Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Keep or remove list of victims...a discussion

The victims list table was recently removed. (If you'd like to see what the table looked like, it can be found here.) The issue of having a table or list of the victims in this article has been discussed on this talk page before, but it might be time to revisit the matter again. The most relevant previous discussion is found in Archive 6: List of victims revisited (Do we need it? Opinions sought).
As I said in the last discussion about the list, in my opinion WP:MEMORIAL is not applicable. The victims list had only the names & the ages of the victims, it did not give personal or hagiographic details for the individuals such as would occur within an obituary or a memorial, of the type like the person loved their pet dog or was the wonderful mother of three and so on. Also, WP:MEMORIAL only refers to article subjects and says nothing about content within articles, stating that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements". Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind, things like MEMORIAL in WP:NOT are casebook items, but they do not fully include all possible things that WP is not. The issue here is mostly that save for some of the teachers that died that made steps to save the students as best they could and thus discussed in the context of events of the articles, most of the other deaths are thus only presented in that article. In 5-10 years, the only significant people will be Lanza (unfortuntaely) and those heroic teachers, while the names of the rest are footnotes. We can let other sites document those victims for us, but we should avoid details like this as a tertiary source. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is that people often cite WP:MEMORIAL as if citing it alone proves their case without delving into what exactly the guideline might mean, I wasn't stating that the guideline includes every possible contingency but it seems to me a discussion is in order as to whether or not this victims' table-list belongs in this particular article. I do think it is odd that the very people who were most concerned with this crime, the actual people who were shot and killed (as in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting) do not have a list of the dead individuals within the article. Shearonink (talk) 17:34 27 January 2014 (UTC)

However, their point is in line with the concept of NOT, that at some point, just listing out victims of mass incidents for purposes of "memorializing" them is a problem. If knowing about those who died is necessary to describe the event (as in the case of some of the teachers) or the aftermath of the event, that's reasonable to include those names. But there's a point of balance to this (as see below..) --MASEM (t) 18:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT - I propose one of two actions; either add back the list making it a separate collapsible box that defaults to being closed when first viewed, or, create an edit protected List article, Victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. These are in order of my preference. WP:MEMORIAL not-with-standing, for future reference sake I suggest that the information be kept. In 5, 10, or even 20 years, readers may want to know this information. Granted the list does not need to be featured or even made prominent in the article, but why remove accurate and sourced content? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Like the idea of making the table-list into a show-hide box and aree with the fact that the information is sufficiently sourced and accurate. Re:separate article-list, I do not think these people are notable enough for a standalone article, that would veer into true WP:Memorial territory in my opinion. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

An expandable table would be reasonable, as it would not weight down the article by default. If this is done, it would probably be necessary to make sure that the running prose assumes this list is not present in giving out the names in the discussion of the event. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Am working on a collapsible option in my sandbox, but the coding is proving to be quite a challenge for me. If anyone else wants to figure out a show-hide option for the editorial community to weigh in on, have at it...tables etc are not my strong suit. Shearonink (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Where's the Sandbox that the collapsed list is being setup? Link please... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, I tried to set a table up in my personal sandbox that was a duplicate of the previous one, but the code is beyond me. The previous version did not use the usual WP table format so I couldn't figure out how to do the show/hide option and didn't save any of my efforts. I'll have another go at it this week, but as I said above tables are not my strong suit. I'll be able to figure it out but I am sure doing so will take me a while.Shearonink (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Massacre" rather than "Shooting" in the title?

Not sure if this has been discussed before. I believe Massacre is a more fitting word for the title of the article, given the number of people killed. "Shooting" is a more Monotonous word, and I think massacre should be implemented into the title.Hatzing (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed shortly after the article was written (when it was too soon to determine a long-term title).

We use "massacre" when such a description predominates among reliable sources. In this instance, the term "shooting" appears to be used more commonly. —David Levy 19:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, "massacre" is an emotionally charged word, and should only be used if the majority of reliable sources use that term to avoid us (Wikipedia) creating the bias. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the nature of the incident, I would say that less hyperbole is better. "Shooting" should stay. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with "shooting" being better. For the reasons above, plus most definitions of "massacre" usually include other additional elements. North8000 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with "shooting." I remember that discussion. Massacre has too many other connotations. At Wikipedia we define Massacre as, "an incident where some group is killed by another, and the perpetrating party are perceived to be in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived to be helpless and/or innocent with regard to any legitimate offense". So massacres tend to occur among tribes or states or political groups of that nature. This was just one isolated aggressor and it's described almost exclusively as a "shooting" almost everywhere.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What the? ... Isn't the decision supposed to be based on what a preponderance of reliable, verifiable, high-quality sources use? Editors deciding based on what they think is "emotionally" charged, or how Wikipedia "defines" it is not WP:NPOV. Lightbreather (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the sources standard that you described was one of the arguments given for using "shooting". North8000 (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Shooting is a more precise word, "massacre" would be more vague and implies something other than just shooting. It was a massacre, but it was more specifically a shooting, so the current title is clearly superior. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 13:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, the article should follow what third-party sources use, in order to assure NPOV. John, reliable sources seem to agree with your assessment on the event and which of the two terms better describes it, however we should follow what they describe it as. Exceptions can be made when reliable sources do not establish a consensus on the description of the event, where we would then enter into discussions about its title. Even if the media's title seems irrational, the nature of such descriptions would then be discussed in the article itself. For example, the shootings and killings at the 1972 Munich Olympics are termed as the "Munich massacre", because sources describe it as such.[2][3][4][5] - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I did a fast check of the first ten references....looks like "shooting" is most common, with "tragedy" a close second, "massacre" a distant third, and "slaughter" 4th. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree - shooting is the term that is used by most sources and shooting is the correct definition for what occurred. Massacres tend to be between tribes or polities which is not what this was.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up parts of the article

I know after the official report was released it gave a lot more information on the shooting. However, the part of the article that talks about the shooting in Ms. Soto's class is really cluttered and confusing. Is there any way to clean it up better?Benbuff91 2:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Did a clean-up and re-organizing of the shootings in Soto's class. I still believe Lanza entered her classroom first but decided to not add that part. All speculative information has been deleted, to allow a better reading experience. Hatzing (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What happened?

What happened to the names of the victims? B-Machine (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Keep_or_remove_list_of_victims...a_discussion above. This has been discussed several times without a clear consensus. A drop down box might address the concerns.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Mainly WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLPNAME (using the shortly after death clause of BLP). Some discussions at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_6#Can_we_lose_the_scoreboard.3F and Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_6#List_of_victims_revisited_.28Do_we_need_it.3F_Opinions_sought.29 but I believe there were others as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Although otherstuffexists is not a strong argument, it should be pointed out that two very similar articles, Virginia Tech massacre and Dunblane school massacre do have lists naming all of the victims.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Here too: Bath School disaster#Aftermath. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 18:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation error at bottom

There is a citation error at the bottom of the page, would somebody mind fixing this?

Robert4565 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Done automatically by User:AnomieBOT in this edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Does it serve for the article?

Adam Lanza had "homosexual fantasies" ... Should a LGBT category be considered? --Japanesehelper (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, because it is too speculative and indirect. It is not known for certain that Adam Lanza was Smiggles in the forum posts mentioned, although police believe it is likely that he was. The article title is "Computer evidence shows Lanza's interest in pedophilia" based on material found on his computer. The rest of the news article is largely speculation from medical talking heads who never met Lanza, which leads to issues with WP:MEDRS. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Image request: School demolition

Anyone have an image of the demolition of the school? Has it happened yet? If we are going to add an image to the Community Impact section, that seems like a good candidate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The demolition was completed in late December 2013.[6]. A photograph would have to be non-copyrighted and suitable for Commons. Any help here is welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible Link Of Antidepressants

This article features a section on the possible link of video games to the shooting, however doesn't mention anything about the possible link of antidepressants or other psychotic drugs. In the US today, 11% of people 12 and over take antidepressant medication, a number quickly rising. This number has recently risen, which corresponds well with the alarming recent increase in school shooting. Many labels on medications feature warnings about the possible links towards increased suicidal and/or homicidal tendencies.

In the article at present, there are two mentions of drugs. The first states "Investigators evaluated Lanza's body, looking for evidence of drugs or medication through toxicology tests." however has no results posted. The linked reference only indicates toxicology is underway and contains no other mention of 'drug', 'medication', or 'toxicology'.

The other mention states "The report found no evidence that Lanza had taken drugs or medication that would have affected his behavior", however this is cited to two links that make no mention I could find of 'drug', 'medication', or 'toxicology'.

I was not able to find any conclusive report of whether or not he was on medication or not. So, we can only use testimony of those around him and known events to speculate. In 0:53 of this video, Mark and Louise Tambascio, family friends of the shooter and his mother, explain to CBS that they believe he was on medication.

There is also a video of Connecticut Medical Examiner, H. Wayne Carver, M.D., arbitrarily denying the request to release the toxicology report, even though this goes against law.

I would like to know if anyone can obtain the sources of the actual toxicology report, and any medication Adam Lanza may have been on prior to the shootings. Specifically, had he recently stopped taking a particular medication or recently changed his prescription? Azoundria (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible Link Of Antidepressants

This article features a section on the possible link of video games to the shooting, however doesn't mention anything about the possible link of antidepressants or other psychotic drugs. In the US today, 11% of people 12 and over take antidepressant medication, a number quickly rising. This number has recently risen, which corresponds well with the alarming recent increase in school shooting. Many labels on medications feature warnings about the possible links towards increased suicidal and/or homicidal tendencies.

In the article at present, there are two mentions of drugs. The first states "Investigators evaluated Lanza's body, looking for evidence of drugs or medication through toxicology tests." however has no results posted. The linked reference only indicates toxicology is underway and contains no other mention of 'drug', 'medication', or 'toxicology'.

The other mention states "The report found no evidence that Lanza had taken drugs or medication that would have affected his behavior", however this is cited to two links that make no mention I could find of 'drug', 'medication', or 'toxicology'.

I was not able to find any conclusive report of whether or not he was on medication or not. So, we can only use testimony of those around him and known events to speculate. In 0:53 of this video, Mark and Louise Tambascio, family friends of the shooter and his mother, explain to CBS that they believe he was on medication.

There is also a video of Connecticut Medical Examiner, H. Wayne Carver, M.D., arbitrarily denying the request to release the toxicology report, even though this goes against law.

I would like to know if anyone can obtain the sources of the actual toxicology report, and any medication Adam Lanza may have been on prior to the shootings. Specifically, had he recently stopped taking a particular medication or recently changed his prescription? Azoundria (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)