Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The refs for the specific weapons after phrase "A large quantity of unused ammunition..."

The ONLY reference that mentions all the weapons specifically used in the attack is the Connecticut State Police Press Release from January 2013 (as of this edit that would be Reference #25). All the other references (again, as of the that version) - #23, 26, 27, & 92 - do not mention all the weapons specifically, for the most part they state something along the general lines of "a Glock 10mm" or "a Bushmaster XM-15" etc. Everything except the CTSP Press Release/Report are fairly early after the attack and do not contain the details the January 2013 report does. While the references might be interesting from a developing-timeline point of view, they basically serve no purpose as a way to verify the statements about the weapons in the article. I am therefore removing the unneeded cites that are after the phrase "A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered inside the school along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Lanza..." and leaving the January 2013 CTSP link as the single authoritative source. I have also placed the CTSP source as a reference whenever the weapons are specifically mentioned within the article. The CTSP source is an official government document and should be able to stand on its own. I have placed the yahoo cite within the hidden/"inactive references section" for historical purposes. I did add in the web-archive URL to the CTSP ref since the previous CTSP/January 2013 URL in the article has gone stale. Shearonink (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Newtown, Connecticut template

@Ianmacm:

Hi! I'd like to address the removal of the Newtown, Connecticut navigation template.

While most of these articles aren't related to the shooting per se, they are related to Newtown, Connecticut, where this took place. People can use this template to learn more about Newtown. Many articles have navigation templates to various tangential topics and I don't see how this is off-topic here. I would like for this template to remain here. Thank you. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It's been put back in this edit and I'm not going to argue. Personally, I think that the existing links given to Newtown, Connecticut are enough for an interested reader to explore, and the template says a lot of things that aren't related to the shooting, but hey, what do I know when policy is involved?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

There have been some sloppy changes to the article which do not pay proper attention to the sourcing. For example a section named "Triggering circumstances" was added, despite the fact that investigators found no motive. Also, the accurate wording "At the time of his death, he was found to be anorexic to the point of malnutrition and resultant brain damage, with a height of six feet and weight of 112 pounds" was changed to " At the time of his death, he was so underweight, he may have been anorexic and suffering from malnutrition - which can cause brain damage" which clearly isn't what the source says. A lot of this should have been prepared in a WP:SANDBOX and discussed first, as other editors are not going to have the time to check through a wide range of changes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• You appear to have misunderstood the meaning of the word 'motive'. 'Motive' refers to an internal state of mind; 'circumstances' refer to something external to the person concerned. In other words Triggering circumstances are not the same as motive. They simply summarize the circumstances that preceeded the killings - namely the mother's decision to move away from the area on top of Lanza's declining mental and physical health. That does not describe motive - it describes triggering circumstances.

• The original wording says "he was found to be anorexic to the point of malnutrition and resultant brain damage...." That does not mean he was diagnosed with anorexia or with brain damage. After he was dead, he was found to be so underweight, the report writers used 'anorexic' as an adjective to describe his condition. It is not a diagnosis of anorexia - no such diagnosis was ever made. Nor was a diagnosis of 'brain damage' ever made. All of that is pure speculation. In other words, the original wording was misleading - which is worse than sloppy. The way I worded it clarifies that no such diagnoses were made. I've added accuracy - not sloppiness. Jamborii (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

These are sloppy edits and you have made not made any attempt at WP:CONSENSUS. "Triggering circumstances" is highly misleading. Doctors knew that Adam Lanza had a range of physical and mental health problems, but said that nothing they had seen would have predicted Lanza's actions. This is a clear attempt at WP:OR, which states "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated in the published sources." "He was found to be anorexic to the point of malnutrition and resultant brain damage" is what the sourcing says. It doesn't say that anorexia caused the shooting, but he was way underweight for a six foot person and had suffered brain damage as a result. Please let's summarize what the sources say, not engage in WP:OR interpretations of them. The wording of the report is clear, and I'm not sure why you want to play down the clear statement it makes that Lanza had suffered from brain damage as a result of weighing only 112 lb at the time of his death. "He was found to be anorexic" is effectively a diagnosis of anorexia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're so convinced he had anorexia even though no diagnosis was ever made, why would you delete this edit: The author's noted that "Anorexia can produce cognitive impairment and it is likely that anorexia combined with an autism spectrum disorder and OCD compounded Lanza's risk for suicide". That's not WP:OR - that's a quote from the report.Jamborii (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Doctors suspected that Adam Lanza may have had anorexia during his lifetime, but no formal diagnosis was made. At the time of his death he weighed only 112 lb, which is extreme underweight for a six foot tall adult man and was described as "anorexic to the point of malnutrition and resultant brain damage". This is of key importance and is worth a direct quote in the article. It doesn't provide a cause of the shooting, but shows that his physical and mental condition was very poor at the time of his death. I didn't say that he had been diagnosed with anorexia during his lifetime because the sourcing doesn't say this either. However, the report after his death described him as "anorexic to the point of malnutrition and resultant brain damage" which is important enough to be given as a direct quote. Your previous wording, "he may have been anorexic and suffering from malnutrition - which can cause brain damage" is a long way from what the sourcing actually says. It does not say that he may have had brain damage, but that he did have brain damage at the time of his death due to being extremely underweight (112 lb for a six foot tall man).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You have also beached WP:COPYVIO by quoting directly from the report without quotation marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamborii (talk • contribs) 07:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Why say he was anorexic but then delete this edit: The author's noted that "Anorexia can produce cognitive impairment and it is likely that anorexia combined with an autism spectrum disorder and OCD compounded Lanza's risk for suicide". That's not WP:OR - that's a quote from the report.Jamborii (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

And where does it say "Doctors suspected that Adam Lanza may have had anorexia during his lifetime". I've never read that anywhere - did you just make that up? It looks to me like you're the one doing WP:OR.Jamborii (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

In February 2008, a medical report was produced which said "The record notes that he was 112 pounds and almost 5 feet, 10 inches tall, suggesting possible anorexia at this time." This is on page 71 of the Report of the Office of Child Advocate. So the evidence suggests that he was very underweight and possibly anorexic as far back as 2008. I'm not disputing that anorexia or being extremely underweight may have impaired Adam Lanza's mental functioning, because this is important. It stops short of explaining his actions, though, as doctors pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence about brain damage as it is not mentioned on page 8 which is the citation given. I have replaced it with a direct quote that uses the phrase 'cognitive impairment' which is a more accurate description. Jamborii (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

For goodness sake, what is your problem on this? Page 102 says that at the time of his death, he was "anorexic to the point of malnutrition and resultant brain damage." What part of "resultant brain damage" don't you understand, and why are you so keen to remove this? It suggests that his physical and mental condition had deteriorated badly. Page 102 is particularly interesting, because it says of Lanza's 112 lb weight: "This finding raises questions regarding how he, living at home and spending the majority of his time on his own, physically presented to his mother. Authors cannot determine what, if any, concerns were raised by his family regarding his eating ability or habits, or his continued emaciation during this time. AL’s mother had consulted with his pediatrician years earlier about his weight, and by 2008, he was prescribed Miralax for ongoing constipation issues. However, there is no indication that AL’s family expressed concern to a mental health or medical professional between 2010 and 2012 regarding his malnutrition or any other issue." In plain language, Nancy Lanza knew that her son was extremely underweight but did nothing about it, even though it resulted in brain damage. After 2010, Adam Lanza had little if any contact with the mental health services. This should probably be mentioned in the article, because it leads to questions about Nancy Lanza's style of parenting. Residents in Sandy Hook were highly critical of Nancy Lanza, because she allowed her son to lead a bizarre and reclusive lifestyle, as well as making him proficient in using guns. The report stops short of criticizing Nancy Lanza directly, but uses the language of medical professionals to point out that she did not consult doctors after 2010 despite knowing that he had serious eating problems and other mental health issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

My problem with it is four-fold.

1) I'm a health professional. Health professionals would only use the term 'brain damage' when there is blunt force trauma. Lanza did experience blunt force trauma - when he shot himself in the head. With all that damage, there is no way the autopsy would have been able to determine whether any 'brain damage' was due to anorexia. I suspect the report of the Child Advocate was written by a lawyer, not a health professional and to claim there was 'brain damage' as a result of anorexia is sloppy writing - to use your own description.

2) There are more accurate statements in the report such as this one:"Anorexia can produce cognitive impairment and it is likely that anorexia combined with an autism spectrum disorder and OCD compounded Lanza's risk for suicide." For some unknown reason you deleted this sentence despite it being a clinically accurate statement and correctly cited.

3) I also deleted the sentence about brain damage because it was a direct quote but in breach of WP:COPYVIO because there were no quotation marks (I see you have now added them). And because it was incorrectly cited to page 8 in the report.

4) The paragraph now has three separate sentences about anorexia. It mentions Lanza's height and weight twice which is repetitive and entirely unnecessary. And it now mentions both cognitive impairment and brain damage which is bound to be confusing to a layman reader. But since you seem determined to include a confusing, sloppily worded statement, I will leave it there.Jamborii (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Even if you are a medical professional, this is attempting to introduce WP:OR by interpreting the source in your chosen way. The authors of the report were happy to use the words "resultant brain damage" on page 102. Adam Lanza's cognitive functions may well have been impaired as a result of being severely underweight for a long period of time, but I am not a medical professional and have simply quoted what the sourcing said. As for the suicide angle, this is true but it doesn't help to explain the shooting at the school. Adam Lanza could easily have killed himself with one of the many guns that his mother had carelessly left lying around the house, but it doesn't explain why he went to the school and killed the children as well. Investigators could not find a clear cut reason for this, and gave only speculative theories as to why he might have done it. In all of this, I am reminded of the Boomtown Rats' song "I Don't Like Mondays" which was based on the 1979 school shooting by Brenda Spencer. This contains the words "And he can see no reasons 'cause there are no reasons What reason do you need to die?" Adam Lanza's world had become so bizarre by the time of his death that it was not possible to pinpoint a reason why he had targeted the school. The police investigation was clear on this, but the doctors gave some reasons why he might have done it which are entirely speculative. This is why I removed them from the WP:LEAD, although they could be mentioned later on in the article. Listing Adam Lanza's mental health conditions in the WP:LEAD risks creating a cum hoc, ergo proper hoc fallacy, because doctors were clear that Adam Lanza's mental health issues did not in themselves explain the shooting. This is an attempt to reintroduce the "triggering circumstances" fallacy which is rejected by the sources. See also this edit summary by User:General Ization. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, advocacy groups representing people with Asperger syndrome were annoyed by the repeated suggestions of the media that Adam Lanza's diagnosis with the condition provided the explanation/cause/reason why he had done it. None of the official reports says this, so it should not be introduced prominently in the WP:LEAD. Regarding this edit summary, the November 2013 final report represented the conclusions of the police and the State of Connecticut's legal system regarding the shooting. The Report of the Office of the Child Advocate was published in November 2014, and was intended to provide background information about the interactions that Adam and Nancy Lanza had with medical and social services professionals. It was not intended to provide an explanation/cause/reason/triggering circumstances for Adam Lanza's actions. The most interesting thing about this report is that it shows that Adam Lanza's contact with medical professionals was patchy at best, and that between 2010 and 2012 Nancy Lanza made no attempt to contact medical professionals at all, or to devise any program of treatment for her son.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You got distracted by my latest edit and completely missed the point. In regard to excluding the sentence about brain damage, there are more accurate statements in the report such as this one:"Anorexia can produce cognitive impairment and it is likely that anorexia combined with an autism spectrum disorder and OCD compounded Lanza's risk for suicide."

I see you are an experienced editor - but you don't seem to understand WP:OR. That requires an editor to make something up. All I have done is choose to insert one quote over another. Every editor has to make selections - doing so does not constitute WP:OR. But by adding the sentence about brain damage back in, your edit has made the paragraph sloppy (your words), repetitive and confusing.Jamborii (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit: it's true that it is "in the report", but it has been added to the WP:LEAD in a way which implies, albeit indirectly, that Adam Lanza's mental health conditions could be used as a way of explaining the shooting. This is something that the November 2014 report specifically denies. It says in section 37 of the summary of the report "While authors describe the predisposing factors and compounding stresses in AL’s life, authors do not conclude that they add up to an inevitable arc leading to mass murder. There is no way to adequately explain why AL was obsessed with mass shootings and how or why he came to act on this obsession. In the end, only he, and he alone, bears responsibility for this monstrous act" (the italics and bolding are in the original). Nobody is disputing that Adam Lanza had a range of physical and mental health problems, but the November 2014 report is very keen not to use them as a peg on which Adam Lanza's actions can be hung. This is what some of the recent edits seem to be doing. Section 36 of the summary says "The likelihood of an individual with Autism Spectrum Disorder or severe problems with anxiety and obsessive compulsive tendencies committing an act of pre-meditated violence, much less one of AL’s magnitude, is rare. Individuals with those mental health or developmental disorders are more likely to internalize (that is, to feel distressed emotionally or to be confused, socially inappropriate or inept, and sometimes to harm themselves inadvertently or intentionally) than to externalize (that is, to act out aggressively so as to harm others). In AL’s case, his severe and deteriorating internalized mental health problems were combined with an atypical preoccupation with violence. Combined with access to deadly weapons, this proved a recipe for mass murder. Autism Spectrum Disorder or other psychiatric problems neither caused nor led to his murderous acts." This is why I am not keen on the current wording in the WP:LEAD. It risks making the same mistake as the media, which is to invite the reader to join the dots and conclude that Lanza's mental health conditions caused the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that inserting details of Lanza's mental health problems "implies, albeit indirectly, that these could be used as a way of explaining the shooting"; that's your imagination working overtime. However, I have no problem with your last edit.

The point is that Lanza experienced crippling mental health problems throughout his entire life. There was no mention of that in the lead, and before I started editing this article there was little detail about it in the entire article. His mental health may not have directly caused what happened. But there is no doubt that it played a role and this is acknowledged in the Report of the Child Advocate. His mental health problems needed to be mentioned in the lead. Jamborii (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to approach the WP:LEAD from the point of view of an average reader who has not spent hours researching the background of the case. It is a common myth that Adam Lanza's mental health conditions can be used to explain the shooting, something which the November 2014 report specifically denied.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not purpose of the article, or the lead, to 'explain the shooting'. The purpose is to summarize anything and everything that is relevant to the story. The killings were conducted by someone with lifelong developmental and mental health problems. That's highly relevant. So is his easy access to guns & pre-occupation with violent video games. The average reader only reads the lead; they're not interested in the detail. By omitting all mention of his mental health problems and other issues from the lead, you are denying the so-called average reader important information about this tragic incident. Jamborii (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD looks better now, but I think that the quote may be a bit too long here. The November 2014 report was clear not to blame Lanza's mental health conditions for the shooting, and noted that it was his increasing fascination with guns, violence and his mother's failure to obtain any form of medical treatment between 2010 and 2012 that were more important factors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

most deadly mass shootings information in the lede

I hope we never have to update the lede again to indicate what place it is "in U.S. history", but there could we make some adjustments? First, it should be "to-date", because it is inevitable that more shootings will surpass this one. Yes, "in ... history" implies the same, but it also implies that it won't be surpassed. Second, we should mention where it was at the time it happened. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sandy Hook was never the deadliest lone gunman mass shooting, as it was exceeded by Virginia Tech in 2007, with 32 dead plus the shooter. The addition of Orlando and Las Vegas has led to the risk of overlengthy comparisons. The current version of the lead here doesn't make long comparisons, correctly in my view.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Adam Lanza's online activities

Re this edit: people in the blogs often say incorrectly that Adam Lanza was Smiggles and had a Wikipedia account under the name Kaynbred. The reality is that investigators looked at these possibilities during the investigation, and were unable to prove them because the evidence was too old and circumstantial. The November 2013 final report did not draw any conclusions here. As a result, blogs like WordPress should not be used as a source stating that Lanza was Smiggles or Kaynbred. This has been discussed numerous times in the talk page archive here (use the search facility), and it would be too speculative to include material that investigators were unable to prove.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Even though the report doesn't conclude whether Lanza was Smiggles and Kaynbred, it has been proven elsewhere that Smiggles and Kaynbred were Lanza's. It's my mistake to use WordPress but other news sources have discussed Smiggles and Shocked Beyond Belief. The Wikipedia article should be trustworthy and not have any information based off risky guesses and analysis but there should be more added to the article in terms of Adam's online/video game history such as his Dance Dance Revolution obsession. Blysbane (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC) -Blysbane

No it hasn't "been proven elsewhere". It remains speculative because the posts in question were too old for a trace on the IP address used for the posts. People in the blogs don't tell you this. Wikipedia was asked about Kaynbred and replied straight away that the WP:CHECK records don't go back that far. Apparently they go back only about 90 days for privacy/data retention compliance, and wouldn't have been of any use for posts allegedly made by a logged in user in 2009-10. This is why the Kaynbred/Smiggles angle was quietly dropped from the final report in November 2013. It's also a good example of why blogs are not reliable sources, because they are not properly fact checked and are saying things that are not in reliable secondary sources. There is circumstantial evidence which suggests that Adam Lanza may have been Smiggles and Kaynbred, but it was never proved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The evidence over Adam and Smiggles/Kaynbred is circumstantial and any information on the Wikipedia article should be proven. I do believe that Adam's obsession with DDR being noted in the final months of his life.Blysbane (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC) -Blysbane

I am well aware that the blogs such as WordPress and Sandy Hook Lighthouse cannot be considered reliable sources and should not be relied upon. However, Adam Lanza's article looks more into mental health and less into his mind. The Smiggles information is valuable regarding Adam's messed up view of the world. While mental health problems did influence Adam's decision making and his motive behind Sandy Hook, Adam was conscious of his actions and knew exactly what he was doing. I can see why the content was deleted.Blysbane (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC) -Blysbane

Smiggles ran into the same problem, because although circumstantial evidence pointed towards the account being operated by Adam Lanza, the posts in 2009 were too old for an IP address trace, so the November 2013 final report does not say that Lanza was Smiggles, or even mention Smiggles.[1] As a result, it would be both misleading and wrong to say that Adam Lanza was Smiggles when this was not confirmed by the official investigation's findings. The same problem occurs with the 2011 Anarchy Radio call. Again, the circumstantial evidence suggests that it may have been Lanza, but it wasn't possible to prove this beyond doubt. It was the New York Daily News that broke the story of the 2011 audio, but if you read it carefully, even they do not say that the evidence shows for certain that it is Lanza in the recording. Investigators looked for Adam Lanza's digital footprint. The sourcing here uses documents from the investigation, and in my view provides good circumstantial evidence suggesting that Adam Lanza was Smiggles. However, it runs into problems with original research, because investigators did not say on the record in the final report that Lanza was Smiggles. It is mainly people in the blogs who have said this, hence the sourcing problem. The exact phrase used by police to describe the forum posts is “presumably the shooter”, in other words "we think it is likely to be him, but cannot be 100% sure on this".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

New FBI documents released - October 2017

News coverage:[2][3] These don't say a great deal that is outright new, but confirm what a weird and reclusive world Adam Lanza lived in during the period before the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've also read that it confirms that Adam Lanza was Smiggles, but I'll have to dig that up again. Dreadwyrm (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Adam Lanza's interest in Pedophilia

Adam Lanza was reportedly interested in Pedophilia and societal discrimination against Pedophiles. Adam believed that Adult/child relationships were not harmful and was sympathetic towards Pedophiles. Should this information be mentioned in his bio? - Blysbane —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm 50-50 on this, as it doesn't add much insight into the motive for the shooting. Investigators knew that Adam Lanza had some material on his computer about pedophilia, but the CT Post source cautions: "While there is still no concrete evidence that Lanza was a pedophile -- or a victim of one -- the material does point to an internal conflict that may have plagued Lanza in the years before he walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School and took the lives of 20 young children and six educators before killing himself the morning of Dec. 14, 2012. "Certainly, there isn't enough evidence to come to a firm conclusion," said Dr. Fred Berlin, director of the sexual behaviors consultation unit at Johns Hopkins University, "but it sounds like he was conflicted about these issues. It's possible he had an attraction (to children) or he knew people who had them and he was trying to sort it out. But it's still a long way from explaining what he did." In other words, there is a risk of giving this an importance in explaining the shooting which investigators and experts were unable to find. This is why it hasn't been included in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Bolding Adam Lanza's name in first sentence of the section about him?...

(Per the recent edits as seen here) - Is this policy? It wouldn't seem to be but I can't find any info about if perpetrators of crimes' names are supposed to be bolded in articles about those crimes. Shearonink (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn’t be in bold, per MOS:Bold. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

They do it in every other mass shooting article. Go read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit Sprays (talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not in 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably because there's another article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit Sprays (talk • contribs) 03:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe because his name is Stephen instead of Adam? I don’t see why we shouldn’t follow MOS:Bold. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit Sprays (talk • contribs) 03:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It’s common to use boldface for highlighting the first instance of the title word or title phrase of the article (or synonyms) in the lead section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused by your wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit Sprays (talk • contribs) 03:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Use bold in the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article when you repeat the title of the article, or when you give a synonym for the title of the article. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit Sprays (talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Put another way, the only place bolding should normally be used is in the first sentence of the article, not in a subsection. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't necessary in this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/confusion_reigns_at_hoboken_bu.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130907175738/http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap529.htm to http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap529.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121219151033/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/adam-lanza-college-courses_n_2315431.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/adam-lanza-college-courses_n_2315431.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121216044247/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/peter-lanza-statement-adam-lanza_n_2308744.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/peter-lanza-statement-adam-lanza_n_2308744.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130815010511/http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/12/14/president-obama-makes-statement-shooting-newtown-connecticut to http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/12/14/president-obama-makes-statement-shooting-newtown-connecticut
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Failure to Declare MCI (Mass Casualty Incident)

The first units on scene, Newtown police officers, failed, to a man, to notify their dispatcher when they discovered additional patients. For thirty minutes, Bob Nute at the Newtown Emergency Communications Center had been told that there were only two wounded. Newtown officers saw the effected rooms at approximately 9:47 a.m.; it would not be until 10:03 a.m. when Nute heard third-hand from an EMT that there were more than two wounded. It is not known why Newtown officers failed to make the most important radio transmission of the day. Immediately transmitting a patient count i.e. giving a scene assessment is not about sending in ambulances "before it's safe." It is a matter of getting those ambulances dispatched in the first place, so that when it is safe, they can enter. Newtown sent exactly two ambulances in the first 30 minutes; a third was returned to service because Bob Nute did not know it was desperately needed. It would be another 30 minutes yet before the now-frantically-summoned additional ambulances could reach Newtown: The Golden Hour, as it is sometimes referred to in medical circles, was gone. The police, fire, and EMS audio demonstrating this failure have been in the public record since the day of the shootings. Many to most victims had survivable wounds ("Hospital Reps Train Local Law Enforcement on Trauma," Meridian Star, Dec 5, 2014) ; they perished 17 minutes from an excellent hospital because they were not transported to it.

Adding SCCAP & APA vetted resources due to contagion effect

I am reverting because this list of resources has been reviewed by the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology and multiple presidents of divisions of the American Psychological Association. The list of resources is being disseminated over multiple professional listservs. It is well-established that exposure to traumatic events in the news can be activating for people who have experienced trauma in the past, so it is appropriate to add these curated sources now. If you check the page traffic, it is obvious that there is a 1000x increase in traffic to these pages in the days after the Florida event. This is precisely why it is in the public interest to add links to the information here. We identified these sites by looking at the 12 most visited pages today. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or by email, eay@unc.edu. Thank you again! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

One link to the SCCAP is appropriate in the EL section not 12. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd oppose it here. That doesn't have a direct relevance to the subject. If it is to be included, it should only be one, as James says. The best place for this list is as one external link on the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology and not on articles about historical school shootings. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This has obvious problems with WP:NOT. The article provides reliably sourced information about the Sandy Hook shooting. There has been a spike in page views for this article [4] following the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. However, it is not the job of Wikipedia articles to provide medical advice, or to worry that people might be upset by reading the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. We are a reference work that summarizes what reliable sources have said about the subjects of our articles. The subject of this article is a particular school shooting, not the mental health impacts of school shootings. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Professor Youngstrom seems to be arguing that the article could act as a trauma trigger. Since the article is titled "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" it's reasonable to assume that it is going to describe what happened. The media and university courses are becoming increasingly wary of anything that might cause triggering, but WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NDA apply to Wikipedia articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: @Ianmacm: In light of my previous edit being reverted, and after discussion, I have gone ahead to add a single external link that goes to the resources page of the National Center Trauma Support Network (NCTSN). Many thanks to all for the consensus building, as per discussion here! I truly appreciate it! Ongmianli (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Preventing fact is not so much what triggers. It is more glorification and romanticism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've worked on various articles about crimes where some of the details are disturbing. A Wikipedia article should contain material which is necessary for a proper understanding of what happened. I don't think that anything in this article is grossly disturbing and it is well known by now that Adam Lanza went into a school and shot dead 26 people. There are websites with far more disturbing content than Wikipedia, and which revel in offering very graphic material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Video

Here’s a video from VOA:

video

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The infobox image is taken from this video (at 1:05) because Voice of America is public domain. The video is 2:26 long, and it has been previously uploaded here The external links section has a link to all of the material on Wikimedia Commons. .--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Article presented as real?

Why does this article read as if this was a real event?210.185.163.29 (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it is? See further Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. --Auric talk 14:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Correction to last line of 5.3

Quote "I carry profound hurt — I'll go ballistic and transfer it onto you. That's as much motive as we're likely to find." is inaccurate. Quote ends after "onto you." The rest is part of the New Yorker article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarbow (talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Done The final sentence is part of the New Yorker article, but isn't part of the quote.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Documents obtained by Hartford Courant

The article should be updated to reflect this information. Readers will probably be interested in documents that are related to killing. Of note, Adam Lanza stopped updating his spreadsheet on mass killings in 2010 or 2011, and did not include the 2011 Norway shooting. He discussed the spreadsheet fewer than three days before the Sandy Hook shooting, but wasn't interested in updating it. This suggests his motive was not to get a "high score" (which was a silly theory anyway considering he killed himself). https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-sandy-hook-lanza-new-documents-20181204-story.html https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-sandy-hook-lanza-spreadsheet-20181205-story.html

Of note, one of the experts who were consulted said that solipsism is an extreme form of "malignant narcissism". I hope an editor does not blindly follow Wikipedia's "no original analysis" policy by including this in the article. The news article authors also imply that Adam Lanza only had one computer and the FBI was successful in recovering information from the smashed hard drive.

To me, some of the most interesting things in the news articles, that people probably won't feel are worth including in this wiki article: his desire to try being homeless, despite his supposed aversion to germs, and his list of problems, which seems to have been an analysis (no tissues in the room > no tissues in storage either), and concluded with "I am unable to distinguish between my problems because I have too many". I guess it's also interesting that he said he stopped going to school because the classes progressed too slowly (as opposed to feeling socially awkward or isolated). 23.121.191.18 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2019

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, United States, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members.

Please change 'Adam Lanza' to 'suspect' because the gesture of it may do a small amount to help heal the victims of his crimes.

Please change all references to 'Adam Lanza' or 'Lanza' to 'suspect' because of the reason stated above. Please change all references to 'Nancy Lanza' to 'suspect's mother' because of the reason stated above. Please change all references to 'Peter Lanza' to 'suspect's father' because of the reason stated above.

Wikipedia is the first website that Google displays when searching 'Sandy Hook Elementary School'.

In light of the crimes that this individual has committed, I think it is reasonable that we collectively do our best to forget his name. I don't know if it will help the survivors, but their is a small chance that it might.

Side Note: Yesterday I finished my first year of teaching kindergarten. All of my children started the year out as five year olds, but turned six this year. I woke up this morning and read about the West Virginia Shootings. I believe it would be in the best interests of everyone if we followed the West Virginia police department's lead and removed as many mentions of mass shooting suspect's names as we can.

Thank you,

Christin Leisy Willow Creek Elementary School Kindergarten Teacher Widerthanamile (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: This is a request along the lines of damnatio memoriae. The police chief said something similar after the Umpqua Community College shooting and Jacinda Ardern said that she would not name the alleged gunman in the Christchurch mosque shootings. The problem here is that Wikipedia is not censored. Additionally, removing the name of Adam Lanza will not bring the victims back. "Suspect" does not make much sense, because although no trial took place due to his death, the official investigation was in no doubt that he was the sole perpetrator.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Lanza and Dance Dance Revolution

Re this edit: this was previously discussed here. The original source of the video is on Facebook here and was apparently shot at the AMC in Danbury, Connecticut in June 2012. Despite numerous media reports and YouTube reuploads saying that it is Adam Lanza in the video, investigators never proved this conclusively or stated this in the final report published in November 2013, which says "The GPS found in the home and reportedly belonging to the shooter indicated that he regularly went to the area of a theater that had a commercial version of the DDR game in the lobby. In 2011 and up until a month before December 14, 2012, the shooter went to the theater and played the game. He went most every Friday through Sunday and played the game for four to ten hours." The final report does not mention the video, or give any judgement about whether it is genuine. Based on the appearance of the person in the video, I think it is likely to be Adam Lanza, but the article cannot exceed what the sourcing says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• This photo on Google Maps confirms that the location is the AMC in Danbury. The final report never said this, and maybe they didn't want to upset the owners by highlighting Lanza's visits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Medication

The third paragraph of this section reads, "Lanza was treated by Robert King, who recommended extensive support be put in place and prescribed the antidepressant Celexa...," and goes on to describe Lanza's adverse reaction to the medication. The source cited is "The Reckoning," by Andrew Solomon, from The New Yorker, March 17, 2014.

The statement does not correspond to the source, which actually states that after Lanza saw Dr. King, "Kathleen Koenig, a nurse specialist in psychiatry at Yale, gave some follow-up treatment. While seeing her, Adam tried Lexapro, which Fox had prescribed."

Lanza did not take Celexa, he took Lexapro, a different (although chemically related) antidepressant medication. And it was not prescribed by Dr. King, but by Dr. Paul J. Fox. (Fox's full name appears six paragraphs earlier.)

Please change

"Lanza was treated by Robert King, who recommended extensive support be put in place and prescribed the antidepressant Celexa"

to

"Lanza was treated by psychiatrist Robert King, who recommended extensive support be put in place. Lanza also received follow-up treatment from Kathleen Koenig, a nurse specialist in psychiatry at Yale, and began taking the antidepressant medication Lexapro, which was prescribed by Dr. Paul J. Fox."

Thank you.

2601:81:4002:7504:F871:3181:B245:212C (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Casey Kane

The part about Celexa was reported in the Hartford Courant in December 2013.[5] It says "he was seen at the Yale Child Study Center in his early teens and was prescribed the antidepressant Celexa... Koenig prescribed Celexa and recommended that he have follow-up visits at her office" This was after Adam Lanza's initial visit to a psychiatrist in 2006. It's possible that an error has crept in here somewhere, so I will have a more detailed look at this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Motivation inconclusive?

Many sources state that he was constantly threatened with hospitalization/commitmment by his mother, Nancy, shouldn't that fear be a motive? Source Fox News — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.27.178.170 (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This comes from December 2012, immediately after the shooting. At around that time, the media was full of talking heads and "experts" explaining why he might have done it. Even the Fox News cite admits that this theory contains an element of speculation. The two official investigations were unable to find a clear cut motive, and neither of the final reports say that Nancy Lanza was planning to have her son committed to a mental hospital, so this theory seems to have fizzled out. Quote from the November 2013 report: " “Why did the shooter murder twenty-seven people, including twenty children?” Unfortunately, that question may never be answered conclusively, despite the collection of extensive background information on the shooter through a multitude of interviews and other sources. The evidence clearly shows that the shooter planned his actions, including the taking of his own life, but there is no clear indication why he did so, or why he targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits...

...changed the section on Adam Lanza to a separate article (also this). Should there be a standalone article on Adam Lanza? This has been discussed before on this talk page (see FAQ). Maybe editorial consensus has changed, let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Previous consensus is not to do this per WP:BLP1E. The article here is sufficient and a "biography" should not simply rehash background material about the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He is noteworthy only for being a mass murderer, which is described in the article along with his pathology. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

PBS media coverage

Re this edit: as I said in the edit summary, this is simply listing media coverage without explaining why it is notable. The Sandy Hook shooting produced a huge amount of media coverage, and there is no real need to point out what the PBS coverage was. This undue weight, and it gives the impression that the PBS coverage was somehow more important and notable than other media coverage. Since all the cites are from PBS, there is no attempt to use secondary sourcing to establish notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request; 28 February 2020

Hi!, could the fact that the perpetrator (I tend not to name the shooters), suffered from anorexia at the time of the shooting be part of the leading section and it also contributed to a "deadly combination"?. I have read that anorexia severely affects the brain of the person. If not agree with me, just let me know, I won't get angry (LOL) ^_^ - Kisses. --CoryGlee (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

All the reports I have seen state that Lanza might have suffered from anorexia, but he was not given that diagnosis during his lifetime so stating so is not supported by reliable sources. There was an extensive discussion in 2017 about the possible anorexia on this Talk page, see Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 9#August 2017. I think that a possible/unproven theory/claim does not belong in the lead section. Shearonink (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The article says later on that "at the time of his death, Lanza "was anorexic (six feet [180 cm] tall and 112 pounds [51 kg]), to the point of malnutrition and resultant brain damage." However, neither of the official reports said that this was a direct factor in the motive, saying instead that he had a range of mental health problems and a fascination with violence. The article should try to avoid original research on the motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read that and I can understand your both positions. It is mentioned below in the article, I thought it should be included in the lead but I understand we would fall into original research. Thank you both for quick responses! ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

2605:A000:1233:2E1:4E7:A876:C937:D94E (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I know more about the shooting. Trust me I've been researching about since it happened and I am finally done! I will give you any information you need as long as I can edit.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources on Adam Lanza's cremation

I added a section on this article about Adam Lanza's cremation with three sources. This from New York Post, this from Worldpress and this from Daily Mail. For some reason, it was reverted because they were blog or free web host sources which is impossible because New York Post, Worldpress and Daily Mail are newspapers and not blogs. Mysticair667537 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

All three are not ideal sources, and the WP:DAILYMAIL is banned outright following a long discussion. WordPress is definitely a SPS, and it has used Adam Lanza's death certificate, which also has problems with WP:PRIMARY. I'm not disputing that he was cremated, but it needs better sourcing than this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2020

"Other objects found in the vicinity of Lanza include a black boonie hat and thin frame glasses." In the previous sentence change "include" to "included" as that indicates past tense. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It's correct as-is, and your suggestion would make it incorrect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2020

"Other objects found in the vicinity of Lanza include a black boonie hat and thin frame glasses." In the previous sentence, please change include to included as that indicates past tense. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It's correct as-is, and your suggestion would make it incorrect. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 21:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Asking for consensus

Hi. I've posted for consensus on other issues two times before and this is the third and I want to clarify my interest in this case/article; because I find the case to be personal because of the media's insistence on his autism as a part of the "trigger", which extremely, extremely annoys me. My reaching for consensus are for these two things; 1) Including under "Murder of Nancy Lanza" that she was shot four times, according to Peter Lanza, one time for each of the family "One for Nancy, one for him, one for (his brother) Ryan and one for me", per a CNN news I can source, and 2) if I have permission to expand much further why autism had nothing to do with this cruel crime by articles by autistic societies like Autism Speaks. I thank you very much in advance. -- Iván. --CoryGlee (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree that people may have the impression from some media reports that autism was a motive/factor in the shooting. The article has always been keen to dispel this idea, because it was not supported by either of the official reports into the shooting. However, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and it should stick to the reported facts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, oh, I had never read that rule. I read it now. I comprehend it and accept it. Although it is very unfair. I hope the clarification given in the article keeps serving the purpose of sparing many of us the backlash some articles I've read give us. And about point "1", I'd like to add it, but it seems "guessing" too, doesn't it. I now think that doesn't belong to article either. Thank you Ianmacm for your always kindness. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

John Zerzan Phone Call

I recently came across this YouTube video and associated coverage which purports to be a 2011 call in to a radio show, "AnarchyRadio", hosted by John Zerzan, who is a prominent anarchist and anarcho-primitivist writer. In the call, a young man believed by the uploader of the video to be Adam Lanza, recounts the bizarre story of a monkey who was raised as a human child until one day it became enraged and killed a caretaker. The boy then draws a comparison between the personality of the monkey and the personality of a mass shooter.

The attribution to Lanza is tenuous, but considering the dearth of possible motive, I believe this event would be an enlightening addition to the article. --Ensignmorituri (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The alleged phone call to John Zerzan on Anarchy Radio came to light in January 2014. While there is some circumstantial evidence that it may be Adam Lanza's voice in the recording, the evidence is not conclusive. The current version of the article does not mention the interview, partly because it may give the impression that the interview really is Lanza even though the evidence falls short of being conclusive. Unlike some sources which incorrectly say that it is Lanza's voice, the CNN source that you mentioned points out that while it may be Lanza, it is hard to say for sure.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Using the opinion of a Youtube video uploader to substantiate that the voice is Lanza's is completely and utterly unacceptable. There is no way that a social media posting with a fraudulent handle comes within shouting distance of being a reliable source. As ianmacm says, even the CNN article is dubious. Just because something is "enlightening" does not mean it belongs in an article about a tragedy. Furthermore, the investigations and this article both make it clear that there was not a "...dearth of possible motive." As the of the Child Advocate reported, there were multiple likely causal factors. The "we don't know the reason" narrative is a gross oversimplification the extensive report. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2021

Change "Newtown police arrived at the school street at 9:39 a.m., approximately four and a half minutes after the 911 call, and Connecticut State Police arrived at the school street at 9:46 a.m." to "Newtown police arrived at the school street at 9:39 a.m., approximately three minutes and twenty one seconds after the 911 call, and Connecticut State Police arrived at the school street at 9:46 a.m."

The source already included in the article is correct. The math in the article is wrong. 9:39:00 AM is three minutes and twenty one seconds after 9:35:39 AM, not four and a half minutes. The report cited by the article even says "It was fewer than four minutes from the time the first 911 call was received until the first police officer arrived at the school." It's citation 51. Primerebel (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Already done. Someone already corrected it, but thanks anyway. Gaioa (T C L) 10:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"Lanza then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School in his mother's car."

Hello. I am a new Wikipedia user, I have been a browser for many years and have donated before but an inaccuracy in this article had made me create an account. I hope to help further on the site as well.

The Wikipedia page states that "Lanza then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School in his mother's car." This is a simple inaccuracy. Adam Lanza owned a black 2010 Honda Civic while his mother Nancy owned a BMW that is shown still in the garage in CT State Police walkthrough.

Sadly I had a very solid source for this from a gentleman that wrote a book on the shootings (being released this year called The Sheltered Storm" https://shelteredstorm.com/) that detailed Adam Lanza's father buying him the Honda Civic.

This USA Today article mentions that the Civic is indeed his. Hope this is enough - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/25/newtown-shooting-investigation/3696425/

Theforbidden3102 (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC) theforbidden3102

The key source here is the final report, which says on page 28 "Presumably this was the shooter driving the black Honda Civic as this would have been the only car available to the shooter and it was reportedly his, having been purchased for him." However, the search warrant says Nancy Lanza was the registered owner of the car. It may have been bought by Nancy Lanza to be used by Adam. I don't think that the article can contradict the final report on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Murder weapon used in the murder of Nancy Lanza?

I made a recent edit saying the weapon used to kill Nancy Lanza was a .22 Savage Mark II Bolt action rifle. My edit was reverted in less than a day. There are no credible resources that say it was the .22 Marlin, or the .223 Bushmaster. Nearly all sources that say what murder weapon was used on Nancy Lanza, say the .22 Savage Mark II Bolt Action Rifle. The note left inside the code states a single source says it was the .223 Bushmaster. I don't think I have ever heard of that website. There exist crime scene photos that you can find on the internet that show Nancy Lanza dead in her bed, with the .22 lying right on the floor in her bedroom. You cannot see what specific rifle it is, but a more common photo (that shows only the rifle) clearly shows what weapon it is. How is that not enough proof to show that the .223 Bushmaster XM15, .22 Marlin, 10mm Glock 20, and 9mm Sig Sauer P226 were not involved in the slaying of Nancy Lanza? No weapon but the .22 Savage Mark II was used on Nancy. MountainJew6150 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@MountainJew6150:, please read the original research policy that was referred to by Ianmacm in their edit summary reverting your edit. Wikipedia does not publish original research, it publishes what reliable sources say. Your argument is a reasonable supposition but there was no source presented that directly stated which weapon Lanza used to kill his mother. The policy prevents the type of synthesis of sources you are positing. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said in this edit summary, the exact make is not an important detail. This source says "Adam Lanza shot Nancy Lanza in her bed with a .22 caliber rifle. "There was no indication of a struggle," Sedensky said. Investigators found a rifle on the floor near the bed, according to one search warrant. She sustained an apparent gunshot wound to her forehead." There is no need to draw in original research because State's Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III said that the gun used to kill Nancy Lanza was a .22 caliber rifle.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If it helps, the Report of the State's Attorney at citation 51 says on page 24 "The weapon used was a .22 caliber Savage Mark II rifle." Primerebel (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The gun in question can be seen in this photo from the bedroom.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

time specification

On the date please change 9:35 to c. 9:35 a.m. and 9:40 a.m. to c. 9:40 a.m. to indicate the time the shooting began at the school and the time the shooting ended at the school. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done - This appears to have been done already, at least in the infobox for Adam Lanza. If that isn't the location to which you are referring, please specify.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I was not clear about which infobox, sorry. I was requesting the format for the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting infobox be the same as the infobox for Adam Lanza, as his infobox is more exact, according to the shooting times in the article. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Perfect. I have implemented this change.

I took a look at your contributions and you have made enough edits to qualify for autoconfirmed access level, which means you could edit semi-protected pages such as this one. You just need to properly register your account. You must have a registered account for 4 days and at least 10 edits before you can edit semi-protected pages. I'm not sure if edits made before account registration count towards the requirement. But either way, it would be easy for you to accomplish and if you intend to continue editing articles, it is highly recommended.

—Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please change casualties to victims

The people killed were not killed by accident or in a war, therefore they are victims and not casualties. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I disaree and downvote this, the definition of casualty is not limited to war or accident. The definition is as follows and fits the usage in the article: "a person or thing injured, lost, or destroyed" - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 03:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

And you know full well that the term "casualty" is used to de-personalize an event (as in war) - and create distance between the reader and the subject. Every educated person knows this. I grew up during the Vietnam War (not "conflict") - and this term was put into use at that time, for the reasons I just mentioned. DBAD. The correct term is "Victims". 73.6.96.168 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

They were victims, straight up. This was not a war, and they were not casualties. They were VICTIMS. This is common sense and doesn't require further discussion. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree (and upvote) that the word "victim" is more appropriate. The New Oxford American Dictionary provides one definition of "victim" that fits here: "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action." Regardless of the shooter's mental health, a crime was still committed.

The word "victim" maintains an impartial tone while conveying a deeper meaning. For example, the definitions of both words imply death or harm caused by an event or action but the definition for "victim" conveys additional information in that a crime was committed.

Also, there is already precedent for using "victim" in other articles such as Columbine_High_School_massacre. In that article, the word "victim" is used 33 times and the word "casualty" is only used twice. In the article Mass_shooting, "victim" is used 14 times and casualty is used zero times. In the article Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States, the word "victim" is used 16 times and "casualty" is used zero times.

Therefore since the word "victim" more accurately defines the action (a crime committed) and the word has already been used significantly in similar articles (precedent), it should be used here as well.

—Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — I should have checked before responding. This change was already implemented.

Edit request

Hey, can I have permission to make these changes so that the article is easier to follow? ili (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't convinced that these changes were an improvement. Sandy Hook is not a typical spree shooting because all of the deaths occurred at the school apart from Lanza's mother. Mass shooting is a more uncontroversial description.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Lanza's father 2014 interview

Hi. Columbine and this case both always caught my attention, that is why I am seeking opinion on adding parts of the interview Lanza's father had with Andrew Solomon. Opinions? CoryGlee (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This was in The New Yorker in March 2014 [6] and is used as one of the cites in the article. Lanza's father says that his son was an eccentric child with autism spectrum disorder, but admits that he saw nothing that would have predicted the shooting. This is pretty much what medical professionals said as well. I don't think that this interview adds much to what is already known, although it can be read in full as one of the cites.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

adding spaces

Please change c.935 a.m. to c. 9:35 a.m. and c.9:40 a.m. to c. 9:40 a.m., in each infobox. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 05:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The formatting of the times in the infobox is determined by the {{circa}} template and will not be changed. General Ization ^Talk 05:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Alex Jones loses lawsuits

This is in the news and should be added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Hook as a place

This is a request to include Sandy Hook as the place where the shooting occurred. Here is a source that has the address. [7] Thank you! 161.77.227.47 (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sandy Hook is part of Newtown. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the article Sandy Hook, Connecticut, "Sandy Hook is a village in the town of Newtown, Connecticut. It was founded in 1711."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I would vote for Sandy Hook to be included in the article and infobox. Newtown does not have to be taken out. Here is another source. [8] 161.77.57.235 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

IP user, the issue isn't whether Sandy Hook exists. That is beyond doubt. The issue is that specifying where the incident happened defaults to the name of the town. In this case, the town that Sandy Hook Elementary School is located in and which provides local government and runs the school board is Newtown so that is the place name we use. If you want to change it to Sandy Hook, you will need a separate discussion on this talk page specifying why you think it should be changed and why you think "Sandy Hook" or "Sandy Hook, Newtown" is a better option. I live in Connecticut and I can see no reason that it should as Connecticut villages are not functional geographic entities. They are simply local place names with customary usage. It would be like saying that the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan took place in Kalorama instead of in Washington, DC. I hope that helps.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's also how mainstream RS gives the location of the shooting, eg CNN here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the {{edit semi-protected}} template from my first post in this section, as I see consensus has to be established before the template is used. I understand there has to be a separate discussion started with more specific information in regards to my request. @Eggishorn, thank you for the information you provided! 161.77.227.47 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

New 2021 information (motive)

Just so you guys know, Adam Lanza's youtube channel has been discovered a few days ago by Redditors. In it there is a motive for why he did what he did (he believed he was saving the kids from society and from pedos). The Press doesn't know about this yet because Redditors are keeping it on the down low. His youtube channel has been found by youtube moderators and has been deleted, though its contents have been archived by Redditors. Everything can be found here: https://old.reddit.com/r/masskillers/comments/pn7n0q/adam_lanzas_youtube_channel/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.116.86 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

We can't do anything with that. We'd have to wait until reliable sources pick up on it before it can be reflected in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This comes down to a previous problem, which is claiming that online posts were made by Adam Lanza without any direct proof. This is what happened with the AnarchyRadio phone call, which was claimed to be Lanza's voice although the evidence was inconclusive.[9]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No actual proof. Unsubstantiated claims. It's all a Big Secret! New Discoveries! It's all PROOF! It's been censored! But we saved copies! But now you can go on [some spurious site] and get the files yourself!... /insert rolling eyes here because, yeah, No. Actual. Verifiable. Proof. Confirmation bias anyone?...The internet sometimes really is just a big rumor mill. Shearonink (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the time lag of around ten years; the posts are said to date from September 2011 to January 2012. Given the large scale police investigation and media interest in the case, surely this would have been found by now. Apart from some people saying that it sounds like Lanza's voice, there is nothing to prove that it is him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see here for the most recent update: https://old.reddit.com/r/masskillers/comments/q1h49k/complete_culturalphillistine_youtube_account/ there is plenty to prove it is him. Everything about this youtube channel proves it is him. It isn't an objective mathematical proof, more of a psychological and physiological proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.48.97 (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately no matter how convincing it may be (which I personally believe it is real), unless a reliable source publishes this information it cannot be included in the article. The authenticity of the channel has not been confirmed by authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfernoBubbless (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Final Report

I've heard reports of others not being able to access the final report PDF from their country? Does anyone else have this problem? If it persists we may need to find another link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfernoBubbless (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The version of the final report in the external links section wasn't working, so it was replaced with an archived version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

[10] The link works. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Poorly Organized Perpetrator Section

Some things under education refer to Lanza’s anxiety issues while at school, which seems more appropriate under the issues section, as the fact that these are mentioned and classified under education only seem to be there because they occurred at the time that he was being educated. Also, some of the wording seemed a bit “off;” I would like to make it more impartial, if that’s the right word, as it makes Lanza seem a bit more human, not to POV push. Since this is a tragedy, I want to consult other editors before changing anything. Thoughts? (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

Some things under education refer to Lanza’s anxiety issues while at school, which seems more appropriate under the issues section, as the fact that these are mentioned and classified under education only seem to be there because they occurred at the time that he was being educated. Also, some of the wording seemed a bit “off;” I would like to make it more impartial, if that’s the right word, as it makes Lanza seem a bit more human, not to POV push. Since this is a tragedy, I want to consult other editors before changing anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.14.54 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass shooters should not have their names available for notoriety

Recommend the murderer's name be removed. 96.244.19.179 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, phrases stating this is the deadliest school shooting and fourth deadliest mass shooting overall should be removed. The description of this event should be generic and dull as to help prevent it from becoming a motivating factor for other potential shooters. Quietpro67 (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

We go by how reliable sources give the name (with some exception under BLPCRIME to avoid naming while no convictions have been made). --Masem (t) 21:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• • We don’t remove cited, relevant information simply because someone finds it disturbing, which this certainly is. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Litigation in the info-box missing Alex Jones lawsuits

Sorry if this has already been brought up recently, if so please refer me to which archive. Should the Alex Jones lawsuit be included there? Support or Reject, and why or why not? RS are still covering it in the headlines. DN (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The litigation relates to nonsense that Alex Jones said about the shooting, rather than the shooting itself. The lawsuit against Remington Arms is directly related to the shooting. I don't think that the Alex Jones litigation is suitable for the infobox, although it is covered later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

Under the paragraph 'Classroom shootings' the timeline is reversed.

Lanza then entered a first-grade classroom where Lauren Rousseau.....

Lanza next went to another first-grade classroom nearby...Soto...."

Should be Soto first, Rosseau next. Easily verifiable Nightpaws1 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Initial media reports in December 2012 said that the shooter first entered Lauren Rousseau's classroom (Room 8), then entered Victoria Soto's classroom (Room 10).[11] During the investigation this was questioned, because "some of the 11 students who survived the shooting in Soto's class told investigators they hadn't heard gunshots before Lanza came into their room."[12] The final report said "A.L. then walked down the hall and entered two first grade classrooms, rooms 8 and 10, in an indeterminate order." The final report did not come to a firm conclusion about the timeline of events in Rooms 8 and 10. See also Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_7#Lanza_Entered_Soto's_room_first and Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_8#Floorplan_&_timeline.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

Weapons Section request > add izmash saiga 12 labeled (not used) > was gonna be used in the attack but thrown into perps vehicle Sandroi505 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the on-site investigation section, but it is not mentioned in the infobox because it was not used in the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In Sandy Hook article they said he wore glasses when he didnt, they was in his car

request for a change adam never wore glasses they were in his car, https://www.reddit.com/r/SchoolMassacre/comments/o47ptf/what_adam_lanza_wore_during_the_sandy_hook/ Sanyhookinfo Sandroi505 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't cite Reddit as a source. Ever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

he could've or he couldn't have wore glasses. sandy hook is a heavy topic and some questions are left unanswered, there was witnesses saying different things. Sandroi505 (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Quote from page 9 of the final report: "The main office staff reported hearing noises and glass breaking at approximately 9:35 a.m. and saw the shooter, a white male with a hat and sunglasses, come into the school building with a rifle type gun." I do wish that people wouldn't turn up with things they found on Reddit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

there is a source from r/masskillers, a way BETTER community for research into topics like this. and most of the time it isnt false info. Sandroi505 (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

IF there is a source at this reddit post then provide it. Other editors shouldn't have to go around and dig up sources that others mention. Do the work. Also, "most of the time" it isn't false info" isn't good enough...that means some of the time it IS. Shearonink (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

im not charging at you either, but with that mini comment at the end, it seems you have a superiority complex about reddit. its useful sometimes and not, still theres a whole dedicated community to mass shooters like adam lanza with most of the facts straight. Sandroi505 (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of your or my opinion of Reddit, Reddit itself cannot be used as a source for facts in Wikipedia since Reddit is WP:USERGENERATED and has no editorial oversight, the same way that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles...for Wikipedia's purposes user-written sources are not acceptable as a basis for verifying facts. Verifiability is one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia. Our article sources are there for readers to go to and check out, to see that editors aren't just making stuff up out of thin air, that editors are citing reliable sources to back up article text. Shearonink (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

alright fair enough, i probably won't answer anymore, but theres many different witness statements, and theories so certain stuff cant be really confirmed, so thats all Sandroi505 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022

remove the robb elementary shooting included in "see also" A^dresguy69 (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done This appears to be within MOS:SEEALSO guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Peter Lanza's death

Hi, Peter Lanza appears as deceased on July 13, 2022, on an app named FamilySearch from PlayStore which archives certificates of birth and death, but I haven't found any article even though the search on Google is suggested. Is that true? --~~~~ 190.246.97.81 (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Online family tree searches etc are not a reliable source. This would have to be covered by a mainstream news source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

A.L. biographical details trimmed

I know all about the "WP is not about righting great wrongs" point, but I still wonder what encyclopedic benefit there is to putting the details like what Adam Lanza's height is for instance in this article? There is a great recent article out based on research that says that mass shooters are inspired to do what they do after doing some googling (likely coming across pages on wikipedia too) and then after seeing what other mass shooters before them did, they often will try and "beat" (in a sadistic manner) the body count, and achieve maximum infamy this way. I know that the majority of media organizations cannot or will not do anything here, but if it is of no benefit to the encyclopedic content—and I argue that many trivial details are not—might it be reasonable to at least trim (if not delete) much of the basic stuff about A.L.? Imagine being a sick shooter, and looking up "Adam Lanza", getting the redirect to this article with the # specific to Adam's segment, and seeing how much information is there about him. Height, age, all kinds of things. Thinking to yourself... that could be me next, I could be immortalized next. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Lanza's age is obviously relevant. His height is given because he was very thin indeed at the time of the shooting, leading to possible brain damage resulting from anorexia. I agree, though, that the infobox about the perpetrator isn't adding very much information that is not already in the main infobox and the article text, and that the article is not a biography of Lanza. The infobox about him could be removed without a great loss. What do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Removed the infobox in that section only per WP:BRD. All other details remain intact. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Well played. John (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I came here after getting a change notification, and was prepared to make a lovely, well-meaning argument about how we are supposed to be dispassionate, that all rational, empathetic people loathe lanza but we must remain neutral, etc etc etc etc.

All that is true; but since all relevant details are already in the body of the article, the infobox is/was redundant. Granted, re the arguments about reading the encyclopedia possibly energizing a potential shooter, I generally think WP would be one of the last places such a person would linger, but the infobox does/did indeed serve as a box score of sorts, notwithstanding the extant lists of victims etc.. But there's only so much one can do in this regard. So, I support the removal on the simple grounds of redundancy. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Why add the Robb Elementary Shooting in "See Also"

I think the Robb Elementary Shooting shouldn't be in "See Also". A^dresguy69 (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm 50-50 on this. It could be argued that it is already covered by the other See alsos. However, it is the attack with the closest similarity to Sandy Hook.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Mentions of the 2011 Norway attacks, the 2006 West Nickel Mines School shooting, and the Virginia Tech shooting in this article...

In places in the article, the text mentions the 2011 Norway attacks, the 2006 West Nickel Mines School shooting, and the Virginia Tech shooting, as being previous events that police believed that Lanza extensively researched but I can find no mention of these specific shootings in the cited sources, namely:

• <ref name="nbc_investigation">{{cite web |url=http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/27/21736461-police-release-full-newtown-massacre-report-with-photos-and-video?lite |title=Police release full Newtown massacre report, with photos and video – Investigations |publisher=NBC News |date=December 27, 2013 |access-date=January 14, 2014 |archive-date=December 30, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131230002144/http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/27/21736461-police-release-full-newtown-massacre-report-with-photos-and-video?lite |url-status=live}}</ref>
• <ref name="eHF5D">{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/justice/sandy-hook-shooting-report/ |title=Sandy Hook killer Adam Lanza took motive to his grave - CNN.com |date=December 18, 2013 |website= [[CNN]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131218072027/http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/justice/sandy-hook-shooting-report/ |archive-date=18 December 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
• <ref name="ConneticutPost">{{cite news|title=Computer evidence shows Lanza's interest in pedophilia|url=http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Computer-evidence-shows-Lanza-s-interest-in-5156605.php#photo-5651099|access-date=November 19, 2017|first=Dirk|last=Perrefort|work=[[Connecticut Post]]|date=January 19, 2014|archive-date=November 6, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171106210812/http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Computer-evidence-shows-Lanza-s-interest-in-5156605.php#photo-5651099|url-status=live}}</ref>

The NBC source mentions "that Lanza had no clear motive, but was obsessed with school shootings -- particularly the Columbine massacre of 1999" & "focused on mass shootings and in particular the Columbine shootings." The Connecticut Post source says "Smiggles, a screen name state police said Lanza used, made hundreds of posts on a now-defunct online forum, "Shocked and Beyond," that focused on mass shootings after Columbine.", 'Lanza's hard drive, however, was filled with documents pertaining to his research of mass shootings". The CNN reference states "Adam Lanza went from a merely shy pre-teen to a mentally ill recluse obsessed with school shootings." and "After the shooting, investigators found that Lanza had sorted out the details of school shootings and other mass murders in spreadsheets."
I found no mention specifically of the Norway mass murders/attacks or the West Nickel Mines murders or the Virginia Tech massacre in any of these news stories. Yes, the specific events of Norway/West Nickel/Virginia Tech might be mentioned in the preliminary police report and perhaps in the final report but so far as I can tell they do not appear in the cited sources. I think the article should be adjusted to state something along the lines that "Lanza was obsessed with school shootings including Columbine" but anything more than that does not seem to be supported by the cited sources. Shearonink (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless there are some posted objections I will move forward sometime this next week with removing mentions of these particular shootings/attacks - the Norway attacks, the West Nickel Mines killings, the Virginia Tech shooting - as specific previous events and replace those mentions with text along the lines of "Lanza was obsessed with school shootings including Columbine" since that is what the cited sources actually state. Shearonink (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Memorial

A couple of comments on the memorial:

There seems to be disagreement on whether to include the cobblestone walkway. Where else would the design of the memorial be covered if not here?

And if it is not included, one problem is solved. Black-eyed Susan is a disambiguation page. Nevertheless, there are several entries on that page for the flower and I'm not sure which one to link to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the article needs to give a chapter and verse description of the newly opened memorial. It is important to note that it was unveiled in November 2022, but a brief description is enough. This CNN story doesn't mention Black-eyed Susan at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it could be argued that the CNN story not including a detail is enough reason not to, but if we don't have an article on the memorial, I still think more detail is needed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Richard King did not prescribe Lanza Celexa.

Kathleen Koenig, a nurse at Yale, prescribed Adam Lanza an anti-depressant called Celexa in 2006. Robert King was just his therapist at Yale if I remember correctly, and would therefore not have the credentials to actually prescribe any medications to a patient. [13]https://shelteredstorm.com [14]https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-2013-12-28-hc-lanza-sandy-hook-report1228-20131227-story.html Bargatow (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Edited to reflect the information already cited at https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2014/01/22/sand-hook-shooter-treated-at-yale/ and identify Koenig as the prescriber. General Ization ^Talk 07:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Vegan

It should be noted that he was vegan which exacerbated his symptoms and mental health. 67.187.148.97 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. He was anorexic. Veganism does not lead to anorexia. Acroterion (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No because this is original research. The final report doesn't mention that he was vegan, or give this as a factor in the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Listing the murderer as someone killed.

Can someone please edit the list of the killed to not include adam lanza? He should not be listed next to the names of children he killed. Please and thank you. 2601:249:8700:72F0:9D74:1290:B12:3C8F (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Being killed is not synonymous with being a victim. Hmm1994 (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Murdered versus killed

Rather than going round in circles on this, we should have a discussion. "Killed" is more neutral as "murdered" has more legal implications about what happened. And please don't edit war when other editors revert. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I would be in favor of “murder” given the circumstances and number of victims. “Killed” is so neutral a term that it could be used for an accident or act of God weather event. There is no doubt whatsoever that the perpetrator planned and carried out this crime. That’s been well documented. Whether or not he might possibly have been found not criminally responsible due to mental illness, these victims were all still murdered and their lives were unlawfully taken from them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

number

My understanding is fifteen students hid in a bathroom. There is a source in the article. Please change fourteen to fifteen. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Which cite is this, could you be more specific, thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This source states it was 14. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

We have two sources citing that statement, one says 14, one says 15... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Here you go. [15] I found an interview with Kaitlin. When you watch the interview, you can hear her mention that there were sixteen students and one was absent. [16] 73.167.238.120 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Just notifying contributors that I've marked the edit request as answered again. IP, it is unnecessary to re-open it on reply. You have a healthy ongoing content discussion which will result in some kind of action (or a consensus based lack thereof). Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Fifteen looks right to me. 130.51.142.186 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is always a problem if the sources contradict each other. It isn't a major error, and there was a lot of confusion about what happened during the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I found these links. [17] [18] 73.167.238.120 (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the number is 15. I'd say the teacher who was actually present would know how many kids were hidden... Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at this source. [19] Change fourteen to fifteen. 75.144.185.89 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Kaitlin Roig, the teacher who hid the students in the classroom bathroom, stated in a 2012 interview the day of or the day after that there were 15 students.CTNews.com quoting ABC News interview
Roig also states in her book, mentioned above and published in 2015, that there were 15 students present that day."An adult wouldn’t fit comfortably. How in God’s name will I get sixteen of us in there?" (meaning her plus 15 children) Many of the sources above are from 2015 and are interviews about Roig's book. Seems to me, to keep the information clean and verifiable, that the book itself should be the source, not interviews that simply repeat information about the book.
As to the number possibly being 14...the Mason County Daily News article cited above - published several days after the shooting, on December 18, 2012 - does state 14 as the number of students hidden in Roig's classroom but it also says Lanza's mother was killed in two places - dead at home and also dead in a classroom while working as an aide. The prime source seems to be an ABC News Radio report but snippets of the exact same wording can be found on East Idaho News in an article published the day after the massacre. In my opinion, the person who was there, the eyewitness should be relied upon to know how many children hid in that bathroom with her. Shearonink (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The change from fourteen to fifteen is correct. 75.144.185.89 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As @Sirdog noted, please do not open this request again until you have reached consensus with the other editors involved here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Voorts So. Consensus.

Read the sources I have already provided above - CTNews.com quoting ABC News interview & "An adult wouldn’t fit comfortably. How in God’s name will I get sixteen of us in there?" (meaning her plus 15 children) plus The Mason County Daily News source that got proven facts wrong The verifiable facts have been reported on by reliable sources, that 15 children were hidden in her classroom's bathroom by Ms. Roig. The one source that claimed 14 students were hidden has been shown to be in error on other points of fact, is Wikipedia supposed to rely on it for 14 instead of 15?. The woman, the eyewitness, the survivor of this mass murder herself has stated on the record that 15 children were hidden in that bathroom. Are you saying that regardless of what reliable sources have reported, that differing reportage of an event should all have the same level of serious consideration in a Wikipedia article? I simply do not understand why you are insisting that a "consensus" must be established when WP:Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy. Shearonink (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

You have good arguments for why your sources are currently better than the ones cited in the article, and if this were an RfC and I were closing it, I'd probably give serious weight to your arguments. However, this is an edit request, not an RfC, and WP:ER tells us that edit requests should be "uncontroversial"—that is, there should be consensus (which, like verifiability, is also a Wikipedia policy) that the edits ought to be made. Here, a few other editors, specifically @IanMacM, @Adolphus79, and @Actualcpscm, have pointed out that there are conflicting numbers from other sources that appear to be reliable. In any event, you have sufficient permissions, notwithstanding this edit request, to edit this article if you feel that the sources you've cited are verifiable and reliable, so go ahead if you'd like. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't care either way. If the lady that was there says 15, then I say we go with 15. I simply made the mistake of pointing out that the sources were conflicted... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that fourteen should be changed to fifteen. 130.51.141.135 (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry! I see the change from fourteen to fifteen was made. 130.51.141.135 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

punctuation

Police believe that Lanza extensively researched earlier mass shootings.

Change a comma to a period and create a new sentence after. 130.51.141.135 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

After mass shootings, change a comma to a period. Then create a new sentence. 130.51.141.135 (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done - although i wasn't sure what you meant at first i think i found what part of the article you're talking about. i just made a copyedit, i didn't separate them into two sentences but i did make it sound more smoothly after the comma. B3251 (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Defender(s) infobox field?

Victoria Soto is currently the only person listed in the "defender" field of the infobox. I believe we should either delete that field altogether or (preferably, in my opinion) add, at minimum, Rick Thorne and Ann Marie Murphy to the list of defenders. As stated in the article, Murphy was found shielding a child with her body and Thorne was heard yelling "Put the gun down!" and ran through the hallways, risking his own safety to alert classrooms to the danger. I believe both of their actions fit the description of defender offered in the Template:Infobox civilian attack page: "Those who defended or repelled the attack, or were responsible for the immediate aftermath". At the very least, I don't think their actions are meaningfully distinguishable from those of Victoria Soto: all three acted as heroes. Thoughts? Happieryet (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Article about possible psychotic experiences by Lanza

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/keeping-kids-safe/201507/adam-lanzas-first-psychotic-episode was wondering if this deserved a mention at all? Phil of rel (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This comes down to a blog source assuming that Adam Lanza used the online name Smiggles. This has been discussed before, and since none of it was confirmed by the official reports, it is not suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Phil of rel (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

What Wikipedia sourcing guideline requires all information cited to be in the official reports? Below I have linked an article from a peer reviewed journal which affirms that the Smiggles account was indeed Lanza. In the absence of any scholarship or other sources that contests this fact, I fail to see why this source would be unsuitable for this article.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294091435_The_Enigma_of_Adam_Lanza's_Mind_and_Motivations_for_Murder Happieryet (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is promulgated by ResearchGate, which, according to its WIkipedia article, "is a European commercial social networking site for scientists and researchers" and the article was originally published on the website www.schoolshooters(dot)info...it being a social networking site doesn't necessarily mean that it is peer-reviewed. Also, the author authoritatively states that "Smiggles" was Lanza - "Lanza (who posted under the name Smiggles)" - but offers no outside cites/proof/references for that statement. For all those reasons and in my opinion, Langman's assessment that Lanza & Smiggles were one and the same really should not be used in this article. Shearonink (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

+1. It's similar to the claim that Lanza edited Wikipedia under the name Kaynbred. The police considered this during the investigation and were unable to prove it, which is why it is not in the final report.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Again: what Wikipedia sourcing guideline requires all information in Wikipedia articles concerning crimes to be from a police report? If that is your only contention, by your guidelines all other information in this article that is not in the "final report" should be deleted. For example: the eyewitness account involving Lanza attempting to enter a music classroom is not, to my knowledge, included in any report by a law enforcement agency. Why should it be included in the article while information relating to his online presence is not? We should be applying a consistent standard to sourcing. I also find your assertion that "(t)he police considered this during the investigation and were unable to prove it" speculative: what is your source for this claim?

Your notion of a singular "final report" brings me to my next question. Which report are you referring to? There were numerous "final reports", including the DESPP report, the Report of the Office of the Child Advocate, and the documents released by the FBI in 2017. It is the latter set of documents which I believe affirms that Lanza did indeed post as smiggles on the Super Columbine Massacre RPG forum. Please see this PDF of documents released by the FBI and currently hosted on its website. On page 311 of this PDF, in the Report of the State's Attorney, it is stated that "(o)ne of the internet blogs on which the shooter posted focused on mass shootings and in particular the Columbine shootings." So we know that Lanza indeed posted on such a website.

Pages 365-369 feature a summary of relevant info provided in an FBI interview (which was entered into the FBI's internal records on 12/26/2012) with a woman who "first became aware of LANZA approximately two to two and a half years ago when she observed one of his postings on the web site columbinesupermassacrerpg.com." She only knew him through online communication and did not know his real name or anything about his identity. Prior to the interview, she had not independently come to the conclusion Smiggles was Lanza, despite having heard about the SHES shooting. She did not contact the FBI: the FBI contacted her in the course of their investigation. In this interview, the agents that "LANZA used the screen name "smiggles" on shockedbeyondbelief.com, which was preceded by columbinesupermassacrerpg.com." There is much more info in this interview confirming that Lanza was indeed smiggles. Why else would the FBI contact her?

But what if she was lying?, you may ask. Or, What if the FBI could not substantiate its belief Lanza was smiggles? I believe this set of documents shows the FBI viewed her testimony as truthful. On page 322, in the Report of the State's Attorney, it is stated that "Information that was substantiated and relevant was made part of the investigation. Other information, after investigation was not substantiated... Some of the more than forty unsubstantiated leads and information are described below because of their nature or mention in investigation documents." You claim the police were indeed unable to substantiate the claim that Smiggles was Lanza's Columbine forum username. If that were the case, they would have mentioned the claim here, given that the assertion that Lanza was smiggles does appear in an investigation document entered into internal systems 12 days after the shooting. But they do not include it in this list of "unsubstantiated leads and information". Thus, I believe your claim that the police were unable to confirm Lanza was smiggles is incorrect. If you stand by it, you should provide a source.

Furthermore, this article from the New York Daily News makes the affirmative claim that "Starting in Dec. 2009, Lanza began posting as Smiggles to Shocked Beyond Belief, which is fan web site for a video game based on the 1999 massacre of 12 students and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo." Wikipedia's Reliable sources/Perennial sources information page describes the New York Daily News as generally reliable, the most reliable possible ranking. So, in totality, there is a "known expert on school shooters" (Langman) who has stated in a peer reviewed article that Lanza was smiggles. A reliable journalistic source states Lanza was smiggles. And, most critically, the FBI documents state Lanza was smiggles, and do not include this in a list of "unsubstantiated leads and information". If those citations are insufficient for us to say that Lanza was smiggles (or at least that an FBI interview states that he was), then most of the article as written is insufficiently sourced. Happieryet (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

adam had photos tilted kaynsu that was found by police, so I think that's sufficient enough proof. Sinicki snaker (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a striking coincidence, but that coincidence alone isn't sufficient proof. Also, I believe making such a connection constitutes original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Happieryet (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

in book 4 page 194691 of DESPP reports the Connecticut police released it states he had screenshots of the game 'combat arms' which included the gamer tag 'kaynbred'. There is also mention of him going by the name 'smiggles' on an online chat in the reports.

it's straight from official reports. Sinicki snaker (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It does not necessarily mean that it is peer reviewed, yes. But in this case, the article is indeed peer reviewed; I simply used the ResearchGate link for ease of access. You are incorrect about the article being first published on www.schoolshooters(dot)info. Here is the DOI of the article, which shows it was initially published in the (peer reviewed) Journal of Campus Behavioral Intervention: https://doi.org/10.17732/jbit2015/1. Here is the article as hosted on on the website www.schoolshooters(dot)info. Notice that on the bottom of the first page , Langman is careful to note that the article was "Reprinted with permission from The Journal of Campus Behavioral Intervention (J-BIT) 3 (2015), 1–11."

Langman's own Wikipedia article describes him as a "known expert on school shooters" without qualification. Why isn't a known expert's assertion, which was subjected to the rigor of academic peer review, a sufficient source to prove that Lanza was indeed Smiggles? Happieryet (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Kaynbred Wikipedia Account: Reliable Source Found

I know the inclusion of Lanza's postings as the user Kaynbred on Wikpedia has been a very contentious subject on the talk page. I'm not trying to relitigate old debates, but I have found a reliable source which says that Lanza was indeed Kaynbred on Wikipedia. Without qualification, this article in the Hartford Courant states "(Lanza) posted several Wikipedia entries under the alias of Kaynbred." Before we proceed with including this information in the article, is there any contention as to the reliability of this source? Happieryet (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that this did not appear in the final report, the reason being that the edits were too old for Wikipedia to have any record of the IP addresses used to make the edits. There is also the problem of On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. There is some circumstantial evidence that Lanza may have been Kaynbred, but it was never officially proved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If the standard of sourcing for this article is that all information must come from the "final report" (do you mean the DESPP report?) and other reliable sources are not acceptable, there's a ton of information currently on the article we need to delete. Why do you believe that is the editorial standard for this article? Happieryet (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This first appeared in the Hartford Courant on June 30, 2013, [20] with the headline "Mass Murders Captivated Online User Believed To Be Adam Lanza". The text of the story says "Although Lanza did not use his name, investigators linked the poster's user name to Lanza, according to sources familiar with the probe of the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The same user name appears in the Wikipedia edits, discovered by The Courant. A Wikipedia spokesman said the website could not identify the poster, citing privacy policies. Investigators are now looking into whether the same person did the Wikipedia editing. The Courant, which is not revealing the user name, reviewed several dozen posts written from April 2009 to February 2010." The original version of the story stops short of saying that Lanza was Kaynbred, but says that there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that he may have been. This is still the position today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of the article you are referring to, and I agree that it stops short of saying Lanza was Kaynbred. Yet I am quite confused--why are you are bringing it up? I linked to an entirely different article, which was based upon new evidence the Hartford Courant was granted access to in 2018 after a lengthy court battle. Please actually read the article I linked. It is an entirely different article written by an entirely different author.

Also, could you please respond to my questions so we can understand one another's arguments more precisely? "Final report" is unclear, as there were multiple reports. Which are you referring to? Also, you've insinuated multiple times that information which "did not appear in the final report" is not suitable for the Wikipedia article. Is that, in fact, your position? Happieryet (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The 2018 story refers to documents that investigators found, specifically the spreadsheet that showed Lanza's fascination with mass shooters. It's unclear how this supports the theory that Lanza was Kaynbred, because the edits were too old for Wikipedia to confirm this. The theory that Lanza was Kaynbred always seems to come from journalists rather than the official reports that were published.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The 2018 story says the following: "He posted several Wikipedia entries under the alias of Kaynbred." It is an article specifically reporting on evidence that was withheld from the final report. All of that is irrelevant, though. This source differs from others in that it does not posit the Lanza Kaynbred connection as an unproven theory. It states it as fact on the basis of newly released information.

Once again: I understand the final report does not directly say Lanza was Kaynbred. But why should that negate the fact that a reputable source says that he was? Are all sources aside from the final report unreliable? Happieryet (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

In book 4 page 194691 of DESPP report, it says that Lanza had screenshots of the game Combat Arms including the gamer tag Kaynbred.screenshot here. This provides circumstantial evidence linking him to the Kaynbred user name, but Wikipedia said that the edits here were too old (2009-10) for the site to have kept records of the IP address used to make the edits under the user name Kaynbred. What is needed is something coming from the official records that mentions Lanza as Kaynbred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I still don't understand your viewpoint: can you please answer my clarifying questions so we can move toward reaching consensus instead of going back and forth? I have acknowledged several times that the official records released to the public do not mention Lanza as Wikipedia user Kaynbred. That is not in contention. Our central disagreement, as I understand it, is whether appearing in an official report is a prerequisite for reliability. I do not think that it is, and I believe that you do. Am I correct in interpreting your viewpoint? If not, please let me know. Happieryet (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

My position is that I am not sure that we are ever going to get smoking gun evidence from the official documents that Lanza was Kaynbred on Wikipedia. There are various news stories written by journalists saying that he was, but on close inspection they come down to conjecture based on the known fact that Lanza used the name Kaynbred elsewhere, and that the Wikipedia edits were made during the similar period of 2009-10. It is interesting circumstantial evidence, but ultimately it turns out to be close, but no cigar.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree: the investigative materials released to the public in 2013 have no information linking Lanza to Kaynbred. This is why, as far as I know, no reliable source prior to 2018 said with certainty that Lanza was Kaynbred--instead, as you say, "they come down to conjecture" and use terms such as "suspected," "investigators believe," etc. Those articles are not substantive proof, and they don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability. We're in agreement there.

Yet I find it very compelling that the Courant's editorial position shifted from "stopping short of saying that Lanza was Kaynbred, but says that there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that he may have been," as you summarized it, to "(h)e posted several Wikipedia entries under the alias of Kaynbred." They wouldn't even name the account in their initial reporting based on circumstantial evidence. We have no idea why the Courant shifted their position, but the fact that they did so just after receiving documents that were deliberately withheld from the final report and hidden from the public for years is worth considering, no? Stating the 2018 claim comes down to conjecture is completely unsupported by the article: we don't know why the Courant now believes Lanza to be Kaynbred with certainty, and it would be conjecture on our part to speculate. The fact is that they do.

Our disagreement is not about whether the official reports say Lanza was Kaynbred. They do not. I recognize that. Our disagreement is whether that matters. Whether a claim is supported by "smoking gun evidence from the official documents" is not Wikipedia's standard of verifiability--if it was, half of the article as written would have to be deleted. I believe the Hartford Courant is a reliable source, and, as the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy says, "articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible..." If your argument is that the 2018 article in the Courant fails to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, please cite the relevant parts of the policy. If not, please explain why this information should be excluded from the article. Again: I understand the Kaynbred-Lanza connection does not appear in official reports, but that alone is not reason to exclude information. Happieryet (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It was Dave Altimari who said this. The story that he has written here does not explain why the 2018 documents show that Lanza was Kaynbred, it just says that they do. This would mean that the 2018 documents would have to contain some new information that was not in the 2013 documents.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. But it's not as if Dave Altimari self-published the story or had complete editorial control in his capacity as an investigative reporter for the Hartford Courant. His claims were subject to rigorous fact checking, as is standard in the newsrooms of reliable journalistic sources. By their very nature, the 2018 documents contained new information that was not in the 2013 documents. That's why the Courant had to go to court to obtain them. Did they contain information re: Kaynbred? It's very possible--in my mind, very likely.

But it's also irrelevant in my opinion: it is the job of the fact checkers at the Courant to verify their reporting. It is not our job as Wikipdia editors to do so. Unless you have a contention as to the reliability of the newspaper or the author, I still don't understand your argument that this is not verifiable information under Wikipedia policy. Perhaps any edit to the page should be prefaced by the qualifier that the Lanza-Kaynbred connection is "according to the Hartford Courant"? Happieryet (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I appreciate the due diligence in comparing one source to another, especially when discussing living people or claims of criminal activities, but this type of analysis can get close to original research which should be avoided. The Hartford Courant is reliable and can be used as a source--unless there is a more recent source that specifically refutes this article and its content. (Think of Rolling Stone's "Rape on Campus" article where we later learned that the writer fabricated her story). When two reliable sources don't agree, both theories should be included if relevant to the article. I suggest this approach to the text: On September 20, 2018, ABC Newspaper reported that Jack jumped over the candlestick, based on its examination of records received in a FOIA court case. However, the 2020 Final Report states that investigators suspected Jack because he had many candlesticks but were unable to prove he actually jumped over them because security camera data had been deleted. (There are variations of this approach, depending on which article came first but hopefully this makes sense.) Rublamb (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response to the third opinion request. As far as I know, the 2018 Hartford Courant article is the most recent reliable source to touch on the Kaynbred Lanza connection. I'll give other editors some time to research to make sure that's correct and/or express disagreements before making any edits to the article.

The approach you cite makes perfect sense, I appreciate you taking the time. To my knowledge, none of the reports released to the public by officials mention the Kaynbred-Lanza connection. The earlier reporting was simply based on anonymous officials' looking into whether Lanza was the Wikipedia user Kaynbred, but the journalistic outlets reporting this information could not confirm the connection themselves. The source to initially report this appears to be… The Hartford Courant, in this article. The other reliable sources which report on this possible connection at the time all seem to cite the Courant (PBS, in this article. CBS News, in this article. Buzzfeed News, in this article.)

As such, do other editors think it’s necessary to clarify the Courant’s evolving position in the article, or should we default to the most recent reporting? I personally think the most recent should be used. Information from criminal investigations gleaned from anonymous sources within law enforcement is often reported as unverifiable before later being confirmed by the same outlet. That seems to me the natural progression of an investigation, and not actually a disagreement between sources at all. Thoughts, all? Happieryet (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The first thing to say is that the Hartford Courant is a reliable source. The question is whether they had hard evidence that Adam Lanza edited Wikipedia, or inferred it from evidence that he did similar things elsewhere. The 2018 story is mainly about the spreadsheet that Lanza kept, detailing his fascination with mass shootings. The 2018 story says "The Courant obtained the spreadsheet along with more than 1,000 pages of documents from Lanza’s Newtown home, gathered by state police as part of their investigation into the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The Courant waged a five-year legal battle for the records, culminating in a state Supreme Court decision that ordered their release." The existence of the spreadsheet was known about in 2013 [21] but it appears that the spreadsheet was not publicly available in full until the Courant made its legal challenge to release documents related to the case. In the 2018 story, Dave Altimari says "He posted several Wikipedia entries under the alias of Kaynbred. The posts appear to have started in 2009 regarding George Sodini, a name in his spreadsheet. Sodini killed three people and injured nine at a gym in the Pittsburgh area before killing himself. Lanza posted at least two things regarding the status of Sodini’s personal website. So detailed was his research that Lanza noticed even a small error in the Wikipedia page of another person in his database — Kimveer Gill, who killed one person and injured nine during a school shooting in Montreal in 2006." The use of the phrase "appears to have" is a bit of a worry here. What Altimari is pointing out is that some of the entries in the spreadsheet match the known Wikipedia edit history of Kaynbred. This is correct, but stops short of providing smoking gun evidence that Lanza actually was Kaynbred. It does, however, provide interesting circumstantial evidence that he may well have been. Overall though, I don't think that the 2018 story tells us much beyond what was known in 2013.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the inference that Altimari (and, by extension, the Courant's editorial team) concluded Lanza was Kaynbred by comparing the spreadsheet to Kaynbred's Wikipedia article is conjecture. The article you linked says "The documents released by the state police aren’t in chronological order and it’s unclear when Lanza wrote many of them. Several were downloaded from his computer where they had been stored on his desktop." I think it's very likely that along the 1,000+ documents obtained by was "smoking gun evidence" that Lanza was indeed Kaynbred on Wikipedia. This evidence need not contain an archive of Lanza's postings as Kaynbred, which would explain the use of the phase "appeared to have".

Regardless, that's all speculation on my part. Theoretically, we could both be wrong about why the Courant decided they had sufficient proof Lanza was Kaynbred on Wikipedia. Neither of us were in the Courant's newsroom in 2018. I understand your argument—but I don't believe it's relevant to our central disagreement, which (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong) is whether a statement of fact from a reliable source meets Wikipedia's verifiability standards. I believe it does. I'm still not sure why you don't. I understand why you personally believe that the Hartford Courant does not have "hard evidence" to prove that Lanza was Kaynbred on Wikipedia. But I don't understand why you believe this source does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. I would appreciate clarification on this specific aspect of our disagreement. Thank you for the time you've put into this discussion and the article as a whole. Happieryet (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem with Dave Altimari's 2018 story is the internal contradiction that it contains. It says that Lanza was Kaynbred on Wikipedia, but also adds a significant qualifier to the statement with the phrase "the posts appear to have started in 2009". Nothing in the spreadsheet proves that Lanza was Kaynbred, but it does confirm the previously existing theory that he may have been.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what's intrinsically contradictory there? The spreadsheet is irrelevant: they received over 1000 pages of other documents. It's entirely possible there was evidence in those documents that proved that Lanza was the Wikipedia user Kaynbred, but did not directly state when this user's first post was. It's not a contradiction, and it's scarcely a qualifier.

But, again, I don't understand how this is relevant for the intents and purposes of our disagreement, which is whether an claim of fact made by a reliable source years ago without retraction is verifiable information according to Wikipedia policy. You're making an extraordinary claim: that the Hartford Courant, a source we agree is reliable, fell short of its own standards of reliability in this specific article, then failed to retract the unverifiable information it promulgated. An extraordinary claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. Happieryet (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the Hartford Courant introduces an element of WP:WEASEL into its own story by using the phrase "the posts appear to have started in 2009". This leads to the question of whether they really knew that Lanza did this, or simply inferred it because he had done similar things elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

They "really knew" with enough confidence to say that Lanza did this. WP:WEASEL has nothing to do with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which is what we fundamentally disagree about. It is a style guide for Wikipedia editors—nothing more. WP:WEASEL makes this clear: "(V)iews that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source." The fact Altimari uses an arguable weasel word when describing the timeline of Lanza's postings does not impact the verifiability of his article.

You have questions about whether Altimari "really knew" or "simply inferred". You believe he may have simply inferred. That's fine. But it's irrelevant. Wikipedia:Verifiability says that your beliefs and opinions should have no bearing on Wikipedia's content. Information published by reliable sources is verifiable under Wikipedia policy, even if you personally have questions. It also says that "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". A reliable source said that "(Lanza) posted several Wikipedia entries under the alias of Kaynbred." That arguable weasel words were used when discussing the timing of these posts does not have any bearing on the identification of this user as Lanza. One can know that "X went by Y on the website Z" without knowing with certainty when Y's first post on website Z was.

Happieryet (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

What would be wrong with saying: "An article in the Hartford Courant stated Lanza edited Wikipedia with the user name Kaynbred." Say where the statement came from and leave it at that. For whatever it's worth, I agree that the Hartford Courant is a reliable source and the article says Lanza edited Wikipedia using the name Kaynbred. Put it in and end the argument. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

In this edit i've added the worded suggested by Bookworm857158367.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You misrepresented your edit. You did not use the wording suggested by Bookworm857158367. You omitted that Lanza edited under the name Kaynbred. Then, when I edited the article to add that Lanza edited under the name Kaynbred, you reverted it, despite the fact that myself and Bookworm857158367 have argued for its inclusion. In your edit summary, you invoke WP:Outing. The fact that two administrators were on the byline of a 2013 Signpost article that named User:Kaynbred seems to me a clear ruling from administration that naming the account used by Lanza does not constitute WP:Outing. Aside from that, why shouldn't the username be included? I thought we had already resolved the "possibility that this isn't true" issue, given that it was published in a reliable source. Happieryet (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The Hartford Courant gave the user name that the perpetrator used. The perpetrator is deceased. Leaving out the user name is overly fastidious in this instance. I would support editing it to restore the user name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to link to the Signpost article. Here it is. Happieryet (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Firearms security

How did the shooter get the gun he shot his mother with? Was she legally required to keep the .22 locked up? If so, why didn't she do so in this instance? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you're asking those questions here. If these certain aspects of this horrific event has been covered by a reliable source or sources, that's what research is for. Shearonink (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. It is unclear how Lanza came to get his hands on the guns used in the shooting. There was an unlocked gun safe in his bedroom (with a teddy bear on top of it). The safe was "open and with no evidence that it had been broken into".[22]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2023

change motives to "Unkown (possibly fame and attention)" because a witness reported on a declassified fbi document that they talked to adam lanza on a website called suicidefourm and he said "i want to kill myself but it wont be on the news" Pipebombcrusader (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done:Unsourced, and even if it were, the supposed source does not support your proposed change. Meters (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

seperate article for adam lanza

Should there be a seperate article for Adam Lanza? Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and rejected on WP:BLP1E grounds. There are no hard and fast rules here, but a bio would have to be significantly longer and more detailed, and not simply a repeat of the material here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Having a separate article on Lanza has been discussed at least 4 different times in the past. (Btw, Question 9 in the FAQ above addresses this issue.) Shearonink (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Year of car manufacture

Re this edit: Do we really learn a great deal about the shooting from the fact that the Honda Civic was a 2010 model? No we don't. Definitely excess detail. Anyway, rather than edit warring, let's hear some other comments. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the model year: excessive detail is a concern primarily when it impacts the readability of the article, and the addition of "2010" does not clutter the article. We may not learn a great deal from it, but those measly extra four characters aren't doing any harm. Happieryet (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Smiggles/Anarchy Radio Call Reliable Sources

This edit was reverted on the grounds that "the evidence is inconclusive and not supported by sources other than the NY Daily News story." Other problems with that edit aside, reverting it based on sourcing issues doesn't seem to follow WP:Reliability. Firstly, the NY Daily News is a reliable source per WP:RSP, and the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors about the (in)conclusiveness of the evidence are irrelevant.

Secondly, I have found additional reliable sources: this article in a peer reviewed academic journal by Peter Langman, a "known expert on school shooters" according to his Wikipedia article, affirms that Lanza was smiggles. While not a secondary source, page 367 of these records released by the FBI states unequivocally that "Lanza used the screen name "smiggles" on shockedbeyondbelief.com, which should assuage any concerns that both Peter Langman and the NY Daily News happened to fall short of their respective standards of reliability.

I'm posting on the talk page instead of editing because the past consensus appears to be against including any link between Lanza and "smiggles" in the article. Does anyone believe the above sources fall short of WP:Reliability and WP:Verifiability standards? Happieryet (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Smiggles is another example of something that Adam Lanza may have done, but the evidence was never conclusive. The problem is that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Reliable news sources were less keen than the New York Daily News on stating as a fact that Lanza was Smiggles. Peter F. Langman has access to the same evidence as everyone else. This news article qualifies the story by saying that Lanza "apparently" did this and mentions "The purported call by Lanza", while this CNN article says "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter Adam Lanza may have called a radio show nearly a year before his rampage, drawing parallels between a Connecticut chimpanzee that mauled a woman in 2009 and a “teenage mall shooter or something like that,” according to a report published Thursday in the New York Daily News. The newspaper identified the caller as Lanza, based on Internet postings and confirmation by two of the late shooter’s friends. CNN cannot confirm that the recorded voice is Lanza’s." It is possible to cherry pick sources, but the consensus of reliable news sources is that while the New York Daily News acted in good faith with this news story in January 2014, it cannot be stated with overwhelming confidence and as a fact that Lanza made the phone call to the radio station in Oregon.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "another example". In any case--I think your point regarding Peter F Langman is astute, but I'm not sure why it's an argument against verifiability. I think it's the opposite; a recognized subject matter expert evaluated the available evidence and decided it conclusively proved that Lanza posted as Smiggle on shockedbeyondbelief.com. Peer reviewers agreed. Why is that insufficient? Our personal beliefs about the conclusiveness of the evidence are not all that relevant to this discussion; but if we do want to evaluate the evidence ourselves, the FBI primary source I linked above seems conclusive to me. Do you disagree?

The notion that there's a consensus among reliable sources isn't true. This Telegraph article says "The seven and a half-minute clip, which was obtained by The New York Daily News, is the first recording of Lanza's voice to emerge since he carried out his killing spree in Newtown." This New York Magazine article says, simply, that "Lanza called in to the Anarchy Radio show".

How would you feel about including this information in the article with attribution to NY Daily News and/or Langman? That seems to be the best way to reach consensus to me, it's WP:Notable that multiple reliable sources attributed the postings as smiggles and the anarchyradio call to Lanza, all else aside. Happieryet (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's notable that Adam Lanza may have done this, but that's all. The New York Daily News found two people who knew Lanza and believed that it was his voice in the recording, but this does not amount to knockout evidence. This is why other news sources such as CNN were reluctant to state as a fact that it was his voice. Langman is simply piggybacking on what he has read and has drawn his own conclusion, which is not necessarily what other news sources concluded. There is always a problem with churnalism when other news sources repeat what they have read elsewhere. If you look closely, all of the other news outlets are repeating material from the New York Daily News story and are not adding anything new.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's notable that multiple reliable sources have reported he did do this. I don't mean to be rude, but Wikipedia's relevant policy is WP:Verifiability, not whether user:ianmacm thinks that there is "knockout evidence," whatever that means. I'd think the FBI docs would satisfy that criteria, but again, it's immaterial.

Neither of us know why the NY Daily News editorial room decided to give this article the green light, and to suggest it was merely because they "found two people who knew Lanza and believed that it was his voice in the recording" is conjecture. We similarly have no idea why CNN was unable to independently verify the voice in the call--neither of us were in their editorial room either. You're making huge assumptions. None of us know individual outlets' rationale for their editorial decisions.

Langman is indeed piggybacking on what he has read, isn't that just... what academics do? He independently came to his own conclusion, which was supported in its academic rigor through the peer review process and is thus a reliable source. His conclusion, and the conclusion of the New York Daily News, was not disputed by any reliable source. Other articles are repeating material from the New York Daily News, yes. I'm not sure how that makes it any less of a reliable source.

I'm going to take a step back and let others weigh in, but, of course, feel free to respond. Happieryet (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's churnalism. Multiple sources were too lazy to do their own fact checking and simply repeated what the New York Daily News story said. This sort of echo chamber is commonplace nowadays.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. That's still speculation, unless you're privy to internal communications in the Daily Telegraph and the New York Magazine newsrooms regarding their fact checking process.

It's also, again, irrelevant—two reliable secondary sources (Langman and the New York Daily News) and a primary source (the FBI) have stated Lanza posted on shockedbeyondbelief.com as Smiggles. Not a single reliable source has said Lanza did not do this.

This feels like a carbon copy of our discussion surrounding Lanza's activity on Wikipedia. I still do not understand your reasoning as to why these sources are not reliable and/or verifiable under Wikipedia policy. Happieryet (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If this was added to the article, it should be along the lines of "In January 2014, the New York Daily News reported that Adam Lanza had called a radio station in Oregon." This is because on close inspection, all of the other sources are simply repeating the story that the New York Daily News had on its front page on 16 January 2014 here. The News says "In an audiotape of a call Lanza made to an Oregon college radio station obtained by The Daily News - and vouched for by two old friends - the madman waved a giant red flag that he was about to explode almost exactly a year before the Sandy Hook massacre." The News found two people who knew Lanza and believed that it was his voice in the recording, and this, coupled with the Smiggles link, convinced the News that it was Lanza's voice. Various other news outlets picked up on the story, such as Sky News here, but they are not adding anything beyond what was in the New York Daily News story. Some news outlets, such as CNN and USA Today, ran the story but pointed out that it came from the New York Daily News and was not independently fact checked by them. The key weakness is that the News could only affirm that it was Lanza's voice on the basis of two people who knew him who said that it was his voice. This stops short of being direct confirmation, but overall it provides good circumstantial evidence that Lanza may have done this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

See also Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing

Regarding this reversion, and the previous reversion by the same editor of a similar addition, can we please discuss to reach consensus instead of edit warring?

How do we feel about the inclusion of the Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing page in the See Also section? The reversion edit summary argues that since this attack was a stabbing as opposed to a shooting, it does not fit. However, MOS:SEEALSO states that "articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category." I believe that as both were mass casualty elementary school attacks, they fit in the same defining category, regardless of the weapons used.

The reversion edit summary also argues the following: "...were it not for the fact that it occurred on the same day as Sandy Hook, it would have virtually zero linkage to this incident". This is true. If the two attacks occurred on separate days, they would be linked no more than any other two elementary school attacks, and I would not be arguing for the inclusion of the Chenpeng page. But they did occur on the same day! This coincidence engendered a number of comparisons and commentaries: here, in The New Yorker, here, in USA Today, along with others. A reader interested in exploring tangentially related topics would likely find these comparisons intriguing. Happieryet (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no real linkage apart from the fact that they were on the same day. This leads to the stabbing incident in China being only at best distantly related, and with no direct link between the two.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? They are distantly related, yes—linking to "tangentially related" articles is an acknowledged purpose of the See Also section as per MOS:SEEALSO. "Direct linkage" is not a precondition for inclusion under the manual of style guidelines. Please root your reasoning in policy/guidelines. Happieryet (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support . Very similar events that occured on the same day. If we can't get it in the See Also i think it would be worth mentioning it somewhere in the article.

Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not very similar because it was a stabbing incident and nobody died. It is only the fact that it was on the same day that has led to a link being made.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"It is only the fact that it was on the same day that has led to a link being made." It was also an indiscriminate armed attack at an elementary school, fitting into the same category. These aspects of the two cases make them tangentially related, so it is suitable under MOS:SEEALSO.

Regardless of your personal feelings about an edit, when two editors acting in good faith have shown support via edits, one of them reverting your prior reversion, and another has shown support on the article talk page, that constitutes WP:Consensus. Your lone voice of dissent does not alter the consensus that has been established, and repeating the same argument in an attempt to instate your preferred version of the article does not change that fact. I have restored the previous edit: please do not revert yet again in the face of three separate editors who disagree with your opinion (unless, of course, a new consensus is established through further discussion). Happieryet (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

both attacks occured one the same day at an elementary school with 20+ casualties. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Image of Lanza

Re this edit: Previously there has been a decision not to use this image for WP:NFCC reasons. Since I don't want any back and forth reverts on this, can we agree whether this image is OK? ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

yeah the photos fine Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC #8, most mass shooting articles do not have images of the shooter as they don't add much in the way of vital context. This image of Lanza is famous because it shows him looking scary, weird and odd.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree on the scary/weird/odd aspect. I haven't completely made up my mind as to whether or not the rationales at the file page are sufficient for retaining it in this article but am leaning towards an oppose. Shearonink (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

idk i support mostly because i like putting a face to a name but thats just me Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Strictly Oppose. "I like putting a face to a name" isn't sufficient rationale for WP:NFCC. Given that the only editor in this discussion who is in favour of adding an image of Lanza vehemently considers themselves a "proud member" of an internet community notorious for idolizing serial killers/mass shooters (123) and has no rationale based on WP policy for this discussion, I find this to not worth even discussing per WP:SNOW. B3251 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

lmao what Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with B3251 and Meters. Insufficient reasoning, and on top of this user saying they’re a proud member of the “true crime community” which as shown above is known to glorify mass murderers and serial killers, nearly all of their edits appear to be about mass murders or mass murderers. Clear bias Justanotherguy54 (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose If Lanza is determined to be notable enough to warrant an article about him, then the image might be used in that article to identify him. This article is about the incident, not the perpetrator. We discuss the perpetrator, but this article does not need an image of him. Meters (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• In Favor It's probably the most famous photo of a mass shooter in all of history. That image has been ingrained in people's minds since 2012 and I dont see how it wouldn't be relevant to the perpetrator section. Nokia621 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is no definitive answer for what is the "most famous photo of a mass shooter in all of history," and that still would not be sufficient rationale to include an image of the perpetrator on the article about the shooting. If an article about Lanza meets Wikipedia standards for creation and there is enough consensus for its creation, an image of him can (obviously) be used there, but not for the article about the shooting. This is the case for most notable mass shooting articles, such as the Columbine High School massacre and the Virginia Tech shooting for example. B3251 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)