Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

How comes we have still no information about his motivation?

How can we cope with this without knowing why this happend? The most important information is missing. --91.6.94.46 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Problem with silence of Lanza claim

I have found a source (The Hartford Courant) describing Lanza's path through the school which says he demanded to know where Soto's students were. Given that 7 of her students survived by hiding in the closet (and are therefore the only possible witnesses, I don't think we can still say that, "Witnesses said that throughout the incident, they never heard the perpetrator say a word." Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• hearing no objection, I have removed that sentence. Abductive (reasoning) 21:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, The CNN memorial and pages linked from it say that Soto had a conversation with the gunman during which she said "my students are in the gym, safe" before being shot. So I find it hard to believe the shooter was silent. Thanks for removing it. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun "Registration"

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

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

See Gun laws in Connecticut

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms could be added to the talk page, if there is an effect on firearms distribution. There is already an effect in terms of discussion of such changes. I didnt know about this project until just now (wasnt even editing here).99.31.164.28 (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• This would not be an appropriate article for that project. That decision would be made by members of that project anyway, but this is far outside that scope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Category: Apocalypticism

Why is this article listed under the category of Apocalypticism? Although it mentions his mother may have been a doomsday prepper, nothing in this article suggests the perpetrator committed the crime because of end-of-the-world leanings. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question. (note: I'm not forming an opinion of whether the category is appropriate or not {probably not}). - MrX 20:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This Article should be blanked and locked immediately

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy Theories

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

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

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

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

That's actually a conspiracy theory about the Bath School disaster, not about this shooting, so it wouldn't be relevant to this article even if it were being reported by sources less fringey than Veterans Today. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Calls for assault weapons ban and debate

The article currently reads: Sen. "Dianne Feinstein said she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.[101] Critics of this move call it purely political ..." Unfortunately, the second sentence links to a 2005 article which certainly cannot be criticizing Diane Feinstein's announcement today. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see that second part there now, so guessing someone fixed that. Thanks for raising the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• There is criticism from across the conservative spectrum at using this event to push gun control. Do I have to link to an opinion piece going directly after Dianne Feinstein? The material I cited confirms that gun crimes went down after the expiration of the act, which is the substance in which we base our position on this issue.--Bigh Whigh (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed for inclusion in some way, shape or form: "Magazines that fed bullets into the primary firearm used to kill 26 children and adults at a Connecticut school would have been banned under state legislation that the National Rifle Association and gunmakers successfully fought. The shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Adam Lanza, 20, used a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle with magazines containing 30 rounds as his main weapon, said Connecticut State Police Lieutenant Paul Vance at a news conference today. A proposal in March 2011 would have made it a felony to possess magazines with more than 10 bullets and required owners to surrender them to law enforcement or remove them from the state. Opponents sent more than 30,000 e-mails and letters to state lawmakers as part of a campaign organized by the NRA and other gun advocates, said Robert Crook, head of the Hartford- based Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, which opposed the legislation. “The legislators got swamped by NRA emails,” said Betty Gallo, who lobbied on behalf of the legislation for Southport- based Connecticut Against Gun Violence. “They were scared of the NRA and the political backlash.” ... The Connecticut shooting is the latest mass murder in which the gunman’s arsenal included a high-capacity magazine. Connecticut’s bill was written in response to an attack last year in Tuscon, Arizona, that killed six and injured U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, said Gallo." Ban on 30-Round Gun Magazines in Connecticut Died After Pressure 24.151.50.173 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• That sounds like adding politics into a non-political article. And synth. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As the reliable source has drawn the connection, it is not WP:SYNTH. It is definitely political as is Mike Huckabee's evangelical response, which is included at present writing, and I do not see anything wrong or irrelevant about political reactions to a public event. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the event, not the political fallout from the event. I get the feeling that consensus isn't going to be with allowing every person who is in political office to have a space for their comments here. If it isn't adding context to this event, I am doubtful others will want to add it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Along the lines of politicizing an article that should not be about politics, why is there a link to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the See also section? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and from the other side of the debate the calls for reduction of restrictions to allow the teachers to be armed. If we let the article become a coatrack, gun debate-related material in this article would dwarf the actual topic. North8000 (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Feinstein intends to introduce legislation: that is directly relevant. The mental illness angle is not--it's part of a larger theorizing on the issue and I have removed it again. Note that someone saw fit to add sources from 2000, a clear sign of synthesis. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Title of article

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

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

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

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

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

Dawn Hochsprung

If anybody wanted to know the kind of people who become teachers, they need only read of the bravery of the staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It starts with the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, who had the presence of mind to turn on the school intercom, broadcasting screaming and gunshots into every classroom, so that others had time to take cover. "That saved a lot of people," said teacher Theodore Varga, who survived the massacre. Hochsprung was in a meeting with a parent and senior staff when Lanza began shooting nearby. At the sound of gunshots and screaming, some in her office dived for cover, but Hochsprung and the school's psychologist, Mary Sherlach, 56, ran out to confront Lanza, shouting back to the others to lock the door. They were both shot dead, Hochsprung as she lunged at the killer. --91.66.8.86 (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting The Independent. What do you want us to do with it? RGloucester (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• No doubt that with time to reflect, the article will include some of the heroism that was displayed. As these are BLP concerns, we have to proceed very carefully and choose elements and multiple sources that best reflect the situation. There is no hurry, it is better to get it "right" than "right now". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

More soapboxing?

I removed this:

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

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

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

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

• It is easy to see that it will take a firm but polite hand to keep the soapboxing and theories out, due to well meaning newbies. Again, it is better to have less that is neutral and properly sourced than more that is not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Attended St. Rose of Lima Middle School?

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

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

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

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

Requested move

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

As discussed, this request is premature. Numerous possible names have been suggested, and it's too early to determine which will predominate among reliable sources and otherwise meet the needs of an encyclopedia article's title. —David Levy 01:26/01:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting → Newtown shooting – Despite most of the shooting taking place inside Sandy Hook Elementary School, the criminal did kill his mother at his home. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would propose this be postponed for at least one week, until it is certain what the sources will call this. A drive by motion by a new user isn't helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But the new user makes a valid point. The article is about the incident as a whole (the murder at the school and at the home). So, it is worth considering if and when a rename debate occurs. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Name will have to be based on what the sources call the event, it can't be based upon our own geographical pontifications, which is why the delay is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree that we need to hold off for now as being too soon. I brought this up ealier. An editor began a straw poll and it was closed as too soon by an admin who detailed why. I have to agree with that decision. It makes a lot of sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move/Re-title: Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre

Shouldn't the title of this article be "Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre" rather than "Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting"? I note that the Virginia Tech massacre was called a "massacre," not a "shooting." Certainly the number of people murdered and the manner in which they were murdered warrants the term "massacre." Chisme (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• No to the move unless there's a significant shift in how this is reported in the media. At present Google News has 70,300 hits for "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.", only 26 for the proposed "Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre" and 14,800 results for "Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre." --Marc Kupper|talk 01:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• This has already been asked a few times. It is helpful to see if a question has been asked first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Manual archiving again

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

• Bigh Whigh keeps adding that 2005 article back against consensus. I've given him a final warning for edit warring. Someone please clean up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Now blocked for 31 hours, for continuing to edit-war and refusing to get the point. Sigh. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Evangelical reaction is significant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus Restore International Reaction

Reaction from world leaders

President Obama's remarks on the day of the shooting

United States President Barack Obama gave a televised address at 3:16 p.m. EST on the day of the shootings, saying, "We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics." Obama paused twice during the address to compose himself and wipe away tears, and expressed "enormous sympathy for families that are affected". He also ordered flags to be flown at half-mast at the White House and other US federal government facilities worldwide in respect for the victims. Within 15 hours of the massacre, 100,000 Americans signed up at the Obama administration's We the People petitioning website in support of a renewed national debate on gun control. Obama attended and spoke at an interfaith vigil on December 16, in Newtown.

• Australia Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard issued a press release, stating that the Australian people "share America’s shock at this senseless and incomprehensible act of evil. As parents and grandparents, as brothers and sisters, as friends of the American people, we mourn the loss of children, aged only five to ten years, whose futures lay before them. We mourn the loss of brave teachers who sought only to lead their students into that future but were brutally murdered in a place of refuge and learning".
• Azerbaijan Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev sent a letter of condolence to Barack Obama, saying: "I was deeply astonished and grieved to hear about the terrible tragedy that happened at the school in Newtown, Connecticut. Sharing in your grief on behalf of the people of Azerbaijan and on my own, I would like to express my sincere condolences to you, families and friends of those killed and all the American people".
• Canada Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrote on Twitter: "The news is just awful. The thoughts and prayers of Canadians are with the students and families in Connecticut affected by this senseless violence."
• United KingdomCommonwealth of Nations Queen Elizabeth II said in a message to President Obama, "I have been deeply shocked and saddened to learn of the dreadful loss of life today in Newtown, Connecticut; particularly the news that so many of the dead are children." She added that Prince Philip joined her in extending their heartfelt sympathy to Obama and the American people.
• European Union European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton said in a statement "I want to express my shock after the tragic shooting at a school in Connecticut today," She also said, "I think of the victims, their families and the American people at this difficult time," European Commission Chief José Manuel Barroso said, "It is with deep shock and horror that I learned of the tragic shooting in Connecticut," European Commission Chief José Manuel Barroso said. "On behalf of the European Commission and myself, I express my sincere condolences to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy,"
• FranceFrench President François Hollande commented that he was "horrified" upon hearing about the event.
• Iran Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast condemned "the massacre of American children" and expressed his condolences to the families of victims.
• Japan Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda sent a condolence message to President Obama saying, "We express our condolences to the families of the victims... the sympathy of the Japanese people is with the American people."
• Lithuania Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė stated that she was deeply distressed by the Connecticut tragedy. Grybauskaitė wished "great strength" to the families of those who had perished.
• Malaysia Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak extended his deepest condolences to the families of victims. "It's a tragic incident and Malaysia stands by your side," stated the Prime Minister via Twitter.
• Mexico Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto expressed his condolences via Twitter, saying, "My solidarity is with the American people and President Obama".
• Norway Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg wrote on Facebook: "My thoughts are with the families who have lost their loved ones in the horrible shooting in Connecticut."
• Philippines Philippine President Benigno Aquino III stated that he and the Filipino people stand with the United States "with bowed heads, yet in deep admiration over the manner in which the American people have reached out to comfort the afflicted, and to search for answers that will give meaning and hope to this grim event." "We pray for healing, and that this heartbreak will never be visited on any community ever again," he added, in a statement tweeted by deputy presidential spokesman Abigail Valte.
• Soviet Union Russian President Vladimir Putin sent a telegram to Barack Obama expressing Russia's heartfelt condolences and "grief" at the fact that the victims were mostly children. He asked Barack Obama to convey words of compassion and sympathy to the victims' relatives, saying he empathized with the entire American nation.
• Spain The Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation announced that Spain expressed its "deepest condolences" and that "in these sad moments, Spain shares the pain of the families of the victims and their friends, the people of the United States.
• Turkey Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent a message to Barack Obama saying “Mr. President; I am very sorry to hear about the shootings. We deeply share your sadness. In the name of Turkish People, our government and myself we hope well beings for the wounded.”
• British Prime Minister David Cameron wrote on Twitter: "My thoughts are with those who've been devastated by the Connecticut shootings."
• United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon voiced his "deepest condolences" over the victims, calling the rampage "shocking murders," spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters in New York. "The secretary-general said that the targeting of children is heinous and unthinkable, and extended his thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims and all others traumatized by this horrendous crime," said the spokesman.
• Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone issued a letter of condolence on behalf of Pope Benedict XVI, which was read aloud at a Newtown vigil, saying, "In the aftermath of this senseless tragedy, [the Holy Father] asks God, our Father, to console all those who mourn and to sustain the entire community with the spiritual strength which triumphs over violence by the power of forgiveness, hope and reconciling love."

Leaders from many countries and organizations throughout the world also offered their condolences. Also, there is information there other countries have had reactions, such as China, Singapore, Denmark, and Belgium This information may be important because all these countries usually don't comment on a crime in the U.S.

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support We have an event, the shooting, that was highly notable in the US and a, rare, international reaction to the shooting that hasn't occurred for other similar occurrances. If the international section was unimportant, then why do we have a section on reactions to the shooting? It can be said that it is common knowledge for local reactions to occur, but it wasn't so obvious that there would be an international reaction as the shooting did not effect them. We should not just cherry pick between a national reaction and internation reaction, but we should equally include details and quotes on both for balance. Super Goku V (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support The International community offering their support which includes people in Moscow setting up a makeshift memorial at the US Embassy is notable and I feel that reactions such as there should be included as it is rare to see with a shooting here in the US. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No need to document every leaders reaction. The one sentence sums it up perfectly. AIRcorn (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Including a list of the international reactions is how we can show that there has been a worldwide reaction. I thought about a separate article much like Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden but believe the reactions to this shooting will be limited to short statements from various leaders and that the separate article will be an orphan. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, Unnecessary and adds nothing of value.--Mor2 (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The article is on the English Wikipedia, not the United-States-Only-Wikipedia. To have the President's reaction statement is certainly important to the article, but equally the reaction of the international community. All the information is verifiable and directly related so intentionally leaving it out is simply a measure to make this article only about the events that occurred on the day and not the aftermath or consequences. Columbine massacre has been the most heavily cited precedence in regards to inclusion criteria and the article is largely focused on the aftermath. Mkdw^talk 07:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Reactions by global heads of states and governments is relevant. Ryan Vesey 08:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion kept open for 24 hours - It appears the previous discussion topics have been closed or abandoned prematurely resulting in very few contributions from a spare sampling of editors. Many with IP's with very little editing history or at all. Also, the decision to proceed with the 'consensus' was usually made quickly and before the discussion could mature. I recommend this discussion be kept on the active talk page for at least 24 hours and any subsequent attempts at creating a new discussion be directed here. Mkdw^talk 08:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per MrX and Parkwells. The one sentence adequately sums up the obvious fact that governments across the globe expressed their condolences. Anything beyond that rapidly approaches a violation of WP:MEMORIAL, WP:UNDUE and also, imho, common sense. And for the love of god, please at least write it up as proper prose, not as a list with gratuitous use of flag icons. That's even designed to look like a memorial. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Many bloated Reactions sections have been created in response to major tragedies, and this article is no exception. The flag icons look awful, and a summary of reactions in WP:PROSE is the best approach.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support I agree with all of the statements in Support. It DOES shows the importance of what happened and it doesn't memorialize it. Does the 9/11 reactions page memorialize 9/11? Why don't you say every reaction page/section memorializes? One sentence is not enough to sum up the significance of this shooting. I agree, the world is watching. Is this enough to sum up a reaction? "Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson and a lot of people were sad." How about "People in India was upset over the Sikh temple shooting"? Obviously not.--199.231.184.178 (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Support A shooting in America has not had this much reaction before. It seems silly to ignore all the reaction from everyone, the pope, eu, uk, etc.. It's hypocritical. Other articles deemed worthy of an international response section, why not an article about a shooting that killed 20 children? By the way, while I support this, flags isn't something that should be allowed.--Beeman86991 (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

witness states saw man in handcuffs taken out of woods

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

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

There are a number of original news stories that reported this. here is the utube video someone saved. http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0S00Mz5bc5Qj08AowT7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBvMGQzcTByBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVjEzMg--?p=second+shooter+in+connecticut+shooting+youtube&vid=7e1484699f61a6224beb35dd1fe72b39&l=00%3A24&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVB.345515492384%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DovspEgeMXb4&tit=Police+Walked+A+Man+In+Camo+Pants+And+Dark+Jacket+Out+Of+Woods+...&c=1&sigr=11apoc955&b=31&tt=b

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

I googled this and the only article on Google News that I could find was [3] which mentions that it was reported that a "second gunman" was taken out the woods. Fox News also posted a picture from a Facebook page of someone that had nothing to do with the event. Details were flowing, and information gets thrown around. I don't think this is worthy of a mention.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions

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

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

Blogs and Chinese newspaper reaction

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

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

Associated attack in China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Child protection#Protect the children?

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