism!

Resolved

 – See archive links at top of page.

Who keeps vandalizing this page?! Entire sections have been deleted; not just mine. The whole "calls for gun control" vs "arming teachers" debate, for example. And the "mother was a survivalist" section.

Keep them out of the ARTICLE, fine, but not off the TALK page! That's just ridiculous. 67.150.80.242 (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism seems unlikely as there are so many people working on this who would not tolerate it, and is quite a strong charge to make. It may be that people felt that comments broke policies such as WP:NOTAFORUM, or maybe that comments got archived out or otherwise tidied up. If you can specify exactly a removal that you feel was vandalism then editors here can probably comment on it for you. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Separate article for Adam Peter Lanza

Resolved

 – Issue has been resolved elsewhere. Will be reviewed later, after the news cycle is more complete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

James Eagan Holmes has a separate article and there is a case for doing the same here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

And Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, Martin Bryant etc etc. Article protection is pointless and precious. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There is an administrator noticeboard consensus that bio articles likes this are premature, and may be created later, but particularly given the history of similar tragedies, we should not rush to create ancillary articles simply out of the desire to be the first one to create that page. Many of us have experience on Wikipedia during breaking news stories like this, and we begin to understand how these events unfold on wiki (I was the first one to create the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt, which was later merged into a much better article I didn't create.) Our articles should't stretch the loose definition we have of notability. In time, with less tumorous sources a biographical article will be created, but there are people who've had a lot more experience editing Wikipedia after tragedies than I have, and I think there's a collective wisdom here that we've learned from; jumping to be the first to make a bio is not the right response. Shadowjams (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, there's a heck of a lot of work trying to make sure this article on the shooting keeps a proper POV; an article on the shooter will be more than likely in the future but right now that doubles the work of keeping information appropriate. We have no deadline to get done right. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:PERP there should not be an article about him until the current news cycle is over, and it is established that he becomes a lasting notable figure. Additionally, there is plenty of evidence and commentary by reliable sources stating that many of the spree killers are copy cats, looking to die in infamy. We should not indulge them, and should not encourage the next incident. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I concur. There is a strong consensus to this based on previous situations. It very well may happen, but not this week. For now, a (protected) redirect of his name pointing to this article is adequate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

State police flipped on knowing motive because "hard drive destroyed"

The same state police spokespeople who said they had documentation showing a motive are now saying they may never know the motive because the hard drive was destroyed with a "screwdriver or a hammer." 67.41.200.185 (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/newtown-sandy-hook-adam-lanza-computer-destroyed/1776253/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.200.185 (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This should be added to the article. It is an interesting possibility that an exact motive for the shooting may never be known.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure on this one. I would be very surprised if they aren't able to recover most of the data from that disk, no matter how "destroyed" the blunt object made it. Disk forensics makes it very possible if you throw a little money at the problem, and surely they will, so there really is no way to know yet. If it were added, we would need to be careful to frame it as uncertainty, not "impossible", as that simply isn't factually correct or how it is framed in the source. It is yet one more "unknown" is all. A single sentence, carefully placed would seem to be adequate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is fairly easy to make a disk effectively impossible to recover. Whether Lanza did in this case we won't know for some time. I is curious, though, that the police first said they had "documentation showing a motive" and are now describing destruction by "a screwdriver or a hammer" - it should be detection 101 to determine which. This is the sort of stuff that conspiracy theories are made of. Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC).

If Lanza did damage the hard drive it is significant enough to mention. Whether any data will be recovered remains to be seen.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, I agree, just saying a simple, singular mention that doesn't dwell on "what if" is the way to do it for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Globalize template

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

---

I notice that certain editors keep on removing international responses to the attack, mentions by Xinhua etc. Some of them continue to try and shut down this debate by various means. (See above)

The coverage of this article is currently in violation of NPOV and does not represent a global viewpoint on the matter.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and would remove the template. I saw the earlier debate here on this and I support the current situation in which there is a summary line and a good link. I do not think we need to see line-by-line what Cameron or Merkel said. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 14:34, 18 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.

Killed list - include perpetrator?

Shouldn't Adam Lanza be included in the Killed list, with a "perpetrator" comment? Deven (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the victims list. He's definitely not a victim of his own shooting rampage. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I was listening to talk radio yesterday (just to see how the other half lives) and the mother was blamed--which would make him a victim of his own involuntary action. But that is pushing the point just a little bit, and I think this matter has been dealt with a few times already. I urge contributors to the talk page to consult the archives also. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as you bring it up. Which half is "the other half"? Just curious. No need to answer. The mother did buy the gun and should have been a better caretaker off it. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Coverage Rapid, And Often Wrong, In Tragedy's Early Hours"

A very worthwhile piece from NPR this morning. I really think this is mandatory reading/listening for editors here: let's not be like the Tweeters. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Like This is why we err on the side of not rushing to throw information in the article. Being an encyclopedia, we have the luxury of being more prudent, more cautious, thus more accurate. This is why we have closed some discussions and asked for patience. Must listen to material here, Dr. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, how did you get to be Dr. Dennis Brown?? Drmies (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Trinity College for life experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The story was excellent, I heard it on my commute this morning. If the an "aftermath" section develops, I think this would be a good addition, as the media feeding frenzy in this case was very notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

From the article: "It took writer Dave Cullen a decade to report and write an authoritative account of the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado." As an encyclopedia, we should strive to take our time and get it right. We can't assume that the tweeters, or obviously even the major news outlets, have it right in the minutes and hours after a crisis. We should not allow ourselves to participate in the shame that is naming the wrong person as a mass murderer. When the next awful thing happens - as it will - let us remember these lessons. LadyofShalott 15:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. For future reference there is also good stuff, along similar lines, in the NYT, Guardian, Poynter.org - and I'm sure many more to come. They're interesting/valuable in that they don't just say "the media were carp" but are rather more thoughtful about how to do it when things have changed so much. 138.37.199.206 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the guy from Buzzfeed was making a similar point, yes. Lady, that conversation with Cullen was very enlightening. In fact, I am a bit ashamed that I also rely on the now proven to be untrue myths about trenchcoats and bullying. I should read the book. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

myth about trenchcoats and bullying -- I bought that too, hook, line and sinker. The legend got printed, the more complex truth fell by the wayside, because people like myself didn't pay attention when the truth was finally printed. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Like We are the site that readers come to for current and CORRECT information. Not the fastest but, by our dilegent monitoring, the best. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Like This should be added as an external link to Wikipedia:Recentism. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In this spirit

The article currently includes the following:

He was also described by a former classmate as "one of the goths".

Maybe we should really weed out individual accounts of subjective perception like that. What does including that classmate's soundbite signify if not the exact same type of editorial carelessness bemoaned by Cullen?

But wait, it gets worse. The source article actually quotes the former classmate's mother:

Catherine Urso, of Newtown, said her college-age son knew the killer. "He just said he was very thin, very remote and was one of the goths," she said.

So this is a third-hand account of a subjective perception. And it is currently included in our attempt at an encyclopedic article because...? --213.196.212.146 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would agree this is very unnecessary information that is more speculation than fact, regardless of sourcing. It is hard to keep up with all of it. I would ask someone review this, as I'm trying to limit my participation to this talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

POV maintenance

Editor was warned against making personal and other accusations.

Certain editors are abusing their privileges on this page to try and maintain a single POV over certain issues. (Not even contentious ones). This should really be taken to a higher level. Instead of accusing me of being on a soapbox, or flogging a dead horse, or not accepting an outcome (when there was no proper debate) why are you doing this? What moral right do you have? --MacRùsgail (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC) If you have specific issues, present them. I have no idea what your actual complaint is since your complaint is too general. This isn't a debate anyway, and policy will take precedence over consensus when it is a BLP or similar violation. "Moral right" is irrelevant here, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not administer justice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Your phrasing of this question is remarkably like "When did you stop beating your wife?" I would suggest that that isn't a particularly effective way of convincing people to do things the way you'd like. LadyofShalott 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC) a single POV -- Yes, the neutral POV. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC) This appears to be related to me telling MacRusgail that rehashing the same arguments isn't constructive. Rejecting that, s/he's exploring another aspect of WP:TE. Toddst1 (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Not sure Wiki is a place to look for "moral rights" - it has policies, guidelines and consensus to follow. Sometimes you lose the argument. Deal with it. Otherwise it's getting into WP:IF IT'S NOT SCOTTISH, IT'S CRAP!HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

this is rapidly looking like it may have far reaching impact

The investment company that owns the manufacturer of the bushmaster rifle used inthe shooting has announced [18] that is is selling it off. Members of congress from both parties, even ones supported by the NRA, are now calling for a renewal of the assault weapons ban and other gun control measures [19]. This is probably not going to be remembered as "just another mass shooting". We should probably begin covering this aspect. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, when the RS's go that far we can, but we can't crystal ball at this point.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you both, that it will have an exceptionally great impact and we need a little more hindsight to bring it into focus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect we'll be seeing something equivalent to a "Sandy Hook Gun Control law" article shortly after Congress returns from its recess, which will be a suitable target for all the various specifics on statements and opinions that resulted from this tragedy. As it is now, the 3-4 sentences we do have in the Response section seems perfectly appropriate, no more no less, until we know exactly what will happen. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We know that Cerberus intends to sell the Freedom Group as a direct result of this incident, they make ha perfectly clear in their statement. Although NPR also noted [20] that they may have been getting pressure from one of their biggest clients. In that same story it is mentioned that Dick's Sporting Goods has announced they have stopped selling assault weapons. No speculation is needed for either of these items. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of facts that could be added, however, context is what makes it encyclopedic. I would imagine that soon enough, sources will be discussing this on the whole rather than piecemeal, which would make it easier to add the information without assuming too much in doing so. As I've done previously, I'm advising a cautious approach to adding material that will be rewritten 10x today and is highly incomplete at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not speculation that Cerberus is selling off the gun manufacturer or the like, but in light of everything else in the article, it is putting undue weight on one or two companies that have otherwise no direct connection to the incident or ongoing investigation. Once the broader picture on what impact this has, we'll know better where to classify that information but its too premature now to add here. (But feel free to add it at the respective company's articles, since that does affect them). --MASEM (t) 18:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I support including Cerberus' reaction. Cerberus said in their statement: "It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level". Cerberus is an enormous private equity firm, They are saying that owning a firearms company violates their "obligations to the investors whose interests we are entrusted to protect" in light of this incident. That seems to me to be an extraordinary statement about the effect that this event is having. It warrants a few sentences. GabrielF (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

this seems to be mainly a response to CALPERS and the California treasurer saying they were going to withdraw their 500 million dollars from any gun related investments. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/cerberus-to-sell-gunmaker-freedom-group/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/us-cerberus-freedomgroup-idUSBRE8BH08F20121218 Gaijin42 (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I just reverted some content based on this discussion and my own perspective that it is too early to add these types of impacts. By the same reasoning, the Dick's Sporting Goods material should probably be omitted as well. I don't want to dominate the article with reverts, so I thought I would check to see what others thought. - MrX 21:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I Support and see no harm in adding the bit about Dicks Sporting Goods and The investment company that owns the manufacturer of the bushmaster rifle, there is already a section in the reaction section that talks about guns and these things happening are notable reactions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

One reason against including this is that they are suspending sales during "this time of national mourning.", the implication being, that once we divert our attention back to American Idol they will feel free to start selling "modern sporting rifles" again. I can't hardly imagine a more transparently self-servicing public statement. - MrX 21:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with just about everything that's been said above. I will say that we keep all these types of comments in a sandbox somewhere so we don't lose any of them, and when the time comes, if they prove notable, such as this one likely will, we can easily add them. Go Phightins! 21:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • A major sporting goods retail chain suspending sales of guns and having this be covered in alot of sources looks notable to me, I didnt hear about anything like this when it came to Virginia Tech. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think some of these impacts will be included, but they need to be evaluated on their respective significances. I'm sure there will be many other companies that clamor to distance themselves from this tragedy in next several days. We should wait, and ensure that we only include the most important (and notable) of them. - MrX 21:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with this for small companies and groups but Dick's is a large nationwide chain, we can always just as easily remove things later down the road as the article will need trimming in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

On Dicks, I think its important to clarify that they are not stopping sales going forward, just suspending them "during a time of mourning". that is a much lesser reaction than a change in policy going forward (which of course, this could turn out to be in the end, - but we dont have a WP:CRYSTAL ball. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin makes the point that if we start including every new sound bite and news blurp we also have to manage them... and consider the (in this case coporate) motives behind them. We need to maintain clarity of the article 24/7. Not put in stuff because we have the capacity to takt it out an hour later. What about the readers that come during that hour? The fewer flimsy leads we include the closer to the basic incident information gathering we will be. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• All of this ambiguity just proves my point, we aren't even sure of the actual facts of these facts. "we are going to stop selling guns for a few days" is questionable as to the notability of the statement, for example. We have some facts, questionable ones, and too little context. "Interesting" isn't the sole criteria here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've taken out the statement from Dicks given that the length of the ban of sales appears not be permanent. The NRA response is appropriate, however, and I've left that in. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

college (redux)

Resolved

Three concerns about the following sentence (see prior discussion):

He excelled in a computer class and an economics course, but not in a philosophy course.[108][109]

1. The Courant source is apparently stale as it no longer says anything about Lanza's grades.
2. The HP source says that Lanza got a B in macroeconomics. That's a decent grade but you can't say he "excelled."
3. The HP source says he got an A- in American history, not sure why that's not mentioned.
4. This source says he didn't do well in German (see previous discussion).

Based on the above I propose removing this sentence entirely. It seems silly to dissect his entire college transcript. But at the very least if we do include it we should describe it in a balanced way instead of engaging in arbitrary cherry picking. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gut it. Completely irrelevant trivia, trying to flesh out a pseudo-biography. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. I don't see how it helps our readers to know what grade he got in German class. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Way too early to tell, but there's a reference in there somewhere. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 19 does not seem related to the sentence it follows.

Resolved

Footnote 19 does not seem related to the sentence it follows.

199.249.185.126 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC) LAS14

Which sentence, which source? Reference numbering shifts constantly as sources are being added and removed. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

199.249.185.126 was correct, that footnote did not refer to a source that describes Lanza shooting his way through the glass, so I swapped it out with an appropriate source. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Which sentence, which source? --87.78.22.14 (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Partisan divide and gun ownership

Close: WP:COATRACK is invoked, and this ain't going to happen for POV reasons, for starters.

NV Researcher (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)See today's NYT Five-Thirty-Eight article: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/?hp Given this, is it not relevant that Nancy Lanza, the owner of the guns that were used to murder her and the children and their teachers, was a registered Republican? Unlike her husband and son Ryan -- also registered Republicans -- she is no longer a living person, so perhaps the taboo on mentioning their party affiliation does not apply to her? NV Researcher (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC) We're not the news, and I don't see why this detail is important. There's a million other details one could add. I think I know where this might lead to--hypothesis has no place in our articles, and merely mentioning facts "so the reader can draw his own conclusions" is usually a poorly veiled way of POV pushing. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC) This tragedy has nothing to do with politics. Also, almost half of surveyed Republicans did not own guns. It is irrelevant to this particular article, and has the appearance of a WP:COATRACK. 72Dino (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - alternative school name

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.

---

Please include content in the lede that indicates the school's alternative name, Sandy Hook School. I acknowledge that Sandy Hook Elementary School must be in the article title, per WP:COMMONNAME, since it is the the predominant usage of the school name in reliable sources. However, Treatment of alternative names makes very clear that when an article title includes a name, "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". Please not that it says "should be", not "can be". Not only is Sandy Hook School the actual school name (see this document from the school district's official website), it has also been used in many mainstream, reliable sources. Here are just a few of them: [21][22][23][24][25][26] [27][28] There are many more. The school's website also clearly shows the usage of Sandy Hook School many times, including in the principal's message and on the staff directory page, which also includes many of the teachers' individual web pages (click on the "My Website" button next to each teacher's name). You'll see that most teachers who refer to the school's name say Sandy Hook School or the abbreviation SHS (not SHES). Again, I fully realize and accept that Sandy Hook Elementary School is the most common usage in reliable sources, which is why I am not asking for the article title to be changed. I simply am requesting that the alternative name, Sandy Hook School, be mentioned in the first sentence or first paragraph of the lede, per Treatment of alternative names. Thank you. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph" -- The topic is the shooting, not the school, so imho it would be completely overblown to explicitly mention a shortened variant of the school's name, much less in the lead. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a shortened variant; it's the actual name of the school and one being used in many reliable sources. And the policy refers to an article title that includes a name. This article title includes a name. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the policy refers to "significant alternative names for the topic" (emphasis added). As noted above, the article's topic is the killings, not the school at which most occurred.

Your assertion that "it's the actual name of the school" is based upon carefully cherry-picked evidence, as noted in the previous discussion. —David Levy 19:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no additional value in the second name. Its virtually identical. That policy is for there are significant stage names, or non-obvious nick names. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The policy in no way states it applies only for "significant stage names, or non-obvious nick names". That is totally your subjective interpretation. In fact, Treatment of alternative names actually says, "These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text" (my bolding added). --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is no to your proposal. Accept consensus and move on. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

First, please act in a civil manner. Second, you are not the ruler of this or any other thread. Third, discussion among four editors for less than one hour in no way constitutes consensus. This is an edit request and the closing editor merely stated their opinion by closing it. My request was clearly made in good faith with applicable sourcing. So your rudeness is out of line. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:43, 18 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.

Newtown elementary school lockdown

From the AP: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=8920819&cmp=fb-wpvi-article-8920819 Coasterghost (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• An odd quote in there "School officials said the lockdown was normal procedure because some threats were predicted by police." Predicted? Information is very, very incomplete at this stage, to say the least. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Either way--WP:NOT#NEWS. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Someone needs to remove the "http://articles.latimes.com/2005" material that an editor added. He just came off block, and I've blocked him for one week for the same edits. I think Drmies blocked him the first time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, predicted. The police predicted (assumed) that threats like this would happen. It's very common following tragedies like this. But as Drmies so wisely pointed out, this is not a newspaper. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You're absolutely right in buttering me up--thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Very awkward wording, you usually expect better from the press. Well, maybe not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
        • That's right--maybe not. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Haha, you're welcome. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

2nd Amendment

I removed this, as it seemed to be tangential to the article subject (shooting) and also a little soapboxish:

Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles, stated that legislative proposals proposed in the wake of the Newtown shootings are not barred by the U.S. Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller ruling regarding the Second Amentment rights to keep and bear arms. He noted that proposals like better background checks, enhanced mental health reporting and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips are compatible with the ruling.

Do we think this is beneficial? - MrX 21:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I support its removal. Perhaps this could be added if there is legislative action, but again, we're just not there yet. Go Phightins! 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate only in the context of a larger aftermath section/article, which at this point I believe consensus says we should not have yet. Further, I think it would require some content about what proposed bans/restrictions were in order to be a legitimate response to something. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This incident will have far ranging impact and create many off-shoot articles. This is a candidate for one of those articles. Let's not incude it here. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Early mention of wounded

This article is about the shootings, not the killings - then why no mention of the two wounded in the opening sentence? Could we insert "and wounded two others" after "six adult staff members"? I have tried and I am shown an edit conflict. Perhaps I am too much of a newbie to understand, but I am an autoconfirmed user (or so I think!) Mikevpol (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicts are system errors - too many write-requests at the same time on the same data.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)