Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Bulletproof Vest?

The article says the shooter had a bulletproof vest, but neither of the sources cited state that. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.158.81.152 (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's on page 2 of ABC News: "He was also wearing a bulletproof vest."Samvnkauffman (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

New editor repeatedly adding "Obama's Fake Tears" material

We have a brand new editor who had added:

"Media response to his [Obama] tears was generally favourable but not unanimous; his performance was also branded a “staged homage to the young victims” and his crying as “fake tears”."source

The source seems questionable and the content is inflammatory. As far as that goes, Obama's tearful expressions are not really worthy of inclusion either, in my opinion. - MrX 23:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement goes against WP:POV even if it is sourced (poorly I might add). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Iranian (.ir) garbage, to be disposed of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugs caught on to the same detail that I just noticed. Its a specious source at best in addition to the comment being inflammatory. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, though, do we need to mention the tears at all? It seems like a pretty irrelevant detail, all things considered. --Conti|✉ 23:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree that the tears could easily come out anyway; but certainly this "news" story should absolutely not be included at any price. "Questionable" is a very restrained way of describing this source. DBaK (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

More fake tears?

I came to this Wikipedia article and discussion hoping to find some better information relating to the apparent press statement from one of the parents, and the allegations of it being a fake (reference). The behaviour in that video is surely odd, and I think it needs to be addressed. Is anyone here able to investigate this and determine if it is in fact a parent, and any more of the backstory? Leighblackall (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A blog? Wiki's not the place for this. It's off-topic and begs Original Research. Try a news forum or a blog to vent your inner spleen.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

yeah, sorry mate, the link should have been to the video rather than the blog. I'm hoping this talk thread will monitor this bit of info, and help determine if it is notable or not. Leighblackall (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

WP uses reliable sources and we don't include original research. Until this is commentated or becomes an issue in the reliable sources, then this is to not be included here. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood, and know that well. But by "here" do you mean, here in the talk page? That would be a new policy I'm not aware of. Leighblackall (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This is really WP:FORUM territory, and that covers the Talk Pages. Nobody will follow this matter for this article - it's completely off-topic, and can never be proven anyway.HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter which they meant. infowars is not ever going to be an appropriate place to get anything of any kind for anything on Wikipedia. If you can't find a reliable source that covers this issue there is no point to even discussing it. 23:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC) (I didn't reference Infowars - but a blog that did, and I meant to reference the Youtube video Leighblackall (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC))

The Youtube video uploaded by Bebo Reed was used 6 days ago in the Huffington Post's article by Bridget Murphy Robbie Parker Recalls 6-Year Old Daughter, Newtown Shooting Victim Emilie Parker. The Youtube copy is a handheld screen recording of a broadcast from CNN's The Situation Room. As yet, I can't find any credible confirmation as to whether or not this was the father, or the product of unethical media production. I don't plan on investigating this further, but I hope more capable people than I are at least monitoring it Leighblackall (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, after some consideration I thought that Robbie Parker's statement to the press was notable enough to include in the Reactions section - not for the speculation on the tears, but for the content of the statement. Robbie Parker's statement showed a remarkable capacity for forgiveness. It seemed particularly pertinent in relation to the quote currently included from the statement by Adam Lanza's father, and the absence of statements from victims in the section seems an oversight. However, the quote was deleted citing Robbie Parker as not being notable, and that it offered no meaningful understanding to the subject. Thoughts? Leighblackall (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In my view, an expression of sympathy does not add value to an encyclopedia article, unless it emanates from someone very notable. The quote, "I can't imagine how hard this experience must be for you, and I want you to know that our family and our love and our support goes out to you as well.", while very heartwarming, is predictable, banal and utterly lacking in substance. - MrX 21:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I can see your point, that the statement isn't very informative. But couldn't the same be said for the quote from Adam Lanza's father, just preceding the quote I added from Robbie Parker? Further, isn't it relevant in the section called 'Reactions', and notable for being a statement from a victim's parent, or as notable as Adam Lanza's father at least? Leighblackall (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

User adding material that Consensus was to leave out.

I reverted once, but the ed. added it back. User: Chakakong.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Where has consensus been reached that we can't mention that his father worked for GE Financial? That's common knowledge. Where has consensus been reached that we can't mention that he was on medication? I'm not seeing that. ChakaKong^talk 17:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Details about the father's life violate BLP etc. There's nothing yet confirmed on what/if Adam Lanza was taking medication. This article has many items on the TP and it is useful to read through it (and its archives). Many things have been reported in the media that have turned out to be in error, before anything official has been released.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, there is no BLP violation. Every major media source on the planet has confirmed it. We are responsible for properly sourcing our additions, and this has been done. If those sources later turn out to be wrong, that's something we then deal with. The sources are reliable. Start a talk page discussion if you feel the need. ChakaKong^talk 17:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

They've reported it, they haven't confirmed it.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We already have, and these issues have been beaten to death and agreed on via Consensus. PLEASE read thru the TP and archives.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not happy about this material. The question of medication has been rejected as unsuitable unless it has strong sourcing, while the part about his mother planning to commit him also looks too speculative from the sourcing. Thoughts from other editors, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The sub-article on P.Lanza was declared D.O.A. and we've already agreed where he's employed is not germane to the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is in the archives. What does his father's job have to do with the shooting? Nothing, it adds nothing to the article of importance. We would need impeccable sources to include the medication, and a friend of the family and an unnamed police source is not an impeccable source. GB fan 17:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont care for looking through the archives as I agree here that adding the info in is not important to the article, its like saying here we have this mass shooting where 26 people died and oh btw.... the father of the killer worked at GE Financial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Kkid on this one. Having a mention and connection to GE Financial in the article might be verifiable, but seems irrelevant. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's relevant because it fills out Adam Lanza's social background. He came from a wealthy, privileged family. His mother had no financial stress. Even with all those resources, his parents couldn't help him or prevent the shooting.

More important, it's relevant under WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. If multiple WP:RSs report it, we are required by those Wikipedia rules to put it in the article. WP:NPOV even overrides consensus. --Nbauman (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No. We as editors determine what is NPOV & WEIGHT together. Right now, Consensus says 'no.' And your logic escapes me on the financial standpoint. It's also drawing a conclusion. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hardly. It's basic background information, it's barely a few words, and it's certainly been reported on by numerous reliable sources. It's hardly controversial information anyway. Basic background is common for these sorts of articles. The objection to its insertion seems strange; there's certainly no tremendous weight of consensus otherwise as HammerFilm suggests. Shadowjams (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the incident. There is a Perpetrator section to provide background on that person who OF COURSE is relevant to the article, but I fail to see how this extends to the family of the perpetrator even as "basic background information". Are we now using this article as a Sandbox for information that belongs in a future article specifically about Adam Lanza? I say future because the creation of a separate article has been locked for now. The link points to the Perpetrator section, even an unlocked redirect page is not allowed currently.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You're making it sound like it's a BLP on the family. It's clearly not. Some basic background on the subjects involved in any incident is standard journalistic material, and there's no reason it doesn't similarly belong in an encyclopedia article. So we're all clear here, you're all spewing mountains of text at the idea that the father's profession (uncontroversial, well referenced) shouldn't be mentioned. I'm ok with a few of Hammer's other removals, like the parent's wedding, etc.... but you guys are going too far with your zealousness to remove things. And you're misciting policy on that point.

Also, Hammer, quit putting "per consensus" in your edit summaries when there's almost no instance of consensus, or really debate, on some of those points. You're taking a lot of liberties with that phrase; it feels more like a conclusion.

I hope we don't have to get overly formal over what are ultimately very small points. I understand trying to stop BLP creep into the article, but some of these removals have gotten overly sensitive. Allow a little more give and take than what you're giving. I'm all the more surprised that there's battle over these, relatively uncontroversial points. Shadowjams (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone has modified my comment above. I don't have the time to figure out the exact edit right now, but that is completely unacceptable. One cannot insert edit comments into someone else's comments like this. Shadowjams (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It was this edit by Hammer.... that's completely unacceptable. I've removed it. Put your responses below, as is common practice. Don't insert in the middle of talk page comments. This is ridiculous. You should certainly know better. Shadowjams (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

HammerFilmFan said, "We as editors determine what is NPOV & WEIGHT together." That's incorrect.

According to WP:NPOV, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.... The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT are determined by a fact or view being reported in multiple WP:RSs. That overrides consensus (if there is a consensus). --Nbauman (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. What guidelines do you think editors site during consensus discussions? One person's interpretation of NPOV may be radically different from another's. Good Lord, look at the years of strong arguments on almost any Wiki article's Talk Pages about NPOV statements. May I suggest any article concerning the Balkans' recent history?  :-) Anyway, right now, it's a no-go.02:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors may be arguing, but Wikipedia has a reasonably objective standard of WP:NPOV that says we should include "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." There is no dispute that the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other major newspapers are reliable sources. There is no dispute that views that are repeated by multiple WP:RSs are significant views.

Those "strong arguments" are usually between people who want to follow WP rules, and people who want to follow their own personal preferences in violation of WP rules. In this case, there are people who want to include the fact that Lanza's father worked for GE, because it was regularly cited in articles about the incident by many WP:RSs. There are people who are deleting it for reasons that amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's important to understand that a Wikipedia article is not a personal essay; it's a collaborative effort that follows certain rules. Lanza's father worked for GE. That has been published by multiple reliable sources. For that reason it must go in the article. --Nbauman (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You do not know what you are talking about. Nothing must go into the article and the sooner you realize this the better. You seem to be greatly confused about the underlying priciple of NPOV. The idea is that the article be presented in a neutral tone with respect to the sources. You seem to be under the misbelief that NPOV means that we must present all that is in Reliable Sources in a manner equal to their weight across RS's. That Ryan's father works for GE has nothing to do with the article. Arzel (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree (but without malice) that you seem confused on NPOV in this context, Nbauman - editors understand the NPOV guideline very well, but there can be serious disagreement over A POINT (not the policy) in talk page discussions that have nothing to do with "I don't like it," et al.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Again, the article is about the incident and prudently includes background information about the perpetrator as significant and relevant facts in the context of the article. Furthermore, just because something is verifiable does not mean it belongs in the article. As Arzel correctly states, "Nothing must go into the article...". Lastly, trying to justify its inclusions with a claim that a single detail such as the father's workplace "fills out Adam Lanza's social background. He came from a wealthy, privileged family. His mother had no financial stress. Even with all those resources, his parents couldn't help him or prevent the shooting." is ludicrous.
• Mentioning the father's workplace is already pointless, inclusion of this piece of detail with an agenda is a clear violation of WP:NPOV regardless of how verifiable it is.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling that "NPOV" is absurd. What exactly is the agenda? There's one person that seems to have put forward some "unprventable" justification as a reasoning, but that's hardly the reason you'd include something like this. You'd include something like this because it's basic background information, just as are the names of the people involved, where they lived, and the name of the events in question. The refrain of "consensus" rings hollow when, from what I am seeing here, there are two editors just claiming that without ever demonstrating it. Shadowjams (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Victoria Leigh Soto

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Victoria Leigh Soto. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles on the victims

From this above DRV, there are arguments that the victims (at least Soto, possibly more) should have stand-alone articles as notable victims of a notable crime. First, I will argue that we are still far too close to the event to determine if any of the victims or the shooter himself are notable. Further, I would argue that at this point, there's really no need to separate out the victims if all there is reported is a life bio and their role in the event. Perhaps there will be a law named after a victim, which would suggest a possibility for an article on that victim. But realistically, if we are simply creating an article for their tragic deaths, that's pretty much a violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Motivation

Are thre any sources that have any insight about the motivation/reason/cause for the shooting? Even if not, that should be stated. Ouizardus (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No official announcement from the investigators yet. So no one knows, and until some sort of real information is released, we need to wait. Talking heads who never met the killer, and are not privy to the evidence of the investigative team, are just op-ed fodder.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion below. This section: Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Is anything known about what made him to do this?. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article info box used to say "motive, unknown". It was removed, but I just put it back in. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm not a regular editor, but I noticed the following claim, and I can't just ignore it ...

"After realizing that he had been spotted by a police officer who had entered the building, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head"

How on earth can anyone claim to know what Lanza "realized" at that moment?

Since the article already mentions Obama, it should also mention that his daughters' school has 11 armed guards.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

Gh82xc56 (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with this story. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the source has an obvious POV. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

to me addition would be a stretch and takes the narrative towards a ProGun POV which violates WP:NPOV. Not that the article hasn't gone the other way already. I'm sure these facts have a place somewhere but alas, I don't think it's in this article. The source is fine, sometimes Breitbart breaks news and we should not ignore but we should at the same time not play into anybody's narrative, ProGun or AntiGun. Sorry, Gh82xc56 just trying to be dispassionate about this topic. I say let's stick to facts that are directly related to this article, Obama's personal security for his children while eye opening, is not relevant to this. --Justanonymous (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Come off the grass. There's nothing eye opening about Obama's children being protected by armed guards. And that source. Have you read it? Please explain how "Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control..." is not blatantly biased in one direction on this debate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I just didn't know there were 11guards, I always though 2 or 3. It's a biased article for sure, I wouldn't use it as RS. Doesn't mean it's not factual. I did agree not to include here. Lets assume good faith and foster a positive editing environment. --Justanonymous (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the three other comments so far. If a reliable source comments on this perhaps it might be appropriate in an article about US gun control, attitudes to it, etc; but for this article I feel it is wholly inappropriate. We cannot make it an article about every aspect of the gun control debate: we need to stick to the topic. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with HiLo48 and Justanonymous above. The addition of this content would give it WP:undue weight for this article. Quoting from the policy, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The subject of this article is the Sandy Hook shootings, not Gun control in the United States, and certainly the number of Secret Service bodyguards assigned to Obama's daughters is not a significant aspect of the Sandy Hook shootings. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A statement like that, in this context would obvious be WP:UNDUE, and while there might be some context where this statement is relevant, this isn't it. It's obviously pandering to a POV. Shadowjams (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Defenders

The infobox template for these types of incidents has a tag for defenders. In this case, there is ample evidence that several teachers and administrators engaged in the act of defense: principal, counselor, Ms Soto among others. Albeit, they were unarmed and their efforts were only partially successful, these people should be recognized factually for the role they played in this incident. Can we list them in the infobox where WP:RS supports? I hesitate to be bold here given the strong passion exhibited for the topic matter, can we reach consensus here on direction on this? --Justanonymous (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. I looked into some examples of how the template's been used on other articles. Of those that I looked at, that tag has been rarely used, e.g. 2001 shoe bomb plot, where it's well known that some passengers tackled the perpetrator. In fact, I've looked at over 50 transclusions of that template and only one of those has used the defenders tag: Hadassah medical convoy massacre. My instinct is that this overwhelmingly suggests, despite the obvious heroism of people who either fought back, or protected others, that's not the meaning of the defenders tag. To add it here would be inconsistent with almost every other use of the template. In the Hadassah article, the tag is used because they were an armed militia who was attacked deliberately. Responders, which exist in many of these other examples, are not included with the defenders tag.

I think there may be a worthy discussion about clarifying that tag, but it's a really complicated issue so it should probably be broached at the template. Shadowjams (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a complex issue and the infobox template left a place for defenders. The definition for the tag is quite clear dfens – Those who defended or repelled the attack, or were responsible for the immediate aftermath. The fact that other articles haven't used it does not say much and might speak to a cultural issue on the Wiki of making these attacks solely about victims and murderers, which definitely is not what was intended when the infobox was built. This was most certainly a grave calamity but it's somewhat sad that societally we would elevate the murderer to the infobox but leave out the first responders and heros. This is their story as well and they deserve equal weight. We need to fix the cultural bias towards the murderers here - this story is also about heros. I hope some others here will also see it that way and I hope we can correct this gross omission from the infobox which has a place for the defenders & first responders explicitly. --Justanonymous (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Is anything known about what made him to do this?

WHY? I guess this word is the one that is the loudest sounding in one's mind. Is there still no answer to this question? --91.6.84.235 (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The authorities investigating the case have not released anything, and likely will take their careful time to get a proper explanation as best they can. There's a lot of press speculation going around but we can't include that until we have that investigation's conclusions to start. --MASEM (t) 07:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Motivation above. At the moment, the article does not give any motive for the shooting, because most of the theories involve a high level of hearsay and are too speculative. One interesting possibility is that an exact motive for the shooting may never be known, but investigators may find evidence which points to a cause.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Another maybe even more interesting (and shocking) possibility is that an exact motive for the shooting may already be known but for some reasons never will be published, maybe because the motive would be too dangerous for the "social peace" in USA and would cause social or ethnic unrest. Maybe his motivation was like the one of Anders Breivik or Timothy McVeigh. Or he was fighting the matriarchy* in western nations and especially in the USA? Of course our leaders would be reluctant to tell us this as this would mean to admit there is such a problem - manifesting in such terror. --91.6.84.235 (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• All seven adults killed were women and the majority of the killed kids were girls.

Please conspiracy theory bullshit elsewhere. Shadowjams (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Here you go: https://www.google.de/#hREMOVED - 91.6.84.235(talk)

Sorry, anon IP, but as Shadowjams VERY CORRECTLY stated, the talk pages are not a place for crap like that, so I removed your link as a violation of Talk Page WP:FORUM. This is an encyc project not a tabloid.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

My Google-link, which you destroyed, showed that police has "very good evidence" about the motive, I even cited Foxnews (deleted by you) - what else am I supposed to deliver? --91.6.84.235 (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

uh-huh, didn't you also try to go over this same ground earlier under another header on the Talk Pages? It was stated then by many editors that this line of sourcing isn't acceptableHammerFilmFan (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I posted this on December 18. Be on the look out. The latest claim is that Adam "snapped" because he learned that his mother was about to commit him to a psych ward. See: School gunman Adam Lanza may have snapped over fears mother was going to send him to psychiatric facility. If/when it gets reported by reliable sources, it offers good information on "motive" for this article. Also, there is some info in there about Adam resenting the school kids because his mom "loved them more than she loved him", evidenced (in his mind, at least) by the fact that she was about to commit him. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I also read that the kids who were killed were all in first grade; so, they were all in kindergarten last year. And, last year, Lanza's mother volunteered/worked with the kindergarteners. Adam hated these kids (targeted them) because his mother loved them more than she loved him. That's what I read. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You say "That's what I read". You don't tell us where. You also say "If/when it gets reported by reliable sources..." Without a reliable source it seems like potentially dangerous speculation. We should not be speculating here without a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. 1. Yes, that is what I read. I don't have the source in front of me at this exact moment. Nonetheless, I read it. I will find the source when I have free time. 2. I am the one who stated that we need reliable sources, as you can see from my post. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The school has confirmed that the killer's mother had no contact with the school as an employee or volunteer, so that part of the "claim" is definitely junk.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is true. The school confirmed that she did not work there as an employee. Nor was she a substitute teacher. There are conflicting reports about whether or not she volunteered there. One who "volunteers" their free time (i.e., they are not on the payroll) may not necessarily be "registered" with – or even known to – the school district office. There are also conflicting reports that state that the mother was friendly with the school principal and another one of the adult victims (the psychologist, perhaps?). I don't have the time to find these sources at this exact moment. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

See this link: Shooter's Mother Was Not on Staff at Sandy Hook: Supt. It says: It does not appear that Nancy Lanza, mother of the apparent shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, was a staff member at the school, despite earlier reports. Newtown Supt. Janet Robinson told NBC Connecticut’s Jo Ling Kent on Saturday that there is no record of Lanza in the school database. "Mrs. Lanza, who I have never met, was not a teacher in the district," Robinson said. "She's not in our database as a staff member." She might have been a substitute teacher or volunteer at the school, but that is not clear. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should censor 91.6.84.235's contributions to the forum and assume bad faith on his part. If we don't want to agree with it that's fine. If we don't find support for his thinking that's fine. If his WP:RS isn't strong then let's not include. However, to procedurally block him/her from expressing something that might be of value goes against what I think Wikipedia is all about. Policies and Procedures in Wikipedia should not be wielded like swords for censorship. We should be very cautious in silencing the minority, they are very vulnerable precisely because they are in the minority. I say let 91.6.84.235 put his link in here for me and everybody else to review. Personally, I haven't read any significant conspiracy theories that have merit here. There was some ambiguity about which weapons were used early on but Occam's razor says that was probably just the fog of war in the situation. Let the esteemed contributor 91.6.84.235 post in the forum please.--Justanonymous (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that genuine links should be allowed to be listed here, no matter what they say, but 91...'s link was just to the multiple results of a Google search, from which he seemed to draw his conclusions. That was a little too close to original research and pure speculation. HiLo48 (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I wasn't afforded the opportunity to review that content. I have to trust the original research analysis performed by editors who deemed 91.6.84.235's content unacceptable for even a talk page on a very complex article. I say, let him post his supposed irrelevant content and let me see what I see first hand. If there's no merit, we'll ignore. Let's assume good faith on the part of the researcher. --Justanonymous (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

@HiLo48, I not only posted the Google link but also a Foxnews link from the Google result - and I even cited from the Foxnews link, showing that the police does in fact have evidences about the motive. This fact is not speculative as it is said by a police officer during an inteview. It would be fine with me if we could include this fact into the article, the fact that the police does not publish its evidence it has about the motive. --91.6.84.235 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have heard Lt Vance of the Connecticut state police state that their search has produced solid evidence contributing towards the motive, a 15 second search on google should return that WP:RS. However, the police have not been forthcoming on the exact nature of the evidence or the motive (unless that has changed in the last few days). I vehemently do not think Wikipedia should engage in extrapolating a motive, we're not here to "guess" at what happened or to put forth hypothesis, we're here to document "what" happened. Unfortunately, because someone censored the esteemed editors 91.6.84.235's comment, I have no idea what s/he was getting at, what parts of the argument have merit etc.--Justanonymous (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have heard flip flopping on this issue: the CT State Police have a motive; followed by no, they don't. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I see this uncertainty (flip flopping) as being typical in complex cases like this where evidence branches out and some branches don't yield anything. We should not interpret as an automatic conspiracy. The facts will come out, but it might take some time.--Justanonymous (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that investigators have told the media constitutes a motive, and the claim about his mother's link to the school has been the subject of contradictory sourcing. The claim that Lanza's mother was planning to commit him also lacks solid sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care what the motive is beyond the facts - which we don't have related to the motive beyond conjecture. When the motive surfaces from a WP:RS, we should add it. Until then, conjecture on motive is not germane to the article.--Justanonymous (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Lanza's motive

In the info box, I have listed that Lanza's motive is unknown. I think that this is quite germane to the event, and readers should know about this. And, most readers will want to know about this and will be asking the question of motive. More than once, my addition of that info was removed. The last edit summary said something along the lines of "just leave it out, then". I'd like consensus here about whether the field in the info box for "motive" should state "unknown" or should be left blank. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, we note that as "unknown" and revise it as information comes forth. It's important to note "unknown" because then it's clear that Wikipedians didn't omit the motive, it was considered and is "unknown" at the time. Zero is a number ;-) -Justanonymous (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't it be even better (more accurate) to write that the authorities do not publish the ("very good") evidences about the killers motive they have? --91.6.84.235 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Who said that they "have" a motive? And that they are keeping it secret/hidden? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would probably be less combative to say that in the US Judicial system, authorities don't comment on evidence related to ongoing investigations (if they had a motive, they wouldn't discuss, if they don't, they still wouldn't discuss). That's common for ALL cases that they prosecute. Saying that authorities won't publish the evidence they have makes it appear that they are witholding evidence. On the other hand, the authorities should be under pressure to release information to the press as soon as they can (the other side to the story). I do think such entries should be minimial though, this article is not about the US Judicial process.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but the question is how long to wait before making a statement about the silence of the authorities? --91.6.84.235 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

@Joseph, exactly that is the problem we are facing: They do not say "We are keeping it secret/hidden", they just do it - after saying that they have "very good" evidences about the motive of the killer. --91.6.84.235 (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear 91.6.84.235, unfortunately the US Judicial system does not operate at the speed of the 24 hour news cycle. From history, these things could take literally months. A six month process for something as complex as this should not be unreasonable. Since the perpetrator is dead, and nobody is likely to be tried, it might be 2-3 months but certainly not 2 weeks - based on previous cases like this. --Justanonymous (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Anon, IF ... and that's an IF ... the FBI can glean data off the killer's smashed hard drives, and if the platters were damaged, it will be a slow process. Don't expect a final report on this incident for quite a while. And despite that somewhat irresponsible news report, the investigators never said that - just an unnamed source that the newspaper claims is "senior." Me, "I'm from Missouri." HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Page looks like right after shooting

As of December 25, 2012 at 4:01 NY time this page looks like an old edit from weeks ago, can anyone check? --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 21:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It was, briefly. It has been fixed. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The references are from unreliable, unverified sources

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.

---

How do we know Lanza killed anyone, including his mother? Is there a witness or a video, some sort of proof? The only references are television and newspapers, who got much of the information wrong in the first place. Where did they get the information? Where are their sources? This article is re-reporting hearsay and unverified claims. Unless there is an actual police report, a named school official witness, an actual police investigator on the case, or court transcripts (there hasn't been a trial or investigation completed!) I suggest any information should be referenced properly, such as Fox news reported, "...". This is very unlike Wikipedia to me, it is unprofessional and low quality. Gwen in texas (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a witness? What is that, a bad joke? as is usual in such a circumstance things were a bit hazy/confused right after it happened. There is no doubt at this point as to who commited these crimes and no responsible source of information is suggesting otherwise. If you have questions about any of the specific sources please bring them up here, but at a glance I am seeing a lot of reliable sources and proper inline citations. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there were reportedly two witnesses who were shot, whose names are not being released (http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=515554&A=4226). And there were witnesses who called 9-11. Here is the only credible source of information (from the state police department) that I have seen: http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=515554&A=4226 The statement about him killing his mother is from a news article, but not verified by the police press release. He "is suspected of killing his mother" would be more proper. Otherwise it is speculation. It is an ongoing investigation and I don't feel like this article is emphasizing that fact. It doesn't seem like the scholarly type of article writing I have seen from Wikipedia in the past. Gwen in texas (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The police confirmed he killed his mother, they consider that aspect closed, and of course, it's confirmed he killed the people at the school.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:06, 23 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.

Discussion was closed by admin, no need to beat a Dead horse
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The media reported all kinds of conflicting reports by so-called "authorities". If the article is going to pick certain media stories, and under the assumption they are "confirmed", why shouldn't it cover all of the various media reports? New York Daily News reported Lanza "strolled in" with "two handguns", "according to authorities" (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/deadly-shooting-reported-conn-elementary-school-article-1.1220164). The proper thing would be to stick to the only "official story" available, which is that which has been released by Lt. Lance of the Connecticut State Police. I find is disheartening that this article from Wikipedia would follow suit with the media and selectively report statements that have not been officially confirmed. But hey, that's why we're not allowed to use Wikipedia sources in college, so I guess I really can't expect much.Gwen in texas (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Discussion was closed; please accept it.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I am reopening this discussion. Who are you "HammerFilmFan" to go and silence a conversation? Who are you? Why is this discussion closed? Because you have no response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Because this is pretty much a trolling question. The sources that cite what happened are the top of our reliable metrics, and there's no reason at all to doubt what they are reporting from the investigators on the case. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Administrators close discussions in Wikipedia. If you'd read the closing statement that should be obvious. Once they've closed a discussion per Wiki policy, that's it. Move on. As far as who I am, I'm me. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Autism

I think the paragraph about autism is misleading. It gives folks the impression that autistic people are dangerous. Pass a Method talk 21:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, as the paragraph has gone to considerable lengths to point out that violence is an unlikely feature of Asperger syndrome. The article cannot hide the reliable sourcing that Lanza may have had this condition, but does need to qualify it carefully.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What bothers me is the "anonymous law enforcement official" bit, friends of Nancy I can see, but does this really need to be included? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the paragraph on Autism and how it relates to the topic is well intentioned, however, a bad idea. I think that the best way to point out that there isn't relation between Asberger's and the perpetrator's act is to omit anything regarding the condition until there is something more concrete than what is contained within the paragraph. To me, that paragraph reeks of a tabloid article attempting to string things together... Aneah|talk _to ^me 11:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It might look like airbrushing to remove the Asperger syndrome reference altogether. Like it or not, this has been widely discussed in the reliable media, eg here in the New York Times. The media is aware that this issue could mislead the public, and it makes sense for the article here to mention the need for caution in linking AS to violence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This should be left out. Sources are not supporting a connection between Autism spectrum and this incident. Until such time as sufficiently reliable sources support a connection, we should not be casting that aspersion, which even if inadvertent, is inevitable. Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We're not here to avoid vague hints of a connection that readers might draw, particularly when 1) it's widely reported by reputable news sources, and 2) it's germane background on the subject and people involved, and 3) the text goes to lengths to prevent any inadvertent connections, provides full context. NPOV means we use reliable sources to put in facts, but we don't run away from those facts because a reader might draw an erroneous conclusion, so long as we present the facts clearly and with appropriate context. It seems to be doing that now. Shadowjams (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times article defends its decision to mention the possibility that Lanza had AS, but points out that it received complaints from readers for doing so. This has received such a substantial amount of media coverage that it is hard to avoid it altogether.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This is irresponsible: "Lanza's brother told law enforcement…" and "An anonymous law enforcement official reported…" and "friends of Nancy Lanza reported..."[1] No source of sufficient stature is drawing a connection between Asperger syndrome and this crime. If at a future time a connection is drawn by a responsible authority between Asperger syndrome and this crime, that would be the time that such material should be added to the article. Bus stop (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Again from the NYT article "We were told Adam Lanza had Asperger’s from so many people who knew him that it would have been irresponsible to withhold that from readers". This article has to reflect how the reliable media has covered the case. The CNN article Troubling legacy of Sandy Hook may be backlash against kids with autism tackles this issue head on, and so should the Wikipedia article. It is not something that the article should run away and hide from, because it is too late for that now.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is from the CNN article that you posted: "Poor social skills, trouble communicating and repetitive behaviors are all hallmarks of autism, but there's no correlation with violence, says pediatric neuropsychologist Michelle Dunn, director of Montefiore Medical Center's Neurology and Autism Center in the Bronx. 'Even if (Lanza) had Asperger's, it wouldn't explain his behavior,' says Dunn. 'In terms of premeditation and how horrific this act was, there is absolutely no association.'"[2] Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't have to include uninformed musings that are as likely as not to be misleading. In the future a team of professionals, after analyzing reams of information, may issue a statement mentioning Asperger syndrome. That would be the time for us to include mention of a medical condition. At this time we don't have the opinion of a medical professional commenting on Adam Lanza. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Second shooter

To begin this section without a argument I am simply stating facts.

A second suspect, yes a suspect, was taken into custody in the woods right next to the school. I do care for the truth and for posterity's access to it, therefore I must insert this section. This is a fact, not up for discussion. Whether he was found out to be irrelevant in the massacre or is still being further investigated is imperative to this article. Wikipedia does not have a POV and therefore does not brush over facts with prejudice. Whether you agree or disagree the fact is a person was apprehended and taken into custody right next to the school. Now, I will layout the facts of what was reported. Do not dismiss this as disinformation or respond by saying it takes time to figure out what happened and it was probably nothing, that is your opinion on a FACT.

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

"CBS News reports that a potential second suspect was in custody and that SWAT was investigating the home of the suspect. It was not known if that alleged second suspect fired any of the shots in the massacre."

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

____________________________

http://www.whptv.com/content/BreakingNews/story/UPDATE-6-VIDEO-Connecticut-school-shooting-leaves/TpRFpyBuAUuG2Is142THYw.cspx

"It is unclear if there was more than one gunman at the school. Miller reports authorities have an individual in custody who investigators said may be a possible second shooter."

___________________________

If original videos are still up or captured by more reputable sources I apologize, just a quick youtube search found these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qEoYxqmyAM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UgEl0G7dx4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMtmPCVM2Sk

_______________________

eye witness of situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apwTd-B_MP8

Conclusion: I realize there is no follow up story done on the apprehension of a possible suspect wearing very interesting clothes during a very interesting situation. The very fact that this person was arrested with all the weird tidbits should be included. A simple sentence saying exactly what CBS originally reported would suffice "CBS News reports that a potential second suspect was in custody and that SWAT was investigating the home of the suspect. It was not known if that alleged second suspect fired any of the shots in the massacre." It is beyond foolish to dismiss what happened. Why would it make sense to not include this fact? It should be included in the area that deals with the timeline of events.

It is a fact. It did happen. This is about facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk • contribs)

• Nothing came of it. WP is not a newspaper, ergo its not necessary to include every small detail even if it is factual. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

These two quotes>

"CBS News reports that a potential second suspect was in custody and that SWAT was investigating the home of the suspect. It was not known if that alleged second suspect fired any of the shots in the massacre."

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

>are small details to you?

I do not understand your logic at all, not remotely. This is hypocrisy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We're nearly 2 weeks out from the event and when this "second shooter" was reported. If he had anything to do with the case, that would have been in the news easily by now. He hasn't. Ergo, it's a side event that's of interest as a news story, but not for an encyclopedic article. --MASEM (t)

We covered this it seems like years ago now - lol - he was just a local - detained, questioned, released, not notable.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't feel bad 68.50.119.13, when tragedies like this happen the police cast a very wide net and it's not uncommon for innocent people to be questioned and some detained. The good editors here have been dealing with this for quite a while and it seems they've turned over that stone already.--Justanonymous (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Lanza's maiden name

Resolved

per [3]

Will someone please explain why Nancy Lanza's maiden name (Nancy Jean Champion) keeps getting rv. It is getting ridiculous. See: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/18/167527771/nancy-lanza-gunmans-mother-from-charmed-upbringing-to-first-victim. Quis separabit? 18:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does her maiden name benefit the article? Why drag her uninvolved family into this? Again, this has been previously discussed and rejected. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

See above discussion, here: Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Mother's maiden name. I don't mind if it's in the body of the article. I don't think it belongs in the lead, however. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, added to body of article. Quis separabit? 18:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If Mrs. Lanza becomes sufficiently notable to merit her own article, then I would say include her maiden name in that article. WP is intended to archive encyclopedic content, not family genealogy. I vote to leave it out permanently. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect that does not make much sense -- there are thousands of bio articles where the female spouse(s)' maiden name(s) is/are included in both the infobox and in the body of the article. Quis separabit? 18:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

One, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and secondly I think it makes sense, so editors will disagree.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, HammerFilmFan -- can you clarify. I don't get your point of what makes sense or why. Quis separabit? 19:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it Champion? Or Campion? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Champion. Quis separabit? 18:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think I have seen both floating around, out there. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Other editors are probably removing it because of WP:NOTWHOSWHO. - MrX 19:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Previously discussed and definitely not relevant in the WP:LEAD. Not really relevant later on, either. *Please* don't add it again, it does not add significantly to a reader's understanding.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

completely irrelevant to this article. If this was a biography article, then it could make sense, it is not. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, in this context, it's merely a trivial detail. LadyofShalott 00:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the maiden name should be included only in the body of the article. (Not in the lead of the article.) I think we should be following the precedent as set by the numerous good quality reliable sources that see fit to tell the reader the mother's maiden name, sources such as the following:

"Nancy Jean Champion and Peter John Lanza married June 6, 1981, in Kingston, N.H. Their oldest son, Ryan John Lanza, was born seven years later on April 10, 1988."[4]

"Nancy Jean Champion — or Beanie, as her high school yearbook calls her — had a charmed upbringing" in Kingston, N.H."[[5]

"Nancy and Peter Lanza were married in Kingston, N.H., in 1981 and according to birth records, Adam was born in April 22, 1992. Nancy Lanza's maiden name was Champion. She was the sister of James Champion, a Kingston police officer and her stepfather, Paul Hanson, was a former teacher and principal in Epsom, N.H., as well as a thoroughbred horse owner, according to SalemNews.com in Massachusetts."[6] Bus stop (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And again, what value does this information bring to the article on the SHOOTING - additionally, we've curtailed information on the dad pretty tightly per BLP. He was not involved in the shooting incident.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You say "And again, what value does this information bring to the article on the SHOOTING - additionally, we've curtailed information on the dad pretty tightly per BLP."[7]

What value does this information bring to the article on the shooting: "Nancy Lanza was supported by alimony paid by her ex-husband, a corporate executive."[8] Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

For me, nothing, it could go - but you may find other editors who'll want it to stay. However, the maiden name is clearly trivia.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the alimony and support evidence is pretty relevant to the shooting incident as a whole. It evidences the fact that: (a) she had means, money was not an issue for her; (b) she did not have to work, so she could "tend" to Adam at home full time; (c) she could afford health insurance and mental health services; and (d) the father was not a dead beat dad / absent father, he supported his family. Etc. Etc. Etc. And some other matters, as well, those being the main ones. But, her financial status does have merit and relevance to the shooting, I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest altering the sentence reading:

"Some time before 9:30 a.m. EST on Friday, December 14, 2012, Adam Peter Lanza fatally shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, age 52, with a .22 Marlin rifle at their Newtown home" to read:

"Some time before 9:30 a.m. EST on Friday, December 14, 2012, Adam Peter Lanza fatally shot his mother, Nancy (Champion[9]) Lanza, age 52, with a .22 Marlin rifle at their Newtown home."

The reason is that women often change their name upon marriage; men do not (in the relevant culture). Therefore our article is probably providing a lengthier history of the father than the mother in this regard. Sources use the technique of enclosing the maiden name in parentheses: "The killer's parents, Peter J. and Nancy (Champion) Lanza, lived on Depot Road in Kingston…"[10] For our purposes we would provide one or more references after the maiden name and within the parentheses. If there is objection to this, please tell me why. Bus stop (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's been stated over and over - the mother's maiden name is not germane here because this article on the SHOOTING gains nothing from it. We try to pare articles down to what's relevant and not just add information that hasn't got value to it. If an article ever is created about the mother it can go there ...HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The mother's and father's identity should be disclosed in this article. Adam Peter Lanza was only 20 years old. In the relevant cultural milieu that is a young age, at which children are still commonly in college, and Adam Lanza lived with his mother. I don't think there is any reason, including WP:BLP-related reasons, we should hesitate from mentioning the father's name or the mother's maiden name. These are not only his parents but they reared him to young adulthood. Financial support is part of raising children even if parents are divorced. We should be concerned with the identity of his parents. I propose the following changes:

The sentence reading "The day after the shootings, Adam Lanza's father released a statement..." should be changed to read, "The day after the shootings, Adam Lanza's father, Peter Lanza[11], released a statement…"

The sentence reading "Some time before 9:30 a.m. EST on Friday, December 14, 2012, Adam Peter Lanza fatally shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, age 52, with a .22 Marlin rifle at their Newtown home" should be changed to read: "Some time before 9:30 a.m. EST on Friday, December 14, 2012, Adam Peter Lanza fatally shot his mother, Nancy (Champion[12][13]) Lanza, age 52, with a .22 Marlin rifle at their Newtown home." Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a very rational, nor constructive discussion. Parties with different views are not engaging with each other. People are just expressing opinions, and ignoring others' opinions and reasons. I haven't yet seen a simple answer to the simple question of "Why include the mother's maiden name?" A simple answer will include nothing about alimony, how old the Adam Lanza was, that his mother is dead, his father isn't, women change their names upon marriage, his uncle was a cop, she was a full time mum, his step-grandfather was a teacher, etc, etc. None of this has any relevance to the basic question at all. So, without mentioning any of those things, why include the mother's maiden name? HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the publication of the father's name per WP:BLPNAME: "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." And unless Nancy Lanza was also commonly known as Nancy Champion, then her maiden name is no more relevant than any other dead victim, eg Dawn Hochsprung nee Lafferty. WWGB (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The mother is not just "any other dead victim".[14] The "presumption in favor of privacy"[15] is clearly applicable to the school principal, mentioned above. I am not suggesting that any additional details about the lives of the mother and especially the father be added beyond their full names. Adam Lanza did not come into the world without a father and mother, both of whom have names. This is relevant information. It is expected in an article such as this. I think that the readers' expectations are such that they are assuming they will encounter the mother's and father's names in this article. Therefore I think it constitutes an oddity to leave those full names out. I've initiated a discussion at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's got nothing to do with this topic. Start another thread. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Grammar conundrum

A recent edit to the lede (which I reverted once) results in this sentence, which seems grammatically incorrect, or at least awkward:

"After killing the students and staff members, Adam Lanza killed himself by a self-inflicted gun shot wound as first responders and police arrived at the scene."

As I parse this, I'm left wondering: How can one kill oneself with a wound? - MrX 00:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The first statement is unneeded, redundant and obvious as it is stated in the very first sentence. Furthermore, he could not have killed anyone after he committed suicide, so the "After the killing" statement is pointless. We should be able to remove it completely.

"Adam Lanza committed suicide with one of the guns as first responders and police arrived at the scene." Arzel (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I just changed it to, "...Lanza committed suicide via gun shot..." I'm not sure if that's a bit too lurid, but it seems to me that it takes care of whether or not one can commit suicide with a wound. I didn't remove the "After the killing" part but now that I look at it, I agree that it is so obvious that it needn't be there. CityOfSilver 00:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the part about the killing himself with a gun shot wound is not as contradictory as might seem. It is possible to be mortally wounded, which is the same as dying from your wound. Arzel (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks better now, but "Lanza committed suicide via gun shot" still seem a little awkward. The only alternative I can offer is "Lanza killed himself with a (or the) gun". - MrX 00:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As absurd as this may sound, I have to wonder: Isn't it possible to kill yourself with a gun without firing it? CityOfSilver 00:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point. I am sure it is, but I doubt it has happened on purpose. Arzel (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC

I think any use of a gun other than firing it to kill yourself would be much better done by other means (a bigger blunt instrument to konk yourself with, poison instead of trying to swallow the gun, etc.) I think we can assume it's understood if someone commits suicide with a gun, it was by firing it.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this version by ‎Joseph A. Spadaro, although graphic, is probably the clearest I've seen in a while. - MrX 01:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday I changed the sentence to read... "After killing the students and staff members, Adam Lanza died from a self-inflicted gun shot when first responders and police arrived at the scene." With the Edit summary comment that this is the terminology used in law enforcement. It was fine WITHOUT the word wound and I have no idea why it was added. A wound, BTW, is just a piercing injury to the dermis (skin). What's there now is technically correct, its just sloppy writing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) One more thing, my apologies to who wrote/edited the current version. Its not my intention to insult your writing skills, but with as much debate and discussion as we have had over what "facts" and/or verifiable information to include or not and where in the article, one would think that the result would be as elegant as we can make it collectively. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Active. "Died from" doesn't sound right in that context and paragraph. But "he killed himself" (or maybe "he committed suicide") is active, stronger, and just sounds more accurate...and better. So the current reading (unless it gets changed again in 2 seconds) is fine (enough). Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Shot placement

Question, does anyone have a link to the coroner's report or a news story that confirms that Lanza shot himself specifically in the head? I'm not disputing the wording or that he committed suicide, but now I am questioning the actual facts of what the article currently states, "shooting himself in the head.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the attached link: "Lanza died of a gunshot wound to the head that was self-inflicted, the medical examiner said Sunday". See Adam Lanza Shot Himself As 1st Responders Closed In, Gov. Dannel Malloy Says. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Also from CBS News: "Adam Lanza then killed himself with a single bullet to the head from a 10 mm gun, and the bullet was recovered in a classroom wall." Incidentally, a 10mm Glock is unusual, it is more usually 9mm.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks guys!--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

some first responders having emotional issues -

http://www.wral.com/police-union-seeks-more-help-for-newtown-officers/11915426/ Interesting. Perhaps a note in the article is appropriate? HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked through other articles like this and nobody mentions this aspect and I'm not sure that this is unique to this article - first responders are exposed to many things that normal people don't normally see. I think it's a given that those who had to go in and were exposed to these kinds of images are going to be traumatized by that kind of an experience - who wouldn't. Frankly, I'm more interested in making sure that the first responders and defenders get credit for their bravery and actions here, that's material, their mental trauma is behind giving them the credit they deserve. Right now, we don't list the defenders at all in the infobox.Justanonymous (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd just have a short statement to the effect that a number of the police officers involved with the initial crime scene have had an emotional problems dealing with it that has kept them out of work. Perhaps not under Reactions but further up in the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm neutral on mentioning that, be bold, see what happens, shouldn't be too contentious of an entry but might drop out when one of the copy editors rolls through the page.--Justanonymous (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Handguns or Bushmaster?

Per Article Feedback, this December 15th NBC report states that even though a Bushmaster was found in the Lanza car at the school, the weapons used to actually perpetrate the murders were handguns. Ae there any more recent reports that confirm or that deny that information? (And sorry, if this has been discussed before....I did search the Talk Archives first but couldn't find any posts that discussed the specific weapon/s used). Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The medical examiner's report said that all of the school victims were shot with a "long gun" rifle [16] named elsewhere as the Bushmaster AR-15.[17] Adam Lanza reportedly killed himself with the 10mm Glock handgun, [18] but this is not in the article. This CBS news story says "Sources say Lanza had used one of the handguns, a Glock 10mm, to take his own life. The other handgun, a Sig Sauer 9mm, was found on his body, still buttoned inside a pocket." This should perhaps be mentioned in the article here, although it is qualified by "sources say" like much of the material in this incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This is new http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 It clearly states the Bushmaster was found in the car and not used in the killings, so much for the assault weapons ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.181.40 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The NBC Today report was broadcast on December 15, 2012, the day after the shooting. Connecticut's chief medical examiner H Wayne Carver II told reporters that all of the deaths at the school were caused by a "long weapon".[19]. This is what his medical examiner's report says, so the original NBC report has been superseded. The weapon found in the trunk of the car was reportedly the shotgun. People have picked up on the inconsistency in the blogs and are now trying to make it into a conspiracy theory.[20].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reiterating the actual date of the NBC Today Show broadcast in question, in my first post on this thread I also mentioned that the NBC Today Show report was from December 15th. What weapons were used to commit this crime is important. Until other credible information as reported by reliable sources is found, seems the article will have to rely on the somewhat imprecise term of 'long weapon' used by the Medical Examiner. Shearonink (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This just shows how poor reliable sources can be in rapidly developing stories. Media will sometimes rush and not verify their journalistic sources to make sure they meet their journalistic responsibility to report factual and unbiased information to the public or resort to interviewing 5 year olds in the face of a tragedy. It's going to be a long time before we know the facts but the initial misinformation is fueling the mass media gravy train of progun and antigun zealotry to the exclusion of virtually everything else. Some of this one dimensional aspect has percolated into this article and which I wish we at Wikipedia would work hard to remove. If nobody has mentioned the exact weapon used, we should stick with long gun until the actual facts are verified.--Justanonymous (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering about the firearms used and I'm sure that it is important to the article to report these items. Thus far, I have heard over and over about the Bushmaster XM-15 used and someone has even narrowed down one pistol to a Glock 20 SF in 10MM. The only reference I have heard to the other handgun was a 'Sig Sauer, (the brand or kind) used by the Secret Service'. Presumably that would be the P229 in .357 SIG, but I have read that the firearm was a 9MM. Has anyone else heard anything in regards to the firearms? Also, the article states that Lanza had access to additional firearms - I understand the need to specify firearms used, the shotgun or rifle in the car, and the weapon used to kill his mother, however, I don't know if it is necessary to include information on other firearms in which he may have had access... Aneah|talk _to ^me 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The 4 weapons retrieved from the school crime scene are detailed in the infobox on the main article with two WP:RS sources as backup, this has been covered I think quite well by the editors here. Are we missing something or are you looking for something else Aneah?

Two of these have information for the make and model, two don't. I was wondering if there was anything out there to make sure that things were more specific/complete. If it hasn't been released as of this time, then it isn't a big deal, maybe put it down on a 'to do' list if the information ever becomes available. Aneah|talk _to ^me 23:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't trust much of anything reported on about the specific weaponry since they've gotten so much wrong up to this point. I am inclined to believe the Sig would be a 228 and not a .357 sig, because the latter is a relatively rare round, and almost everything else indicated it was a 9mm (although they were wrong about the 10mm being a 9mm). The Secret Service uses a P229 apparently chambered in .357 sig, but they used to use the 228 in 9mm. It should also be noted that the P229 is available in 9mm as well as .357 sig (not to be confused with the .357 magnum), so again, I don't think it's right for us to speculate about a particular model until it's displayed. That seems to be the only way to get a reliable understanding of the exact make of the guns. Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenia claim

While this may be from the NYTimes, I note that it says, quoting "We may never know with certainty what demons tormented Adam Lanza, who slaughtered 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, though his acts strongly suggest undiagnosed schizophrenia." This is still speculation by the press and not an official diagonsis from investigators, and thus inappropriate to include, so I have removed it. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have clarified things. They ordered DNA testing. Many news reports mentioned he had schitzophrenia like behavior, not just that one. PBS says while many have claimed he had that or Asperger's, there was no evidence yet. I then mentioned they are doing DNA test to find out. Dream Focus 19:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's better, though I am replacing the Daily Mail with a better source that's a bit more clear on things. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no way any source is reliable on that. Wikipedia is not obligated to bark up every wrong tree with the invesigators. Abductive (reasoning) 20:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that we do know that they are using DNA testing to see if mental illnesses (specifically Asperger's or schitzophrenia, but not limited) are there. It's part of the investigation. The way the statement is written here, it neither supports or denies that Lanza had these or that they were responible for the shooting. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict_Why would you not believe the news sources saying that DNA was being checked? Hopefully they brain scanned him as well. Dream Focus 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• We need to mention that the Aspergers claim is just speculation. Quoting various people is misleading. Why was this PBS referenced sentence removed: While some have speculated he suffered from schizophrenia or Asperger's, there is no evidence yet. Dream Focus 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Uh, what? Asperger's and schizophrenia are genetic? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There are genes that can mutate to cause them. Also caused by various viruses and heavy mental pollution or brain damage. They should have done a brain scan to see if he had anything by now. Dream Focus 20:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that unsupported speculation, no matter the source, is unfit for this article until a result is released. I don't doubt that they are grasping at straws, but it is WP:OR for us to hedge and weasel about a line of inquiry. Instead, it should just be left out of the article until a positive finding is announced (in other words, never). Abductive (reasoning) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that a significant focus of the investigation is on Lanza's mental health. To that end, explaining what actions are being done in relation to determining a dead person's mental health state seems completely appropriate to include, even if the chance of a specific finding something is unlikely (But not impossible in fringe science territory) --MASEM (t) 20:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess the sources are pretty sceptical of the DNA. What is the word on the regular toxicology tests? Abductive (reasoning) 20:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources say they are/have been done (as of around Dec 18) but the results have not be published yet. There are sources that claim that the tests came back with Xanax, but I can't find a good RS that asserts this and appears to be hearsay by less reliable sources from a neighbor's statement. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Abductive, it doesn't add anything to the article. So they're conducting long-shot tests, I would assume they would but they're unlikely to produce any results.It might be best to say that "the police are conducting a very thorough investigation which includes long-shot expermimental DNA techniques." The way it's worded it seems that the DNA will yield something and that is NOT what the WP:RS sources are saying.--21:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The use of DNA testing in a case like this is unusual, and not what would be the usual battery of evaluations (like toxicology) one would expect done, when one says "an investigation is happening". I can agree that rewording to downplay how conclusive the DNA testing is would be better, but to exclude it (and even in the future, if the results are negative/inconclusive) it would seem wrong given the focus on mental health of Lanza to this point. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

At a minimum we need to reflect what the WP:RS sources are saying factually. The fact is that an unusual test based on unproven techniques was ordered in an effort to be overly comprehensive. However, we don't really know what DNA test was ordered, how long it will take, what it will tell us so its very hard to report.---Justanonymous (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's DNA testing, and that's the State of Conn. chief medical examiner that asked for it. [21] - we don't know exactly what tests but we know they are being done. However, to address this, I have 1) moved this up to investigation, 2) added the part about toxicology tests being done for drugs/medications, and 3) used wording to make sure that DNA testing will not be a conclusive result. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

UTC)

thank you for the hard work and flexibility Masem, some of us are nit picky given the emotion and political nuances. I value your hard work here.--Justanonymous (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem - That's what we're all here for it get this right without bias. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry the whole paragraph probably doesn't have a place in wikipedia, it's filled with heresay and weasle wording of all kinds. That's like me adding to the article in the description of the weapon that "the AR-15 was used as the weapon but that AR-15s are legitimate recreational weapons that are in use by millions of law abiding citizens and the fact that an AR15 was used should in no way have us think that there is anything wrong with AR15s." That wouldn't last on the page for 15 seconds, yet this whole weasle worded paragraph remains and has grown. At the end of the day, the entire paragraph is mostly just conjecture, there is no diagnosis of Aspergers or Schizophenia, journalists are speculating and going on heresay from people who might have heard or who might know - that is not what Wikipedia documents, they're not facts. I say remove the entire paragraph barring s WP:RS definitive factual statements vs this weasle worded he said she said. Bottom line, we don't know, but we do know that sane people don't kill twenty 5 year olds so something was monstrously broken with this individual.--Justanonymous (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a factual statement to say that the official investigation is performing genetic testing to determine if mental disorders like Asperger's or schtizophrenia is involved, even if they are reasonably sure these tests normally don't give strong evidence towards this. There is no journalistic speculation going on in that claim. Mental health issues have already been well highlighted as a possible cause and so in light of that, this seems like a reasonable statement of the investigation's progress to include (in that they are trying to determine the mental health state). --MASEM (t) 21:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the WP:RS sources are saying, they're saying that "they are conducting a very thorough investigation which includes DNA which is unlikely to yield results." Your entry doesn't say that, your entry needs better wording. Again though even my rewrite, doesn't add anything to the article, so why add it? (we shouldn't) It's just more words and doesn't add to motive, It just clouds the very complex issue of mental health and introduces a bunch of weasle words and now makes the reader think that DNA is the miracle cure all.--Justanonymous (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We are unsure if Lanza had Aspergers, or Schitzophrenia. We are unsure if the strategies allegedly being followed to find out will tell us. We are unsure if either condition would have had anything to do with the killlings, even IF they existed. I do know that suggesting the latter indirectly labels everyone else with Aspergers or Schitzophrenia as a potential mass murderer, which is completely stupid, and inappropriate. NOTHING should be said in the article about either Aspergers or Schitzophrenia until there is legal proof AND it is shown to be relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well consider that one official reportedly on the investigation has said he was diagnosed with Asperger's. And the reports about doing the DNA testing specifically mention they are looking, among others for signs of Asperger's and schizophrenia. I do note the Bloomberg article already highlights concerns that DNA testing may be methods of testing for these and could preemptively be used to call people with these conditions as potential criminals. Reporting on this is not creating something that already is a concern. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that because the media is doing something bad, we should too? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Could not agree more! The media is free to makes wild claims or speculate. They need the ratings, we and Wikipedia do not. That said, how about we add things that won't require serious degree of editing in a week, a month, or a year? The amount of information that has been added and removed from this article is staggering.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This source was not about the DNA testing, but about why it's a mistake to focus on Asperger's syndrome as the cause. I've deleted it as a cite related to the sentence about the DNA testing; it was on Dec. 18 and preceded the announcement of that.Parkwells (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It is understandable that autism campaigners are annoyed by the repeated references to Asperger's syndrome in the media, and the DNA test seems a weird way of attempting to prove the theory. The article should reflect what the investigation has said, but give proper context to it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012

In regards to the sandy hook shooting, it should be noted and changed immediately that a bushmaster AR-15 WAS NOT used in the massacre. (four handguns were used, NO rifles or shotguns of any sort were used). Please reference this NBC news clip, http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#3677250 , Thank you, and I will be checking back to make sure the facts are changed.66.66.26.33 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That link doesn't have its video loading up, other than for the commercial before it, it just audio. And I didn't hear any part of it talk about that. Can you find a link that works? Dream Focus 16:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is previously discussed above at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Handguns_or_Bushmaster.3F. The medical examiner was clear in stating that all of the victims at the school were shot with a long weapon. The NBC report seems to be the result of early confusion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why no aftermath section?

I previously asked about when the kids would go back to school. I have seen but couldn't find again the article saying the kids at other schools in town went back to their respective schools. Nothing has been said in this article about moving the kids at Sandy Hook to some other location. Or have I just not seen it?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In the broad picture, it's probably not that important a piece of information. (Think about what readers in ten years time will be interested in.) But to be included at all, it needs a source. You'd better keep looking. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But put it where? There is yet to be an aftermath section.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we do mention what the school will do at the start of the second to last paragraph. However, "Aftermath" is a rather strong term, implying significant change and accounting; at this stage, we have reactions but no end effects in the larger picture. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Aftermath" is probably the wrong term to use. We do have a discussion of what happened afterwards, and reactions, which is certainly relevant. Shadowjams (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say if gun laws get passed as a result of the shooting then yeah an aftermath section could be useful but right now no. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Or if armed guards are placed in every school in the country. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Every school or some? There have already been reports of various schools around the country arming teachings or giving them training in firearm handling. That said, I also agree that its too soon for an "aftermath" section.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The dill from the NRA wanted armed guards in EVERY school. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Following the Virginia Tech shooting, the local sheriff's department posted armed school resource officers in larger local schools, that was 2007 IIRC, and there is current talk of expanding the program. A bad situation was possibly prevented by a school resource officer in 2010. I would typify policy duscussions and changes as a response rather than an aftermath.--Naaman Brown (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In short a major event as a result of the shooting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider what articles we have that begin "Aftermath of..."; most of these that use it are huge events, wars or natural disasters, or in a few cases, major terrorist attacks. No matter how tragic, one man shooting a number of teachers and students is going to create a response, but there's no "aftermath" of the event. As I said, it's a very strong word and one I wouldn't see in association with it, unless something happens that has a direct effect on every American (in this case). --MASEM (t) 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realize the term "aftermath" was so problematic. I assumed "Reaction" to be reaction from other locations, not the reaction there where it happened. The important thing is that the information is there.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Adam Lanza standalone article?

Currently Adam Lanza redirects to this article, but there is enough information by now for a standalone article on Adam Lanza. In terms of notability, I think this passes. See standalone articles for Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or Charles Carl Roberts for examples. Was there or is there currently objection to a standalone Adam Lanza article? TheLou75 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This will probably happen at some stage in the future, but at the moment the article would be stub class and bogged down with unconfirmed reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Further, with the limited detail we have on him, it is more comprehensive to cover him within the context of the crime. That might change in the future. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Lou, you're far from alone in your suggestion. Its been commented on previously and likely there are a few articles lurking in Sandboxes around WP already.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

For previous discussions of this issue, see this Archive 2 thread and this Archive 4 thread. Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The reasons behind WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL support waiting as long as practical before creating articles about alleged perpetrators of crimes. Until enough verifiable information is available to support a quality article on this person, it makes sense to cover him with a section in the article. I agree though that an article on Lanza will almost certainly eventually exist, similar to the biographies that Lou mentions above. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who's been around here knows that article will inevitably be created, and probably kept, but there was some AN discussions about the protects on those pages, and that seems to me to be the correct response. Btw, there's no prize for being the creator of an article. If those sandbox pages keep getting developed good, make the most accurate encyclopedia article we can. But I'm firmly on the side of the AN discussions that waiting on this is a good thing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it seems inevitable, but I'd wait a while before starting one. Can you link to the sandbox pages where a Lanza article is being developed? Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of editing

"How does Wikipedia deal with a mass shooting? A frenzied start gives way to a few core editors" is an interesting analysis of activity on this and other articles related to mass shootings. Parkwells (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a link in the talk page header - thanks for sharing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Other than hawking an opinion piece, not sure why this is relevant. Shadowjams (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more pertinent to one of the articles at Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media? Shearonink (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A student's opinion piece posted on their own blog first is hardly "in the media", which is why I question why essentially an op ed is listed on here at all. Shadowjams (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

After reading that, I'm feeling somewhat slighted. With all the time I've spent on this article and the Talk section, not a single mention of me nor Justanonymous or Shadowjams or Masem or KKid or several others. Hmmphh...!--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Iran Press TV conspiracy theories

The RS Washington Post has officially condemned Iran's press agency for blaming the attack on israel, there is no mention of this in the current article. These stories have also been echoed or sourced from Veterans Today, which appears to have close ties, and republishes Press TV stories, or serves as a source for stories. This may or not be evidence that the government of Iran may be covering up some sort of association it may have with the attack: Redhanker (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/18/irans-state-run-news-network-blames-israeli-death-squads-for-sandy-hook-shooting/ Iran’s state-run news network blames ‘Israeli death squads’ for Sandy Hook shooting

Posted by Max Fisher on December 18, 2012 at 10:20 am "Iran’s state-run media outlet PressTV, which broadcasts in English, on Tuesday carried a story blaming Israel for the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. PressTV has a well-earned reputation for incendiary anti-Israel stories and for wild conspiracy theories, but even this seems a far stretch for the organization, which maintains a bureau office in the District."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhanker (talk • contribs) 18:49, 29 December 2012 (URC)

Well known pro-palestine conspiracy theorist Jim Fetzer was featured by Press TV: In a PressTV column Fetzer accused Mossad of carrying out the Sandy Hook school massacre, as part of a Department of Homeland Security plot to confiscate civilian weapons as part of a process of "gearing up to conduct a massive civil war against the American people." Claiming that "the killing of children is a signature of terror ops conducted by agents of Israel," Fetzer further linked the Mossad's alleged role in the killings at Sandy Hook to alleged Mossad involvement in the Utøya massacre by Anders Behring Breivik. In the Utøya massacre, Mossad was supposedly taking revenge for Norway's support for sanctions on Israel. In the case of Sandy Hook, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyanhu was purportedly angered by American failure to approve military strikes on Iran.

[2]=http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/20/279183/israeli-death-squad-massacred-us-children/

[3]=http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/23/mossad-death-squads-slaughtered-american-children-at-sandy-hook/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhanker (talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE theories, and their rebuttals are not pertinent to this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Redhanker. This material is already covered at International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, under the Iranian section. It really isn't pertinent to the Sandy Hook shooting article here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be at least mentioned with a link to thereRedhanker (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not a fringe theory if it is being promoted by the official news agency of a nation state, namely Press TV. There are many WP articles on 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories. Nazi Germany promoted a lot of fringe theories which remain popular among neo-nazis, but they can be covered as well as neo-nazi groups.

This article has the title "Iran Propaganda 101: Mass Killing of Children in Connecticut --- The Jews Did It" http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html

Press TV succeeded in gaining attention for its story, which was the "Most Viewed" on its site throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. The response was far from one of applause, however. Max Fisher of The Washington Post, in a summary which rapidly spread across social media, wrote: "The PressTV story is sad and upsetting, mostly for its incredible insensitivity but also, to a lesser degree, for the obvious bankruptcy of Iranian propaganda."

It is extremely significant if a nation-state such as Iran is spending a significant effort in conjunction with american staff such as Jim Fetzer to promote the view that the attack are to be blamed on another nation-state such as Israel. Redhanker (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is being posted by the national press of a foreign state, it is a fringe theory (fringe theories are called such based on the "content" of the theory, not by who publishes it. Even RSs like NYTimes or WashPost can report news that we would consider as fringe. ) --MASEM (t) 19:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, Gaijin and AzureCitizen. Also, the following points have bearing on this matter:

1. This issue has already been discussed, see Talkpage Archive 1/Iranian reaction.
2. This issue is already covered at International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
3. This article is about the mass murder that occurred at Sandy Hook not about this Press TV/Iranian propaganda/fringe-conspiracy theory, to give it massive coverage within the event article when it already has coverage within the related International reaction article (where this issue, by subject matter, belongs), smacks of WP:UNDUE.

--Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a very silly theory, and it is surprising that Fetzer did not add that Israel faked the Apollo moon landings for good measure. It is not worth mentioning here per WP:FRINGE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the above sources were put up for discussion in relation to a different article in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#EA WorldView and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Press TV and Veterans Today RS for their contibutors. Location (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm about as open minded in letting people post on the talk page about just about anything but quite frankly, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE do need to be adhered to. I can find zero supporting evidence for any of what is alleged here and Occam's Razor does seem to say that it's logical Iran would baselessly blame Israel for this. It's been covered, can an administrator please close this discussion and let's move on with the real work.--Justanonymous (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. This is just plain creepy and doesn't belong in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook, Connecticut

I thought I would post a note about the article on the village of Sandy Hook, Conn. Adam Lanza is listed as a notable citizen of the town, and I'd like to get more opinions on that listing as I don't believe the village article gets nearly as much editing attention as this one. Coretheapple (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that he should be listed, yes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I just took a look at it and my problem is not with "who" is on the list, but "why?" Except for Lanza, there's no context as to why they are notable with regard to Sandy Hook. I'll post a comment on its Talk page.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it simply assumed that they are all past/present residents of the town? What else could it possibly mean? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"Black military style gear"

Is that even a real thing? Not a single military branch wears black clothing. This seems like weasel words to induce fear when reading it. This article isn't a screenplay for a movie and shouldn't be treated as such. The military wording should be removed. Cohenjc (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This comes down to yet more conflicting sources. Lanza has been described by police as wearing dark clothing, a mask and a bulletproof vest [22] when he entered the school. CNN says he was "wearing black fatigues and a military vest".[23] "Black military style gear" appears to be stretching the description, so it should probably be changed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... The article supported that (I guess, since I can't verify that online) with a cite of "Tragedy at an Elementary School". News12 Long Island. December 15, 2012. I dug around, and that story seems to come from an AP report widely circulated and appearing here and elsewhere. That speaks twice of a "military-style assault rifle" (inaccurately, it wasn't an assault rifle) and once of a "military style rifle" (i.e., a rifle which looked like a military rifle). It doesn't speak at all of "black military-style gear". This bit needs a review/rewrite. I won't jump in and do that as there's plenty of other editors working on this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cohenjc's comments are pure OR ("Not a single military branch wears black clothing") and conjecture (there are certainly without question black military fatigues -- see for example here), misunderstands that "black" is and adjective to the phrase "military style", and certainly doesn't trump what is reported in RSs. I know he is a 17-edit newbie, so understand how he might not be familiar with policy on OR and RSs. Ian points not to any conflicts on this issue, but to the fact that some reports mention the nature of what he was wearing while others do not -- but that is not a conflict. Of course, all manner of aspects of this matter are reported in some but not all articles on it -- that is very far from being a conflict at all. We should just follow the RSs here. A complete non-issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of mistakes and inconsistencies from media reports immediately after the shooting, "reliable source" does not necessarily mean "reliable information".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• The entire article is based on RSs -- we don't supplant what RSs report with OR. Instead, we reflect the RSs, and if RSs change their story we make the appropriate changes. Otherwise we have to litter the entire article with statements the reflect editors' personal unsubstantiated by RSs views that "RSs report x, but I really wonder if they are wrong." There were massive mistakes made in RS reporting in the beginning, but they have slowed. We don't now say "we think the shooter was Adam Lanza," because original RS reports were wrong on this point. There's simply no conflict in the RSs on this point at all. None. This is silly.

As pointed out by wp:v, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Let's follow the rules -- if there is an RS supported different point of view, report it. Don't delete what is RS supported based on OR unsubstantiated and incorrect views as to whether black military dress clothing exists.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Virtually all sources agree that Lanza was wearing black/dark clothing when he entered the school. There has been some dispute about whether he was wearing body armor or a bulletproof vest, as the two are not necessarily the same thing. Not many sources say that he was wearing a mask.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, police are now denying that Lanza was wearing body armor or a bulletproof vest, despite telling the media this at the time of the shooting.[24]. This calls into question whether he was wearing a mask either, as there seems to have been a good deal of confusion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out, we as editors don't just run with a news story - we work via Consensus - and the changing story on this tragedy has made most of us agree to wait a bit before adding material - as an encyclopedia instead of a newspaper, we can afford to wait. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I know what you're getting at HammerFilmFan, but just to be crystal, the consensus is a rational consensus (generally). eg If 10 editors say the world is flat, all it takes is on editor with RS, notability, a good article, etc to wash them away. in other words Galileos Welcome, no Old School Catholic Church here. -Justanonymous (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook shooter....

Resolved

The shooter at Sandy Hook DID NOT shoot his way into the school with a AR15.....the rifle was in the trunk of the car at all times, until the police removed it from the trunk....this action by the police was caught on News cameras. Riverrat1979 (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The weapon that was removed from the car was a shotgun, not the Bushmaster XM-15. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Already been discussed and put to rest, you read an old news report or watched mislabeled video.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this tragic story is still developing. We should go by the coroner's report though, until the surviving victims testimony becomes available. Authorities are not always right and there is a lot of confusion floating around out there. Keep diggin Riverrat1979 but let's be respectful to the tragedy and to the hard work of all the editors on here.....don't get me wrong, I love a good conspiracy but I prefer my conspiracies not to involve 20 dead children, we can't just go wildly slinging mud around here, we have dead children and a very sorrowful situation to contend with. Wild fringe stuff is not tolerated, rightfully, in this tragic situation. Lets get all the facts in line.--Justanonymous (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Question #4 in the FAQ section up at the top of this talkpage addresses some of the 'which gun' issue. Shearonink (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Article FAQ (asked and answered)

We seem to be revisiting the same topics over and over at great time expense in the talk. Is there any way to have an FAQ for new editors so the working team doesn't have to revisit the same material over and over? Might be more trouble than its worth but might save some time.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can create a page Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/FAQ, which can use the {{FAQ2}} template, which can then be transcluded into the headers here using {{/FAQ}}. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, apparently this was already done -- it's in the talk page headers here. I think we can put a link on the page notice that editors see when they try to edit too. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As you just posted, there is already a FAQ section (presently with 4 questions) up near the top of this page, right underneath the WikiProject banners. Shearonink (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

FAQs are OK, but people often do not read them. There is an extensive one at Talk:Michael Jackson, but people still ask the same questions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course people will ignore it. We can't stop that, but at least we can say and possible hat-off threads that repeat info in the FAQs and point to them as the reason. FWIW, I've added explicit links on the article's page notice to the FAQ and talk page, whatever good that may do. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

appreciate quick response, it's probably ineffective as is. Peopl would have to read and agree to be effective. It just feels like zombies keep rising from he grave around here. Thank you all. -Justanonymous (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

We just have to be diligent with our efforts and intentions, but I'm dubious about a FAQ page if Sr. editors and admins are going to ignore our discussions and the process we have created. See below...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalhotrod (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 December 2012(UTC)

Article about Victoria Soto created; nominated for deletion; ongoing discussion

Hi folks, an editor created a referenced article on Victoria Soto but someone else nominated it for deletion. There is an ongoing discussion about wether we should keep or delete the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Leigh Soto. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Leigh Soto and express your opinion; whatever it may be. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Autism and Asperger's are WRONG: he had CIPR

Why do you have that he was autistic or had Asperger's? That's completely wrong. Your only sources for that are hearsay using colloquial non-medical meaning. Look at the sources from those in a position to know. Adam Lanza had congenital insensitivity to pain and the behavior problems which very often go with it. Kjsdhj (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC) http://www.halfsigma.com/2012/12/did-adam-lanza-have-congenital-analgesia.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsdhj (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The congenital insensitivity to pain theory is not mentioned in the article because it is too speculative. Asperger's syndrome is mentioned because various people told investigators that they had been informed that Lanza had the condition. Medical experts have said that even if Lanza did receive a diagnosis of AS, it would not explain the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, something was very broken with him but No medical doctor ever diagnosed him as that (that has been made public) and now that he is dead we might never know. We can't have rampant conjecture. Kjsdhj, if you have his medical records and a diagnosis (obtained legally of course) happy to adjust. --Justanonymous (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On one hand you have his estranged brother saying he was autistic. Then you have an anonymous police officer and a couple friends of the family saying he had Asperger's. But "the school district's head of security until 2008, who also served as adviser for the school technology club" says he had CIPR. If that doesn't meet your standards, then how can an anonymous source and a couple neighbors meet your standards? Why not just remove all mention of autism and Asperger's until the official investigation report is published?

In any case, what policy or encyclopedia rule would suggest that police and neighbors would be more reliable than the school district head of security? Kjsdhj (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If anything, we need a much more reliable source to even consider adding this. That halfsigma site doesn't meet the quality we'd need for that claim. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Kjsdhj, basically an illness requires a diagnosis from a competent medical doctor examining the patient. People (including) doctors who are removed can say whatever they think or suspect but that is not a diagnosis - an expert might make an educated observation but it likely won't be a diagnosis. It will be very hard to diagnose Mr. Lanza after the fact, he's dead and unavailable for evaluation. We might never know. Some condidtions like down's syndrome are detectable through certain DNA tests but I'm uncertain that DNA testing will be able to cast any light on autism, aspergers or CIPR - that's beyond the the science event horizon at the moment. Frankly, like Masem said, we need a reliable source (somebody who can confirm a medical diagnosis or interpret a DNA test conclusively to provide a medical diagnosis - good enough for a court). We don't have that. Yes some people say Asperger's, others CIPR, and still others Autism - that's all heresay. When the medical diagnosis comes out or a DNA test interpretation that is admitted in some court, we'll add that RS - until then it's unknown. I'm torn over how much of the heresay to include, it can be very incendiary and can be damaging to people who live with these conditions. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I also have advocated for the removal of all the here say diagnosis content barring confirmation.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

I dont see how this discussion is helping the article at all, and feel it should be kept on the talk pages of those involved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Has anyone else received an edit warring warning? One was just posted on my Talk page, but with no detail other than its in reference to this article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I did not, but I have not edited this article for a while now. I believe the warning editor was referred to the edit warning between Scalhotrod (talk · contribs) and Toddst1 (talk · contribs). You could talk about the problem here on this talk page. TBrandley (what's up) 21:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Hence part of my concern, the warning came from Toddst1 (talk · contribs) with my only interaction with this editor being to ask that he participate in discussions on this Talk page before making edits[25]. Does reverting edits and making a request like this amount to "edit warring"?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:37, 30 Decem--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)ber 2012 (UTC) If it is a 1 revert case no i do not see that as edit warring, 3RR is for 3 reverts in 24 hours and usually see warnings placed if there are 2 reverts but one yeah I can see why you would take issue with it. I would keep this on the talkpage as per above, im sure Toddst1 had legit reasons though assuming good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC) OK, so my confusion and apprehension is not unfounded. From my perspective, I have been diligent and consistent (as have others) with trying to maintain the status quo of the article. If we collectively agree on an edit and then a 3rd party makes a change seemingly without regard to our discussions here, I feel its warranted to revert the edit and ask the editor to participate in the process we have established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalhotrod (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 December 2012‎ This is an issue that I raised on Scalhotrod's talk page because it involves only him. I'll be continuing it there. Toddst1 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, and I am enjoying our conversation there, but I also asked for input and feedback from the group of editors that have been the most active on this article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Out of fairness and respect for Toddst1's (talk) status, I want to mention that I've been made aware of "BOLD, Revert, Discuss" and I have to admit that it changes my perspective on some of the edits made. In our conversation, Toddst1 cautions me that controversial edits should be quickly reverted, and I think that all of the active editors on this article strive to do this, but what WP:BRD promotes helps to clarify some things for me.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC) if there's been a meeting of the minds great. But don't just fold over the fact that he is an administrator. Progress sometimes means changing the status quo. I am always suspect of a "fold" over some sense o rank or authority. America was founded by radical liberals who didn't believe in kings.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I don't disagree with your comments and stances, but I also subscribe to picking your battles wisely and know from experience a lot can be learned from the Sr. Wikipedians.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Well, I've been watching. The esteemed editor Toddst1 came on a bit strong with a 1R threat of edit warring when he himself was engaged in the activity as one of the parties and then he flashed his administrator badge. Respectfully, I think Toddst1 can learn a bit from this incident as well. We need good editors in Wikipedia and I happen to think that you Scalhotrod are a good editor. You've been doing great work here. We should not assume bad faith or automatically operate from authority and education. You were not privy to the policy and mechanism that he introduced you to, I'm saying he could've introduced it more effectively without shoving his supposed weight around. We're all volunteers here. I hope all parties, including the esteemed administrator, can take a nugget from this one.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I wish you had watched more carefully and understood the issue more accurately. In the end, Scalhotrod and I sorted it out. S/he now understands why WP:Bold edits are useful and all is well. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC) This is what the esteemed editor Toddst1 gave me on my talk page: Thank you, For sharing your vast experience with us. Toddst1 (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Toddst1 engaged in edit warring, bullied a good editor, threw barbs at someone who dared point out his deficiences to him, and refuses to see that he too might be able to learn from the situation. Sad. No wonder, editorship is down when we have to submit to the likes of Toddst1.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Your accusation that I engaged in edit warring is pure bullshit and you know it. Before I thought you were just careless in your assessment of the facts. Now I see it's worse. I recommend you stop commenting on others' behaviors. Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you! All praise is gratefully accepted and appreciated... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Adams car

Adams car was not registered to his mother. It was registered to [someone else]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.10.116 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Any reliable source for this RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 00:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And more importantly, how is this relevant to the article?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Shootings section currently says "Adam Lanza then drove his mother's car to Sandy Hook Elementary School." If it wasn't his mother's car (for example, if he had stolen someone else's car), maybe the sentence should be changed. However, if it was the car that his mother always used but she had some arrangement with a different registered owner, that's a level of detail that's probably not relevant. GoingBatty (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, got it, now I understand the issue at hand. So it sounds like in light of the accuracy of the statement "his mother's car" that it should be removed pending confirmation or just left neutral.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Material to introduce to "Reactions" Section

This is all from a separate reactions Article now being discussed for Deletion or possible Merger into this one. Let's introduce this material here, even if we condense it a bit.

Extended content

Reactions by countries 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 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 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 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." China Chinese netizens gave a lot of condolences for Americans affected by the shootings in Newton. On the same day as Sandy Hook there was a mass attack at an elementary school in China in which 23 children were left wounded. There was criticism of the ruling Communist Party's readiness to reflect on the what goes wrong in the US but not for China as much of the media was focused on the American shooting. Commonwealth 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 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," France President François Hollande commented that he was "horrified" upon hearing about the event. Hungary The Ministry of Foreign Affairs "wishes to express its deep dismay at the tragic events." Gábor Kaleta, head of the Foreign Ministry’s press department, told the MTI that the Ministry extends its sympathy to the bereaved families. Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast condemned "the massacre of American children" and expressed his condolences to the families of victims. An Iranian state-run newspaper claimed that Israeli "Mossad death squads" were the actual perpetrators of the shooting and that Lanza was merely a patsy. Israel ‘We in Israel understand the shock and agony,’ Netanyahu said. Japan 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 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 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 President Enrique Peña Nieto expressed his condolences via Twitter, saying, "My solidarity is with the American people and President Obama". Norway 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." King Harald also sent a personal condolence letter to President Obama. Philippines 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, 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. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wrote a message to Obama saying that he was "deeply shocked and saddened" to hear of the shooting." "An event like this reminds us of our common humanity, regardless of nationality or where we live in the world." "This was a senseless loss of innocent young lives, especially since schools should be sanctuaries for our children. I wish you success in your efforts to prevent such tragedies from recurring in the future." He also expressed condolences on Facebook. Similarly, Foreign Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam expressed his condolences in a Facebook post saying that "Children are innocent, full of life and promise. Cut down in a hail of bullets by a person with a rifle. There have been so many shootings in the US over the years we no longer get surprised that this happens", he went on to say that in no other developed country do school shootings happen so regularly. Scotland Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland sent a letter to Barack Obama expressing Scotland's shared "shock and deep sadness" Spain The 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 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.” United Kingdom 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 City 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." Reactions by leading newspapers and other organizations There were tributes and vigils by people in Moscow, Bangalore, Karachi and in Monrovia, Liberia. An organized candle light vigil was held in India and a make shift memorial set up at the US embassy in Moscow. Media in the United Kingdom compared the shooting to the Dunblane school massacre, another school shooting that occurred in 1996, in which 16 children and one teacher were killed before the shooter, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton, committed suicide.

Sorry this had to be so long

Have fun discussing this further! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The material above is controversial because it is repetitive and adds little to a reader's understanding. The flag icons have also been criticized for being too gaudy and unnecessary per WP:PROSE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a copy-paste job. I was just too lazy to go through removing the flag icons for a Talk Page. I'm talking about the actual information about foreign reactions to the event, which was briefly covered here without the flag icons and then removed altogether for God knows what reason. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no real need to enumerate a long list of reactions, a sampling is enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

FTI The article ended in a Weak keep result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

At most, I would make it a one liner saying, heads of state from x number countries expressed condolences.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest not giving a specific number, but saying "heads of state from numerous countries" or "heads of state from over x countries". GoingBatty (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

great point GoingBatty, makes it cleaner and future proofs it.--Justanonymous (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

So how about a sub article as a compromise? Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting:_International_Reaction, this way its not cluttering up the main article, but not necessarily subject to the standards for an independent article since the discussion resulted in a Weak keep.

If I might be so bold, maybe this could solve the Soto article issue and provide structure for the recent crop of "victim specific" articles. We just make them sub-articles and then the main one becomes the header to an "article group".

Hey, maybe a new template {{header article}} This article is the header for a group of articles, click here for the full list of related sub articles.

Or am I totally off my nut and violating a myriad of WP policies?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Categorization?

An editor recently added Category:2012 deaths to this article. I was initially surprised that there doesn't seem to be a relationship between that category and Category:2012 murders in the United States (i.e. the former isn't a parent of the latter). Looking further, it seems that the former is used on biographical articles, while the latter is used for event articles, such as this. What do others think? GoingBatty (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

MSNBC/NBC coverage

That's non-free images, and require strong rationales to include. Do not upload them. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a comment here, but I see it is dealt with elsewhere on the talk page. My apologies. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Unclear

We have a sentence that says "The events in another first-grade classroom remain uncertain, with varying accounts attributed to the surviving children." But the remainder of the paragraph fails to then mention what the variances are. I would either expand to explain what the variances were, or delete the sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

During the first 24 hours after the shooting, investigators and parents told the media many things that were wrong, contradictory or are still unconfirmed. This has caused problems for the article,and the article needs to flag this up where necessary. The events surrounding Victoria Leigh Soto are a good example, and the article could make this part clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's one option -- if the article clarifies what is "varying". It doesn't at all. The reader is left to wonder -- what in the remainder of the paragraph is "varying"? Or does this paragraph only report what the accounts agree on? As it stands, this is unhelpful. Either this should be clarified in the para, or the sentence removed -- as it stands it is not helpful to the reader.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The widely reported story about Virginia Soto hiding children in the cupboards was widely reported, but there is no reliable source for this, and it is probably not true. The only eyewitness account I have seen from the Soto classroom was from Aidan Licata as reported by his parents, and it contradicts this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.47.233 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Speculation, IP, about 'probably not true.' Wait for the official report from the investigation team.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's count the survivors of Ms. Soto's class

Police found "seven sets of eyes."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/16/newtown-shootings-gunman-soto-details/1772791/

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-timeline-newtown-shooting-1216-20121215,0,5789092,print.story

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-lanza-gunjam-20121222,0,3580899.story

Gene Rosen's house

6 kids (4 girls 2 boys) "Mrs. Soto is dead." They each left with parents.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/neighbor-helped-sandy-hook-students_n_2317775.html

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Neighbor-Took-6-Young-Sandy-Hook-Survivors-Into-His-home---183876631.html

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/ABC_Univision/gene-rosen-comforts-sandy-hook-students-end-lawn/story?id=18020583

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/children_at_door_teacher_is_dead_DHMiJZyeryAjDcEny5ZgXO

http://www.thehour.com/news/state/evil-visited-the-yellow-house-on-riverside-road/article_52921fcf-d630-5e6b-8457-891574471adc.html?mode=print

http://www.insideedition.com/print/5533

The Licatas

Aidan Licata, girl named Emma, plus 1 boy ran away. A woman picked them up in her van and took them to police station.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/16/in-newtown-20-little-angels-and-six-uncommonly-brave-adults.html

http://www.kvia.com/news/Parents-try-to-explain-death-of-teachers/-/391068/17794436/-/dconi8z/-/index.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1212/15/sitroom.03.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/nyregion/amid-the-whiz-of-bullets-seeking-comfort-in-song.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&

"The children got out"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57559513/newtown-massacre-teacher-vicki-sotos-heroics-remembered/

The Maksels

Jen Maksel sees 5 additional Soto students at firehouse, while searching for her son. Additionally, 5 more Soto students, boys, including Bryce Maksel have been taken to Newtown police station by "two moms".

http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20656736_20658893,00.html

Class size

Class of 16?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/16/in-newtown-20-little-angels-and-six-uncommonly-brave-adults.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/connecticut-elementary-school-shooting-victims-hero-teacher-principal/story?id=17982784#.UOX6cUL5E_6

Class photo shows 15

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/3374/sclassof15.jpg

Other teachers and friends

Teachers on Facebook: "He killed her and not one of her children were harmed."

Friend on Tumblr: "Not one of her students were harmed."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/16/in-newtown-20-little-angels-and-six-uncommonly-brave-adults.html

http://www.kcentv.com/story/20358076/v

http://www.newcanaannewsonline.com/local/article/Teacher-from-Stratford-shielded-students-4120759.php

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/nation/article/Teacher-died-fighting-for-her-students-4121117.php

http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2012/12/16/victoria-soto-outpouring-of-love-for-heroic-teacher-who-died-in-connecticut-school-shooting

http://www.sfgate.com/news/nation-world/nation/article/Teacher-died-fighting-for-her-students-4121117.php

"Soto hurried her first-graders into a bathroom near Classroom 10, just beyond the school’s main glass doors. Two students stood on the toilet. Others huddled on the floor. With no space left, Soto stepped out of the small room herself, a witness said. A 20-year-old man wearing black stepped into the classroom and shot her before quickly exiting the room."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/sandy-hook-massacre-teachers-sought-to-soothe-children-in-moments-of-terror/2012/12/15/a9f0c0dc-4715-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story_1.html

While we're at it

Not to mention that there was apparently 14, not 15 victims in Mrs. Rousseau's class.

"There were 14 coats hanging there and 14 bodies. He killed them all," said a law enforcement officer.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-timeline-newtown-shooting-1216-20121215,0,5808367,print.story

http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-15/business/hc-timeline-newtown-shooting-1216-20121215_1_school-psychologist-classroom-special-education-teacher
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.128.127 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"...14 of her students and a special-education aide."

http://www.ctnow.com/news/hc-newtown-sandy-hook-crime-scene-1230-20121229,0,5886764,print.story

"The gunman shot all 14 students in the classroom, law enforcement officers said."

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-timeline/index.html

In case of dead links, I have all sources saved locally as pdf files. 70.194.131.6 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Resolved

An attorney in Connecticut is seeking to file a $100 million lawsuit on behalf of one of the child survivors of the incident. Should this be included in the article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One link is here: Newtown survivor’s $100M suit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Joseph, horrendous thing happened in your state and now someone wants to compound and draw it out with a lawsuit. I suppose that this is an expected reaction. Even with this new development, I think we should all try to stick to the facts.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that it is only a request to seek to file on behalf of the boy, and thus not the start of an actual suit, this is too extraneous to include at this time. If the lawsuit does start, that would be a better metric. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see the logic in this, good call MASEM. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Esteemed editors, I have to agree with Joseph Spadaro on this one. The lawsuit is on behalf of one of the victims alleging that the state did not provide adequate security for the school. This item was mentioned front and center on the evening news on Saturday December 29, 2012 (tonight) by the major broadcasters in the US, NBC Nightly News covered it so it is WP:RS. It's a direct Reaction and deals squarely with school security in the aftermath of Newtown (if I dare use the word aftermath). The filing of a lawsuit is a fact, and is a direct Reaction to the shooting and it was filed on behalf of a victim. Recommend reinstating a short one liner into the article without delay. --Justanonymous (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a lawsuit yet. It's a request to file one on behalf of one of the victims. If he gets that, then I agree the lawsuit can be included. Right now, it's basically saying "someone filed a form", which is far from encyclopedic. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

MASEM is correct, I was saying almost exactly the same thing, but his edit canceled out mine. Its just a publicly declared intention, NOT a lawsuit yet.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is all semantics and legal mumbo jumbo. In essence, a lawsuit was filed. However, when you sue the State of CT, you must ask permission of the State first, in order to file such a lawsuit against them. So, when you ask the State for permission to sue them, that is the first step in filing a lawsuit against them. (Think: "You have to file Paper A before we will allow you to file Paper B.") As I said, it's all semantics and legal mumbo jumbo. Once the State gives its permission, then the lawsuit is filed in court. However, the "big news" is this first step. It will not be "big news" once the State gives the permission. In other words, the filing of this perfunctory request for permission is, for all practical purposes, the initial filing of the suit. That's why the AP picked up and reported the story. For what it's worth. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Its more than likely that AP ran the story because the attorney involved included them in his announcement. Regardless of what we consider "big news" or not, the filing of paperwork is not relevant until its an active suit. Patience is not harmful.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're lawyers here so I don't think we can judge at what point a suit becomes valid....it's a convoluted legal process -- a plaintiff is taking legal action against the state, an entity that is generally immune from suits so an extra step is required....we are not lawyers and we should not arbitrarily judge at what stage of a case it becomes citable and certainly not because there is some arbitrary extra step that this is not citable. Semantics aside, a victim (plaintiff) is pursuing a legal and pecuniary remedy from the state of Connecticut claiming that the state did not satisfy the requirement to protect the child in the school (what we call a lawsuit and it's a complicated process with many steps). At the current stage it is notable enough for NBC, CBS, ABC, USA Today, Fox etc to mention and call it "a lawsuit," it should be good enough for us to add the one liner as a fact that one of the victims is seeking compensation through a legal setting (a lawsuit), it's a fact and it's citable. Whether the suit has merit, grounds, locus standi etc, is beyond us right now. I'm sure that in the days that come there might be multiples of this and we can just adjust the sentence then to "two victims are suing, three victims are suing," some might have merit, many might be dismissed etc. Our place is just to factually document that for now at least one of the victims is seeking a legal remedy - which is a fact plain and simple.--Justanonymous (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

At the same time, I don't think a lawsuit should consume much real estate on the article. We are a litigious society so it should not be unexpected that someone would try to seek a legal remedy. If the editors decide to add a factual statement, it should be very small unless, three years from now somebody wins a $100million dollar remedy from the state!-Justanonymous (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The resulting lawsuit could be huge, ending up at SCOTUS and be a major impact. Or it could be laughed out of court on its first hearing. Because we don't know which way it will go, it is better to wait until at least there is some trial to report on (likely at the CT state level) as opposed to just the filing. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Other articles where parties sue do not wait until there are trials to note the action in Wikipedia. I've combed through several of our aviation accidents issue and some have Legal Action sections while others just have one liners that there are lawsuits - even while trials might be years away. Personally waiting until there is a trial is a very high bar to set for citability of legal action on Wikipedia - Seeking to sue is a citable factual event, I think. I think it'll be a tough legal path to sue and recover from the state - but it seems like they're going for it. --Justanonymous (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is NOT a personal attack and please don't interpret it as such, but because Justanonymous mentioned it twice in his comment I'm mentioning that Joseph A. Spadaro happens to be a lawyer, this is posted on his User page,

This user is a lawyer.

True, a legal remedy is being sought, that is a factual statement and there are reliable sources to back it up. But its still premature information for a Wikipedia article. What's wrong with being patient and seeing if its approved.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

USA Today's article notes that "The state has immunity against most lawsuits unless permission to sue is granted." While the filing may be important in the 24 hours a day news cycle, I agree that it needs to be approved before becoming reasonably encyclopedic. GoingBatty (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too excited about the scale of the media coverage yet either. This is a pretty slow news period, and anything out of the ordinary can get big coverage. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Joseph is the attorney and he's the one asking if the statement should be added....there are a lot of types of lawyers, we don't know what type of legal training Joseph has and in which states. So he might be an expert here or not. I'm ok with waiting on adding this so long as we're waiting in good faith. My concern historically with this article is that some information like the DNA testing made it to the page immediately on a very fast path, while the NRA reaction was aggressively stiffled and now it appears that this lawsuit is being put on the slow boat to china path. Why the difference, Masem (no disrepect) had the idea to post the DNA stuff and he pushed it on there but pushes back heavily on the lawsuit? Why the double standard? All editors with fair and factual statements should get equal unfettered access to edit the article. That's my point. I generally object to procedurally blocking an editor who has WP:RS on his side regardless of how many editors pile on to disagree. Unless we have a very good reason to not include in the article, and I haven't heard any, a one liner is not going to detract but rather add to the article.--Justanonymous (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not likely, too many eyes on this article. Even if we agree to be patient and wait to see if the request is granted, we'll still be fending off other editors who don't bother to read the Talk page first.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I generally object to editors who aggressively argue WP:RS without putting any weight on notability and broader perspective. Waiting a little while will do the article no harm at all. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I generally go on the side of being bold provided WP:RS & notability is there. I trust a good decision will be made here either to add right away or to wait, I'm good either way so long as we apply that same thinking fairly across all reasonable fact based edits - this is a great team that is editing this article right now - I'm just sharing my impressions here, which are both sharpened and unfortunately clouded by my own experiences. The DNA point is hardly notable, will likely yield nothing of value but it's in the article right now (in fairness it doesn't hurt to have the blurb on DNA so long as quoted correctly) but all the while significant legal action is in some kind of procedural limbo in an arbitrary "cooling off period" process that I've never heard of until I bumped into it on this article. I'll leave it at that, I think you all know what I think. :-) I trust you all and value you all for your hard work here - this is a tough article to keep in line and I do applaud you all for the hard work. --Justanonymous (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Relatives of the victims of the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre attempted to sue, but the case was dismissed. A similar situation applies here, so the case may not get very far. At the moment there is no actual legal case, only a proposal for one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The intent to sue ( unsuccessfully) is documented on the San Ysidro massacre wikipedia page, why is that unsuccessful suit attempt allowed on that page but blocked here. Consistency please. The intent to sue is notable, lets please stop blocking valid posts, please add to the article.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not being blocked. It's being discussed. Be patient. HiLo48 (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

apologize HiLo48, my wording was too strong, I trust the good faith. We'll get through it, so many editors can't be wrong, I also respect the consensus.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The McDonald's case trundled through the courts in California for three years before being thrown out, which is significant enough to mention. The main difference is that McDonald's is a corporation, not the state. Either way, the plaintiff would have to satisfy the court that there was negligence involved. Failure to turn a school or fast food diner into an armed camp that will withstand an attack by a maniac with automatic weapons is probably not going to be viewed as negligence by a court.[26] The article here should wait and see on this one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait to see what happens. The lawsuit seems marginal at this point. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There are now reports that Irving Pinksy has withdrawn the filing for the lawsuit.[27] This looks like a horse that will not run, and it should not be mentioned in the article unless he is granted formal permission to sue the State of Connecticut.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We finally called one correctly! Points go to Masem and Ian for being steadfast!--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013

I wanted to include under his high school days "He was reported to be a Satan worshiper"

Sources http://www.christianpost.com/news/adam-lanzas-rampage-was-fueled-by-satan-86860/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250608/Adam-Lanzas-classmate-reveals-Sandy-Hook-gunman-online-devil-worshiping-page.html www.examiner.com/ article/ former-classmate-connecticut-school-shooter-adam-lanza-worshipped-the -devil -

Also I think it should be pointed out that he had practice for the massacre by his being an avid gamer. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/playtime_in_den_of_doom_vYB2VlXSBEW8Di7pMo1leJ www.infowars.com/ mass-shooter-adam-lanza-spent-hours-playing-call-of-duty

Lu kang-sung (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The satanism and video games angles have been discussed before and are too speculative. Investigators have yet to make any public comment on a motive for the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I'm open minded and flexible, but this is a little "out there" even for me. Time to study up on WP:RS... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the correct argument by ianmacm, the source you specified does not even claim Lanza was a Satan worshiper. The author is saying that Satan worked through Lanza, but has made no statement explicitly or even implicitly saying that Lanza worshiped Satan, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unnamed adult

In the coverage since the event, I have not seen further coverage of the unnamed adult wounded and taken to the hospital. I believe that this it was Natalie Hammond who was first unnamed, then named. Has anybody seen any evidence whatsoever that there were two wounded, Natalie Hammond and somebody else? Abductive (reasoning) 18:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there were two adults who were wounded and survived, but I'm not sure if both unnamed injured adult survivors have been named.

• December 17th story in the New York Times - In this story it appears that there were at least two adult employees who were considered survivors, one identified and one not. Computer in Connecticut Gunman’s Home Yields No Data, Investigators Say states:

"As investigators continued to examine other evidence they had seized, the first funerals were held on a gloomy and chaotic day that brought word of a second survivor, a school employee who was wounded but had not been mentioned in earlier accounts of the carnage. Her name was not immediately released. The other survivor at Sandy Hook was identified as the school’s lead teacher, Natalie Hammond, 40."

• This Reuters story printed in the Huffington Post "Becky Virgalla, Newtown Shooting Survivor, Says Principal, Others Saved Her In Sandy Hook Rampage" does state that Hammond was wounded as well.
• This December 19th NBC story states that there were two wounded adult survivors.
• USA Today December 19th states that there were two injured adult survivors: one from the meeting in the conference room and a substitute kindergarten teacher.
• The Voice (a Michigan newspaper) stated on December 23rd that:

"A few more official updates from police trickled out — there were two people who were allegedly shot by 20-year-old Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary and survived, not the single female adult survivor police had indicated earlier."

I was unable to find a reliable source that clearly states the names of the two injured/wounded adult survivors. Shearonink (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We can privately surmise who the initially unnamed survivors are but unless a reliable source clearly states something along the lines of "the two previously unidentified wounded adult survivors are..." or "the previously unidentified adult survivor who was taken to the hospital and treated for their injuries is...", Wikipedia cannot make that leap. Shearonink (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013

Hi - a correction for you. It seems the school nurse for SHS is named Sally Cox, not Sarah Cox as per what's in the article. See the following link to their staff website for confirmation.

http://newtown.sandyhook.schooldesk.net/Staff/StaffDirectory/tabid/17319/Default.aspx 72.248.85.138 (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

YDone! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Premature Article Sandy Hook Shooting

There is so much information that is half-truths and half factual, it seems premature to put ANYTHING down as "fact" down until all the information is given. This reminds me of the game of telephone, where you whisper something in one ear and it goes on and on until everything has changed. There are so many descrepancies that need to be cleared up:

1. There were reports of more than one shooter initially, and even video of men in camo being chased into the woods behind the school from a news camera. What happened with that information?

2. There is really no HARD evidence yet that Adam Lanza did this, did this alone, or was even there at the scene. No official police reports have come out and the investigation is still on-going, the scene is still being processed for evidence. From all reports from relatives and classroom friends, Adam was reclusive, but shy and withdrawn, not violent.

3. The coroner's reports have not yet come out and explained which weapon(s) were used on the victims. Again, this is all evidence as to what really happened that day.

4. The mental state of Adam Lanza is in question, as to whether or not he had Aspergers or some other condition.

6. Of course, in the big picture NONE of this makes sense, but it seems to make even less sense to put out information especially in something that would be considered as "truth" if you don't have the facts yet. What's the hurry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.34.195 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a reason why there's a decent army of editors involved here to make sure that unclaimed truths are removed or prevented from going in the article. The fact that information rapidly changed in the hours and days after the shooting should not stop us from creating an article, and in fact the Foundation has praised us in the past for having reasonably stable and unbiased coverage of breaking events within a few hours of them happening.

I don't think anyone at this point questions who did this - they have the body, they have eyewitnesses, they have his brother. That's like asking if 20 children really died or were they taken to Area 51. It's so far off as a fringe theory we can't even entertain that. Of course, other facts if there was some other person that prompted Lanza into the shooting, we don't know yet, but we don't talk about that yet either, thus keeping the article neutral to the facts that are known. As for a second shooter or the like, if there was a serious investigation about that, we would have at least had reports that the investigators are chasing that lead. They aren't (there was that report of the guy they found near the school but ruled him out quickly). If it does become important that a second shooter was suspected, we can add that when that news actually breaks. And as to the weapons used to kill the victims, they've already affirmed the general class of gun that was used, and its only a matter of ballistics testing to positively ID the weapon. That however takes time. Basically, there are blanks in this story that we cannot at this point fill in, but it doesn't make creating the article pointless at this time, since it clearly is a notable event. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of these issues have been raised before on this talk page and therefore are addressed within the FAQ, in the yellow box at the top of this page. Interested parties can also always do a search of this talk page's extensive Archive to see if others have discussed an issue before and if consensus was reached regarding inclusion/exclusion/reliable sources/etc. Shearonink (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What are the rules for putting names of people on this talk page??? This last entry is concerning, it doesn't have any WP:RS and allegedly ties a third party that no WP:RS has mentioned on item 5. Allegations like this could endanger an actual innocent third party, do we have a way of removing that? Besides, we are not doing original research here so immaterial to have, we are really just citing WP:RS and I for one want no part in any discussion that could endanger an innocent third party through some wild conspiracy theory. Can we remove please?-Justanonymous (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning that...issue being addressed. Shearonink (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Things are still unclear in a number of areas, and investigators may be having difficulty piecing together why Lanza did this. It is not in doubt from reliable sources that Adam Lanza was the sole shooter, but there are bound to be alternative explanations with WP:FRINGE issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Police are still declining to comment when asked about a motive, so there is WP:NORUSH. This citation also raises the issue of the long term future of the old Sandy Hook School. The San Ysidro McDonald's was demolished, but it is too early to say what will happen to the old school building in Newtown.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional details

I previously suggested we should mention other schools in town resumed classes on December 18 and was told in ten years no one would care. I did see that one school didn't open because of a threat, although I didn't get that school's name written down. In an actual newspaper dated December 19, the headline was "Schools Reopen in Newtown" and the author was Yaniche Alcindor of USA Today. I haven't looked for this online.

In addition, I added some content yesterday because the details of where they were going were in a place in the article I did not expect them to be, and I just happened to notice that part of the article at some point after I had done it. Figuring the rest of you might not want the extra details, and seeing that the essential information was there, I self-reverted. Would it be of any value that the backpacks and desks from Sandy Hook were moved to Monroe? And of course I managed to change the new school into an elementary school when it wasn't, but I would have corrected that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I did do a bit of rewrite around the Chalk Hill bit just now, noting that the desks from Sandy Hook was moved along with other refurbishings, and the fact that the Chalk Hill school is temporarily being named Sandy Hook while students are there. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That works.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 January 2013

Please add hyperlink for National School Shield Program, http://nraschoolshield.com/, in last paragraph of Reactions section.

Jaguarjlr (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done. We don't place external links within the body (outside of an external links section), and that link on this shooting article is not appropriate within an "external links" section. It could easily go on the NRA's article page however. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually we're trying to keep the NRA page clear of "current events" and keep it just about the organization. There's a place for the link somewhere, I'm not sure its the NRA article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I see no reason why it would not be completely appropriate there. I understand keeping current events off it, but this school shield program is their concept so it should be discussed on that page, and thus the EL to the program there. (I don't think the program is notable enough for its own article yet, which would be the ideal place). Of course, if the link to that program is easy to get through from the main NRA website, then we don't have to include it yet. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It may have to be just an "External link" for now until there is something more substantial to say about it aside from its being a new initiative.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Police Response Timeline Unavailable

The basic timeline as to what happened at Sandy Hook from the time of the first 911 call seems to be unavailable. Just when was the call, what was the response and how long it took to get police to the school and what they did are important elements of the story. At this point it seems as though there was a tragic delay in police response that allowed the gunman to roam the school for perhaps 20 minutes killing everyone he could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt Black (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

From the sourcing available, it seems that police were at the school within around 15 minutes. The first emergency call was received around 9:35 AM and the police had arrived by around 9:50 AM. There does not seem to have been any undue delay in the police response.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

CNN places the response time at about 20 minutes. Which is generally reasonable for most types of events. This event highlights how fast tragedies like this happen though and perhaps the need for a different approach to school security but I'm not sure that a quicker reaction time is realistic in most cases. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Police radio transcripts suggest that Lanza shot himself within 15 minutes of the first 911 call.[28] This was a fair response time for an emergency situation. Perhaps the text of the article should make this clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Capt Black, are you suggesting the insertion of a timeline table? Or are you suggesting critique of the response time be inserted ( which I think we can't insert unless a notable person criticizes the response time). Or are you merely criticizing the response time? The article articulates the course of events in prose as best as they are know.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Would something like the following be valuable?

Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting Timeline

Actor	Action	Time	Elapsed Time
Perpetrator	Kills Mother	<9:30am
Perpetrator	Shoots way into school	9:35am	0 mins
School	Calls Police	9:35am	0 mins
Newtown Police dispatch	Request police to school	9:35am	0 mins
Connecticut State Police	Receive first call	9:41am	6 mins
Perpetrator	Stops shooting	9:46 - 9:49am	11 - 14 mins
Police	Arrive at School	9:50am	15 mins
Danbury Hospital	Scrambled extra medical personnel	10am	25 mins

-Justanonymous (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. We already explain in prose, we would never use a table to do that. I could understand if this was a much longer or proactive event with lots of various incidents, but certainly not as "simple" as what happened here. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The original audio can be heard on YouTube here. The key part is at 9:49:05 AM, when a male voice says "Negative on description. OK, shots were fired around three minutes ago. Quiet at the time." This means that Lanza could have shot himself as early as 9:46 AM, 11 minutes after the first 911 call.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• The CNN timeline has been widely quoted in the blogs, and it gives a response time of twenty minutes. Later reports say that the first 911 call, with the police response "Sandy Hook school. Caller is indicating she thinks someone is shooting in the building" occurred around 9:35 AM. These words are spoken at 9:35:53 on the recording. The recording shows the police at the school within fifteen minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Globalize Reaction Banner?

Someone added a Globalize banner to the Reactions section which I removed. Global aspects of the reaction are captured in the reaction section already - which really just includes a list of condolences from heads of state and dignitaries. Diplomatically there isn't much more reaction that they can have to a tragedy like this. The event did occur in the United States and the majority of the reaction will be stateside reaction. Still, here is a place for us to share opinion and discuss if the editors think we have to further globalize this section.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

GLOBALIZE REACTION FURTHER

-editors thinking the reactions section needs further globalization.

IT'S FINE AS IT IS

-editors thinking the reactions section is fine as it is from a global standpoint.

• Since there was a keep vote for Reaction_to_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting, there is no need to offer a long and repetitive list of condolences here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, I think it's covered well as is -Justanonymous (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DISCUSSION

• I agree that the details of the condolences listed in Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting do not need to be duplicated in the Reactions section here. Questions about this section:

1. Would it be beneficial to have a sentence that discusses the media's comparisons to other events? (Dunblane school massacre? Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing?)
2. Should the Reactions section be organized differently? (Chronologically? All the Obama stuff together? Order of importance?)
3. Is there anything from the Reactions section that should be copied or moved the Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article? (Movie/TV delays? NRA details?)

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So I'd like to re-new a suggestion I made in another discussion of the Reactions section...

• How about a sub article? Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting:_International_Reaction, this way its not cluttering up the main article, but not necessarily subject to the strict rules for an independent article since the discussion resulted in a Weak keep.
• If I might be so bold, maybe this could solve the Soto article issue and provide structure for the recent crop of "victim specific" articles. We just make them sub-articles and then the main one becomes the header to an "article group".
• Hey, maybe a new template {{header article}} This article is the header for a group of articles, click here for the full list of related sub articles.

Or am I totally off my nut and this suggestion violates a myriad of WP policies?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Whomever added the globalize banner did not look at the separate reaction article (even though I still see no improvements on it and, if nothing changes, plan to renom it for deletion under different reasons). Given that the only thing from the global community has been words of compassion, there's no need to do anything more beyond the one line we have. --MASEM (t) 06:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I would second the nomination for deletion of the separate reaction article. It can only ever be a condolences page by definition. No foreign head of state (Save the usual suspects like Iran and North Korea) are going to go on a mental health or anti-gun diatribe in a reaction to this incident - regardless of their political leanings. Therefore the notable international reaction will always be condolences.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

This is not the place for silly conspiracy theories. --Conti
✉ 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Did any of this actually happen? Where are the dead bodies? Where are photos of shot out windows at the school? Where are the victims? [29] There is no record of Adam Lanza in the past 3 years [30] This allegedly happened. USchick (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Seriously? And to be technical, we're starting on the assumption that sources like NYTimes, CNN, BBC, etc. etc. are highly reliable sources, so that the verifyability is the references to the articles and reports that these have published. It's not our (WP) job to demonstrate the event happened with evidence to that (which I'm sure then someone would ask if that was falsified like the moon landing). This is basically a huge FRINGE question. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Just saying, this is a limitation of the "verifiability, not truth" policy [31] USchick (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC) No it's not. With any piece of information, one can challenge where they got that, to the point where only where the reader witnesses said event for themselves would satisfy them. That's impossible, so ergo we say that at point a source has proven themselves sufficiently reliable in the past that when they say "this is a fact" we can believe that to be unquestionably true. The fact that a few FRINGE theorists have challenged the lack of evidence is far far overshadowed by the number of reliable sources covering the event. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC) As far as being reliable, even the sources can't keep the story straight [32] USchick (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Let me try to put a capstone on this. Journalists sometimes jump the gun to get the scoop on a story. In complex situations like this there is literally mass confusion. Lanza was a teacher, then she wasn't. The kid was there the day before, then nobody had seen him before. etc etc etc. However, bad reporting does not a mass conspiracy make. You're right USchick though we at Wikipedia would be the last to know if there was a conspiracy because we rely on reliable stories ergo we can only describe historically what the mass media and other texts state and if they're all "in-the-know" on some giant government conspiracy and acting in collusion, then yes - we here at Wikipedia would just chronicle that. And we'll chronicle the whistle blower that comes out in 50 years to expose the whole darn lie (if there is one). However, I will say that Wikipedia is not the place to try to establish truth, we don't have the tools here. We listen to the reporting and we document that. There are plenty of fringe sites who are working right now, join them. I can promise you this, Wikipedia will not "break" any conspiracy story ever. We're too far down on the food chain. Let's please be respectful to the hard work the editors do here and let them get on with it. This is not going to be solved here. Let's also be respectful to the dead, unless we have some really good burning evidence, send it over to Foxnews or Infowars or anybody that will publish it that is mildly RS, at least then an editor here can defend it. Youtube videos and original research just don't cut it here with this group, regardless of how loudly you scream or how many words get thrown at this wall.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not trying to change policy. I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that there is a lot of misinformation in the media about this event and the article should reflect the conflicting stories. Right now the article reads as if everything is cut and dried, and it's not. USchick (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Respectfully, no there isn't. Find me one report dated today January 7th from a reputable news source that states that the mother was a teacher at the school and that there is controvery. Find me one report dated today January 7th from a reputable news sources that states that Lanza was there the day before the shooting. Show me the video? I don't think you'll be able to because that is just not present. The false leads led nowhere and hence they haven't been uttered again. Fox, NBC, CBS, CNN they're all reporting the same thing? Conspiracy or just Occam's Razor? There is little disagreement that can be pointed to today. I invite you not to type again until you find the clear conflict in "today's" media. Not the confusion in the immediate aftermath - that was a mess granted.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Reporting a lie and then claiming "never mind" is reliable and professional? Collecting reliable sources about misinformation: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] USchick (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I'll take offense in the name of the great editors who have given quite a bit of their personal time to try to make this article better. Your links point to a bunch of historical sites some claiming that the media got it wrong - I give you that they did. That does not mean that the editors of Wikipedia are unprofessional. They have been working tirelessly since this mess started trying to sift through all the bad information to put together a factual story. If you have hard evidence that something has been left out, I invite you to find a responsible journalist and get your story published. You'll likely get a book deal and millions of dollars, fame and fortune. I'll look for the reliable source to come through and I will personally create the page in your name chronicling your achievement. Coming here and calling us unprofessional is crass and unwarranted sir.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC) There is a HUGE difference between errors in reporting that happen within the hours of a story breaking, and the concept of misinformation that you imply is going on. Yes, the errors in reporting is a problem with mass media today where they want to get information out fast as possible, and are bound to make errors on flimsy information. But we are now 3+ weeks out and the basic facts of what happened in those 20-odd minutes are pretty much documented by numerous sources. As Justanonymous implied, unless this was a massive conspiracy theory like faking the moon landing, there's no reason to disbelieve the reliable source reporting that is happening now. I do note that many sources , when the error about Lanza's brother was discovered, reported that it was an earlier and reasonable mistake they had made then. This is basically looking for a conspiracy where there's no evidence of one. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I'm calling the news reporters unprofessional. Are you a professional reporter or a professional editor? Do you get paid by Wikipedia? If not, you are also a non-professional, no offense. I created this space on a Talk Page where a more balanced view can be developed, so relax, no one is attacking you. Here are some more sources on misinformation. For anyone not interested in this topic, feel free to go work on something else. [38] The editor of the NY Times is complaining about misinformation [39] so yes, i would say this is significant. And the story will change again, so stay tuned. USchick (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC) You're purposely disrupting this article by challenging a basic WP tenet about reliable sourcing. Again, no one is arguing that in the first few hours of the event, there was misinformation that got published as fact. Those sources have come to reconcile and report what has been affirmed by police investigators, and , importantly, have acknowledged their misinformation from the initial reporting. That is professionalism. There is no reliable source saying that the events as documented on this page did not happen this way, so there's no point in discussing "alleged" aspects. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Agree with Masem. We have to tolerate a degree of "honestly gettting it wrong at first", there is a lot of sifting in a complex story like this - honestly getting it wrong at first does not make journalists unprofessional and does not imply a conspiracy either. Can we end this thread, we're veering.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Training exercise

Per the notice that appears when an editor opens up an editing window for this article's talk page, posts having nothing to do with improving the associated article will be refactored or removed. --Shearonink (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
HSEEP training exercise [40] The course will be held at the Sandy Hook Fire Department, Location: 18 Riverside Road, Sandy Hook CT USchick (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC) And? This is a two-year-old event unrelated to this article's topic.  davidiad.:τ 00:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC) he's implying the Feds/ UN / FEMA cased the joint before runnin their shadow black ghost op two years ago. can we close this thread, its patently irrelevant-Justanonymous (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See also and cats

In the article, the See also section has links to:

• Gun culture
• Gun laws in the United States by state

Both of them seem to be political while not directly about the event and I think they should be removed.

In addition, the Category Gun politics in the United States seems to have been similarly added and should also be removed. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. This is an article about a crime not a politics article-Justanonymous (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I also agree. This article isn't about politics, and certainly not about gun culture or gun laws. Millions of people own that type of weapon, only a handful of them did anything like this, and they were all found to be on medication that made them go crazy. Some blame video games that millions of people buy and don't commit crimes like this, but we don't bother linking to an article about video game violence or video game censor laws by state. Dream Focus 20:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

When we discussed this previously regardin the inclusion of specific links to the Cleveland and Dunblane shootings, in my opinion Joseph A. Spadaro had the most relevant and pertinent comment...

"Per the MOS: The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."

That said, lets take a look at all of the "See also" items. The three lists seem relevant because they allow a reader to delve deeper into the subject of "school related violence". Are they tangential, not really, they are just more of the same, but the lists provide a basis for a reader to expand their knowledge and draw their own conclusions.

The other three links (Gun culture, Gun laws in the United States by state, Gun violence in the United States) are in my opinion are very much tangential and serve one of the primary purposes that WP fulfills by allowing a reader to conveniently go beyond the direct subject matter and explore other topics. Perhaps even allow the reader to answer questions that might naturally result from reading the main article.

Following this logic, if there is still a question about the political nature of the links, then maybe the target articles need review of their neutrality as opposed to deleting the links. But its seems improper of us as editors to decide which of these seemingly broad topics is appropriate or not. Politicians make subject political, we're just passing along information.

As for the Categories, I'm neutral on their benefit to readers. They seem to be more of a tool for editors for article tracking and organization.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's work through that a bit. I edit the airplane forums sometimes and their disasters and in air disaster articles, the see alsos are filled with other similar accidents, they are not filled with links to politics between airbus and eads or transatlantic affairs (they're not germane). Seems to make sense to have the see alsos be about similar see alsos. We've strayed from that here. Now, please follow my logic - an issue that will arise is that if "gun culture etc" stay then someone (like me) is going to come along and put a link to "mental health" "aspergers syndrome" "autism" etc. That will draw a very strong visceral reaction from the opposing group (also like me) saying that we can't connect mental health with this particular crime and that logic would be partially sound. Then we wind up with an unbalanced article. This article is not about gun politics and it is not about mentall illness and aggression. I think the only relevant links that should go in the see also are other similar crimes like dunblane, pearl, etc and not other broader articles about the politics or mental health in general. I think Toddst1's logic is very good.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, when have we been concerned with reader or editor backlash? Given the policy on how a "See also" section is to be used and what can be included in it, personally I'm fine with including links to mental health subjects (suggestions anyone?) simply because its tangential, but relevant, to the primary story. Obviously we can't predict what information (included or excluded) is going to set someone off, we can only deal with the issue like we currently doing.

Second, we've been using the existence of WP:RS's to claim inclusion and exclusion of a variety of "facts". We need to pick a camp and stay in it. See also topics don't have to be as closely related to the article subject as you are suggesting, policy trumps precedent.

Third, I couldn't agree more that the "article is not about gun politics and it is not about mental illness and aggression.", but it does touch on those topics. We are talking about the "See also" section which is the place in any article where its OK to bring in related and/or tangential topics. Furthermore, there's a reason its towards the end of an article. Once a reader has read through the article they are presented with suggestions of other sections of WP to explore.

Lastly, my original query regarding how the "See also" section was used to challenge why the Dunblane, Cleveland, or Pearl events should get special attention. With regard to visceral reaction, this is a door I feel we should not open. Who are we to decide which of these tragedies is more important or relevant than another. Inclusion of the lists and exclusion of specific events eliminates the issue.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with keeping gun politics in there but kindof insist that if we broaden this to include gun politics that we should be allowed to include mental health and other ancillaries on this like violent mental disorders and the topic of school security and lawsuits (which we've kept out for now). Otherwise, we're partially excluding and not touching on all of the issues that are peripheral to this. We can't have just guns as the only acceptable see also category accepted. Ideally, I'd prefer to go down the path that Toddst1 proposed of not broadening the see also to a big catchnet and keep it to discrete crimes that share similar characteristics with this crime like Pearl (killer killed his mother before going to school) or Dunblane (where many children were killed). But happy to go with the consensus provided that it's balanced, If guns are fair game so is mental health, security etc in the see also.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As another observation, in most of the other articles, we don't limit the see also to dumping the list of ALL air disasters on the page, but rather call out specific accidents that share characteristics with the article being discussed. I don't understand the logic of excluding similar articles in favor of onlyallowing the master list of all school related incidents. I challenge that thinking as well, it's not common practice across Wikipedia. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because there are poorly written articles out there doesn't mean this one needs to be too. The see also section should be depopulated asap. --Malerooster (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've agreed, with depopulating it to just see alsos that directly pertain to similar crimes (I'm assuming depopulate means remove the extraneous links to ancillary topics). Do I have consensus to go do that? I've been wanting all that clutter gone for a week. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So it would appear that we have two competing POV, one for "narrow" (as in related or similar events) and one for "broad" (a variety of subjects). WP policy states this...

• Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.
• The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.
• As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section.
• The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.
• The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page).

OK, so this leaves out Virginia Tech and the Bath Bombing (which we haven't discussed) and red links have not been an issue and the link to Gun politics in the United States is off the table since its linked to in the Reactions section via "national debate on gun control". Within the article for Gun politics in the United States, there is a fairly prominent link to the Gun culture article, so there goes that. As for the Gun laws in the United States by state link, I'm so so on this simply because its so "technical" and not an easy read, but if we're going to keep the big shooting lists, then I would recommend keeping it. So what are we left with?

• Gun laws in the United States by state
• List of attacks related to primary schools
• List of school-related attacks
• List of school shootings in the United States

Is our only solution "delete or not"? Is there a way to integrate the Dunblane and Pearl events into the body of the article so we can leave the "See also" somewhat broad and/or bring in other tangential issues?

Or, do we just ditch the "See also" section altogether and assume we have a "high quality" article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• So far everyone but you has been against Gun laws, gun culture, and gun politics being in there. Please don't try to add any of that back in if the majority of people are against it. And remember, if people don't feel like responding to your long drawn out discussion, that doesn't mean they agree with you, they just don't feel like arguing nonstop, since there is no way to convince you, and this will just drag on forever. Dream Focus 02:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that Gun laws in the United States by state has been removed from the article, so this comment may be moot, but I agree with it's removal. Taking Scalhotrod's logic a bit further, the Investigation section already has the words "legally owned" linked to Gun laws in the United States, which could then take the user to Gun laws in the United States by state.

Also, Gun laws in the United States by state contains information about 49 other states (plus DC) that aren't relevant to this event. If someone wanted to make an argument saying that there may be some merit to including a link to Gun laws in Connecticut in the See also section or somewhere else in the article (such as changing the Investigation section so that the words "Connecticut law" link to Gun laws in Connecticut), that would seem more reasonable to me. GoingBatty (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We are being too sensitive about political implications of links to other articles in the "See also" section. I would be content with more links. These are for the purpose of being perused by readers. The "See also" section can be a useful resource. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has sparked public debate on topics such as gun ownership, protecting children in schools, and mental health. I think that we could link to both Gun laws in Connecticut and Gun laws in the United States by state. (See WP:SEEALSO.) I think we are agonizing over something that is not such a big deal. Unless a candidate for the "See also" section is already linked to in the article I think we should err on the side inclusion of links to other articles that may hold interest even if only to a minority of readers. Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The point right now is that until investigators give out explicit reasons for why this tragedy occurred, we should be careful of any subtle connection that may imply something (See for example the issue about DNA testing that we've worked through before). We should be careful right now to say there's major gun control issues here - mentioned the leaders' response towards it is fine, but, for example, linking to the gun laws by state implies that there was a problem with the CT gun control laws, even if that's the intent. Also remember that if the links are already used in the article prose, their repeating in See Also is inappropriate. So we can mention the CT laws when we're talking about Lanza being denied a gun (since that's part of the laws), but that's we should link to. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the article Gun violence in the United States be included in the See also section of this article? Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why not to include that one (unless we've linked to it already in the prose). --MASEM (t) 05:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So complete neutrality wins the day?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you rather us be bias in one direction or the other? Wikipedia is neutral. WP:NEUTRAL Dream Focus 19:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Not in the slightest, but it appears that instead of finding any "middle ground" we (by complacency) have decided to reduce the "See also" section to its barest element. Personally I'm fine with how it stands, but we never really put the issue to rest, we just gave up on talking about it.

I'm starting to think that the best solution is to figure out how to integrate what is there now (the shooting lists) into the article and delete the section altogether until the tangential issues are sorted out and/or confirmed by reliable sources. What do you think Dream? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue was resolved. Everyone agreed but you that certain things didn't belong there. And why would you try to integrate the remaining three things in the "see also" section? They are fine there. There is nowhere else in the article that they'd fit, since this article is about this one shooting, and thus shouldn't have anything about other shootings that had nothing to do with it at all, listed in the main part of the article. Dream Focus 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You could have just stopped after "The issue was resolved". Interesting example that you set...--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read most of this wall of text, and I'm pretty sure I don't need to in order to get the idea of what's going on in this discussion. My conclusion is, remove the category (absolutely), remove the "gun culture" link, but keep a gun politics link in the see also. And whoever said see alsos indicate a bad article is just wrong. See alsos are a standard part of articles; that's perfectly normal. But the excess of links stinks of an agenda. Shadowjams (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Each article under consideration should be discussed separately. Is there any objection to including the article Gun violence in the United States in the See also section of this article? Bus stop (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Read above. Most were against that, and discussed in detail why. Dream Focus 13:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dream Focus—Masem's response to my suggestion that we include "Gun violence in the United States" in the "See also" section was "I see no reason why not to include that one…"[41] My suggestion is that we discuss potential articles for inclusion in the "See also" section separately. Is there a reason that you would oppose the inclusion of that particular article? Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Same reason for the rest. That is political, not neutral, and not relevant to this. Existing categories and links handle everything already. And that article is very bias, listing how many people were injured or killed by guns without listing how many of those were in defense or by accident, and which ones were criminal acts. [42] That article does nothing to help people understand this article's subject at all. Dream Focus 14:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that bias in Gun violence in the United States, at least in the broad stroke as a "See Also" link. There's zero question that the Sandy Hill shooting qualifies as an act of gun violence that occurred in the United States - unlike the argument that this involved a gun culture mentality of Lanza (and hence why that's a bad See Also link). There may be certain passages in the Gun Control in the US article that are somewhat biased, but it is clearly trying to maintain a neutral position in particular with respect to the second amendment (the legal right to bear arms, vs how to control crimes associated with them), so I just don't see it overly biased. I see your (DF's) comments on that talk page, and there are issues to address if they were trying to take it to FA, but its not something to prevent linking here. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the title and look through the names of the sections in that article. What is relevant here? Is even 5% of that article relevant to this one? The gun laws of the state this happened in is linked to in the article already. Dream Focus 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for including links that are already linked in the prose, so if the by-state gun law is linked already it doesn't need to be see also; that's not an issue. But for the gun violence in the US, the reason it is appropriate is because for a reader who is not from the US or is otherwise familiar with matters around gun violence and control in the US, the gun violence article provides a reasonably biased understanding of the core issues (2nd amendment verses rates of violent crimes) about guns within the US, that this article simply doesn't have to get into. It is, appropriately, extended reading for those that may need it, and ergo a perfect See Also link. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In China on the same day a man ran around with a knife stabbing over twenty children in a school. Mass shootings happen around the world. If there was an article for people that went insane, do to medication or other reasons, and did mass killings, then I'd be in favor of linking to it. The "core issue" of "The 2nd amendment versus rate of violent crimes" sounds like a political point of view to me. That is not the issue here at all. Dream Focus 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"All the time" is a huge exaggeration. Yes, the gun violence has political tones to it, but that's the case with guns in the US (key being the 2nd amendment and how it is intepreted); gun violence in other parts of the world will have different reasons and means of dealing with it, but that article highlights what happens and steps to try to prevent it, which is relevent to understanding the legal nature of guns and the connection of guns to violent crimes in the US - an appropriate background for this article on the shooting that few Americans would need to know but may be useful for any other international reader. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No one said "all the time" in this discussion. That article does not highlight anything, nor any steps to prevent it. This shooting was caused by someone with a known mental disorder taking unverified medications, and previous school shootings were from people on prescription medications that caused them to flip out. The fact that for centuries people have owned guns in this nation, is not relevant, since other nations own guns as well. Out of 310 million legal firearms in America, a rather small percentage have ever been used for an illegal act. There is no reason to link to that article from here. Guns didn't cause this to happen, craziness did. Dream Focus 16:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhhhh, speaking of bias.... (And you're claiming details yet validated to be true by investigators for the case). This sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to avoid inclusion of a valid reference. Again, it is a fact that there is gun violence in the US, regardless of any other details, and understanding that is appropriate background for understanding the impact of the shooting. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What background is relevant here? Do we need to tell people why guns are legal in this nation? By impact to the shooting do you mean gun sells for this type of weapon went up, and that some people are arguing about gun control yet again as they do regularly anyway? No lasting affect from that at all. Dream Focus 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that there is a problem when almost 30 innocent civilians including Adam Lanza loose their lives in a matter of moments in an incident involving guns. The most staunch supporters of the right of Americans to possess and use guns would agree that a problem exists when such a situation transpires. We don't pretend that Wikipedia has articles that solve such problems or analyse them impeccably. Our readers are not so dumb that they are expecting to be spoon-fed the final word on how to eliminate pointless violence—whether committed in the United States or in other countries, whether involving guns or other means, whether perpetrated at schools or elsewhere. I think that when you reject as being "political" an article on "gun violence", that rejection is on "political" grounds. No article is perfect. The editors at many articles engage in dispute over what constitutes WP:NPOV at that article. If the article is reasonably on topic, it can be included in a "See also" section. As has been pointed out above in this thread "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."[43] The reader can form their own opinion of the article that they may find linked-to in a "See also" section. I don't think we need to fret about the reader being brainwashed by a faultily-written Wikipedia article. If some of us think that some of our articles are badly written, then it is likely that some of our readers are also critical of some of our articles. I think that the "See also" section is a good aspect to Wikipedia articles. I often use it. Therefore I am in favor of including more rather than fewer links in it. I would even be in favor of grouping those links into subheadings. This article, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, is a jumping off point for reading about a wide variety of subjects. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll chime in, I'm a proponent of a narrow view in the "see also" and voted to remove the gun clutter stuff in the "see also". If we look at other articles in Wikipedia, generally the "see alsos" are only about related things - eg in aviation disasters, we generally make reference to other similar aviation disasters in the "see also." We generally don't find wild tangents inserted into the see also like Coronal Mass Ejections (which believe it or not some try to attribute air disasters to that and want that added). Now, if the consensus is to expand the see also here to include guns, then we should do so fairly. To Bus stop's point, do mass shooting indicate a problem with how we view liberty in the United States? Perhaps but by that logic mass shootings could also indicate a problem with mental health in the United States (normal people don't go kill other people be it with guns, trucks, bombs etc) - we just don't do that when we're sane. We can't insist that gun culture be in the "see also" while at the same time blocking "mental health", "school security", "etc etc etc." If the consensus is to start adding gun related items to the "see also" we have to in fairness allow other issues that led to this calamity. The guns were incidental, the intent was to murder and he did so with what he had and if he didn't have a gun, he might very well have driven a 10,000lb car through the building. I would prefer to keep it about similar incidents as it's obviously intended which will by the very nature include the instruments these monsters insist upon. Let's keep the politics out please, be fair and NPOV here. It's hard for many but we need to keep trying.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We should subdivide the "See also" section. I don't think the articles linked to are as "political" as some think. Guns, for instance, can be used to "protect" school settings. The reader should be afforded the opportunity to peruse a wide variety of topics in articles represented in the "See also" section. The reader should not be expected to read thoroughly every article linked to. That is not the way readers pursue interests. They use every article as a jumping off point to reach another article. It is rare that they find any one article so engrossing that they scrutinize and digest every word. The "See also" sections of many articles serve as springboards to track down the elusive information that serves as the core interest of a unique reader. We are too often categorizing readers as belonging in neat cubbyholes. They are more akin to unknown quantities. We are here to provide them with options to track down information on personal interests and hunches. The "See also" section is a tailored directory. That is why "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."[44] Bus stop (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To date, the consensus is to keep a narrow focus on the "see also" which I agree with. Since there is WP:NORUSH, I'm still for keeping the narrow focus. If the consensus should change, then at that point, expect me to be thorough and give equal weight to the myriad of issues this topic touches. Also, keeping it narrow somewhat avoids some of the censoring, edit wars, POV pushing etc that invariable develop over these highly charged issues.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous—It is the reader's interests that should come first. There are many pretty good articles on Wikipedia. Why would this article not apprise the reader of the multitude of reasonably good articles on "tangentially related topics?"[45] I think we should ideally consider one article at a time. Do you feel the Gun violence in the United States article should be linked to in the See also section of this article? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You have no way of knowing what the readers will be interested in. And what you link to, says clearly, "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment". If most are against having it in there, it doesn't get in there. Dream Focus 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dream Focus—you say "You have no way of knowing what the readers will be interested in." If the reader is not interested in the article they will avoid it. Is there any harm done in including a link to an article that the reader fails to click on? Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You said "It is the reader's interests that should come first" and I pointed out that didn't make any sense, since "You have no way of knowing what the readers will be interested in." We don't add in hordes of links simply because someone thought they wouldn't do any harm. We add them in because enough editors believe they belong there, and have formed a proper consensus. Dream Focus 10:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is veering way off topic.... the only question relevant to a see also section is "which of these topics is related to the topic at hand, but not conveniently linked in it" (MOS says see alsos shouldn't include things linked in the article, but I tend to think that's a bad rule to interpret too strictly). A link to "gun politics in the u.s." is certainly appropriate for this article. Similarly something about mass shootings perhaps. But getting into some of the more politically charged topics becomes where reasonable debate should start. Shadowjams (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams—I agree with you that the policy language suggesting that one should not repeat a link in a "See also" section that is found in the body of an article should not be interpreted too strictly, and I have raised a question about that here on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout page. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The original poster of this thread correctly stated that this article is about a crime not about gun politics. The consensus reached early on was that his view was correct. The resulting wall of words is from one or two editors who insist on continuing to debate. The consensus is to keep the see also narrow in focus.. If at some point the consensus to broaden shifts, then the next logical inclusion is mental health rather than guns. Sane people don't kill 20 children and 6 adults. There is no way that anybody can logically argue that mental health was not the second most relevant ancillary. To try to make this article about gun control is very clearly POV pushing and should be resisted in this article. Please respect the consensus and allow us to get to more important work. -Justanonymous (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Guns are spoken about in the same breath as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting:

"The National Rifle Association confirmed to Fox News that the group has accepted an invitation to meet with the Vice President Biden-led task force examining ways to curb gun violence. The task force was formed in the wake of the Connecticut school massacre and is running up against an end-of-the-month deadline to produce a set of proposals."[46]

"The NRA has been at the helm of fighting those proposals ever since the group broke its post-Connecticut silence and called for a national school security plan to install armed officers at every school in the country."[47]

""I believe most Americans would disagree with the idea that in the wake of what happened in Newtown, Conn., that we should put off any action on the issue of gun violence," Carney said Monday in response to McConnell's comments."[48]

"Pro-gun lawmakers on Capitol Hill have said any comprehensive effort to respond to the Newtown shooting must include more than just tighter gun control."[49]

It is pointless that our "See also" section fails to link to some of our Wiki articles on guns. This is the purpose of a "See also" section. Note that "…one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."[50] Our article at present does not contain any of the helpful links that a reader should be able to use to continue to explore issues related to the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So the NRA has a representative talk to congress, just as they regularly do anyway, even when no shootings are in the news. People bring up gun control all the time, and have for decades now. Please stop beating a dead horse on this. Dream Focus 22:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dream Focus—as the quotes above (all from the same source) are showing us, a reliable source is establishing for us the "tangential" relationship between this article and certain other articles on Wikipedia. It is not "political" to link to other articles on Wikipedia if it seems likely that a reader will benefit from the inclusion of such a link. Bus stop (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not show that. And repeating yourself constantly doesn't make your point. The reader will not benefit from the inclusion of such a link, as discussed already. Consensus as against having it, and I doubt you will sway anyone no matter how long you drag this out. Dream Focus 23:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dream Focus and the consensus. Many things are tragic about this crime. Take the POV pushin elsewhere please. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea that I am pushing a point of view is not well-founded. Standard use of a "See also" section is to link to tangentially related topics, and this is for the benefit of the reader. The language at WP:SEEALSO is clear about this. Notice that the concept of neutrality does not come up at all at WP:SEEALSO. We should be including links in the "See also" section to articles that may be of interest to a reader perusing this article. There has been a lot activity prompted by this incident as well as by similar incidents. The security of people in a variety of settings is a topic of considerable interest. I don't think Wikipedia has an article specifically on the security of students in school settings, but we have an article called Security increase that I think would be a good link to provide. Physical security would be another. We also might link to School#School security. Bus stop (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)