Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


lock article

can we get this article locked please. too much reported rumours are being listed without real facts being established — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Number of dead

I don't think we should include any number of dead unsourced, especially when the facts are not yet clear. CNN is reporting "close to 20", which isn't 27. Against the current (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The number of people who are following the news and edit the article will secure that accurate numbers are added as more information is revealed. This has happened before... --MoRsE (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It's irresponsible to include any number until there is a source. Against the current (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...well, read the news! (your reason here) --MoRsE (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

20 children were killed. That should be changed. Camyoung54 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


There is no source for who the perpetrator was. Should we just remove that until we get a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The shooter's name has now been confirmed by CNN. And I think I've found his Facebook page. It has a few pictures of him. Hard to be 100% sure, but the name matches, as does the city where he lives (Hoboken) and of origin (Newtown). Not sure if it should be added to the article, or how to present it, so I'll just post it here. If anyone thinks it's relevant, feel free to add it in: Also, a google search on his name + Newtown seems to indicate that he was a honor roll student at Newtown High School. Desdenova (talk)

  • The rlanza facebook page is not the shooter, per early reports on twitter.--Milowenthasspoken 19:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'ts not Ryan Lanza,It's Adam Lanza "law enforcement official identified the shooter as Adam Lanza and that a brother, Ryan Lanza, had been questioned." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • That facebook page for rlanza has been taken down. It know appears this person may have been the older brother of the shooter, but news speculation is incredibly high right now.--Milowenthasspoken 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait a few weeks before deleting or redirecting the article

Keep for now - Since this happened recently, article should be kept for two weeks to determine WP:Recentism. After this, it should be kept (or redirected to Sandy Hook Elementary School).--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I am in favor of keeping until after December 21, 2012. Then, if necessary (or if possible), start an article about wierd and/or sick mass shootings in the end of 2012. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Strong Keep - We already have articles for most or all of the U.S. school shootings that happened in the last few decades. There is no reason to think these facts will go away or their relevance to history will fade anytime soon. If, in 50 years, Wikipedians determine they don't care about the minutia of the early 21st century and this shooting doesn't spawn big changes in schools or school security, then sure, delete it, but until then, keep. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... there should be information readily available in Wikipedia. People looking it from here. It also seems that this event is unfortunately going to be significant. -- (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the second most deadly school shooting in US history. It's the most savage one that has ever happened. A mass murderer who kills dozens of preteen child is an extremely rare phenomenon and one that certainly deserves attention. This guy clearly didn't kill for the attention or fame. If he did, he wouldn't have offed himself. So no, this article should NOT be deleted.

Is there a reason for these contested deletions? Has anyone tried to speedy this or something? AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 21:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has already been speedy snow kept at AfD per the box at the top of this page. 2010 SO16 (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I know. So why the need to be contesting anything? The AfD is already over. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


Please add map of location. (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Click on the coordinates and take your pick. 2010 SO16 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


It should be something like "2012 Connecticut School Shooting." Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? Shouldn't we wait for more sources before discussing this? Feel free to create redirects as you see appropriate. - filelakeshoe 19:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
We know enough now to fix the title. I think that the name of the school is too specific as a name for the article. Someone searching for the article will have trouble finding it under that name. Another idea is to put "Newtown" in the title. Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I was going to say, if we go by the example of the Aurora shootings, "2012 Newtown school shooting" would be the best title, redirects from school name, "2012 Newtown shooting", "2012 Connecticut Shooting" and other variations. If its true there's a victim outside of the school, naming it by town is definitely more correct. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually if we were going by the example of the Aurora shooting there were a lot of people saying we should have "Denver" instead of Aurora, but by the time more sources came out, people knew where Aurora was and why it was in the news. Of those mentioned above I think the title "2012 Newtown school shooting" would probably be best. - filelakeshoe 19:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
As the person who gave it its present title, I simply followed the convention at School shooting. There is near universal agreement on the titles there. Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would work. ("2012 Newtown school shooting")Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Newtown is a township. Sandy Hook is the village. Please look at the School shooting page, nearly all the titles are in the form of (name of school) shooting. Abductive (reasoning) 19:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Towns are the primary political divisions in Connecticut. In the media coverage so far, "Newtown" and "Connecticut" have been far more commonly used; Sandy Hook not at all. Coretheapple (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The media is mentioning the name Sandy Hook now. I would not want Sandy Hook shooting to be the title. What I'm saying is that these usually are titled with the name of the school, followed by "shooting". In this case the name of the school is Sandy Hook Elementary School. Abductive (reasoning) 22:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is too much concern over something unimportant. The narrative in the future will tell us what the best name for this event is. Right now, we need to worry about the specifics of the event itself, and can worry about renaming it later. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

agree, but an "also referred to as" would go along way for the Wikipedia search engine. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I came looking for the article on this subject, and it really was a little difficult to find. I had no idea of the school name. ike9898 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirects work fine. We can just create a bunch more of those for navigation. "Aslo referred to as" gets dicier in terms of WP:V. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I had the same exact problem Ike9898. There are plenty of sources I've added for an "also known as" or "referred to as." All the news I hear and anecdotal comments are in the form of "connecticut school shooting."Leitmotiv (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why I raised the issue. Coretheapple (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


CNN says the shooter is named R--- L----. I'll wait to add this info in case it turns out to be incorrect. --MoRsE (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that it can be reported as Ryan Lanza, based on this: Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

    • CNN just reported that the shooter was 24 years old and did cite a birth year. At some point it only seems resonable to create a page on the monster but for now perhaps it is best to collect the data on the talk page, to assure that the proper data is posted. --WPPilot 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)(WPPilot)
      • Doubt Lanza will be notable outside of this unless something very surprising comes up. So probably won't need own page. (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • There seems to be doubts about CNN's claim [1]. I think we better remove the name for now. --MoRsE (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It was NOT Ryan; it was his brother Adam. Police officer made a mistake on a report and the news ran with it. (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Protect article

Almost certain it will be subject to vandalism. Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut School Shooting

Here's refs to many articles that call it or refer to it as "connecticut school shooting:"

Leitmotiv (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

None of these use the title case capitalization you've been repeatedly inserting into the introduction. 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources cited refer to the event as "the Connecticut School Shooting" with such capitalization. I've removed this from the introduction three times, and it's been re-inserted. I am no longer interested in removing it but I don't think it's a legitimate alternate name and suggest that others decide for themselves. 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

maybe it should just be uncapitalized, if that's your beef. Regardless, it is being referred to as such. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
In the short term media coverage,that name is fine. But this is intended for long-term reference and, I'm sorry, we cannot guarantee that this will be the only-ever Connecticut School Shooting. We need to be as specific as possible in the naming. (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup,I get you. I'm not suggesting a complete name change though. Just a small addendum reference, because HISTORICALLY, and even at this moment, this event is being referred to as the Connecticut school shooting. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Usatoday ref

I keep trying to re add the completed usatoday ref Gary Stoller and Gary Strauss (14 December 2012). "26 reported killed in Newtown, Conn., school shooting". USA TODAY. Newtown, Conn.  and each time I get an edit conflict.--Auric 20:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Also I have to keep re adding this: "|work=Business Insider|author=Abby Rogers}}" to the Business Insider ref, as it keeps being removed.--Auric 20:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The shooting occurred three days following the Clackamas Town Center shooting in Oregon

This has no direct referenced connection to the Sandy Hook event and should not be included in the article. The Oregon shooting article is scheduled for deletion and is is of little significance. (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Many sources reference the fact that the events occurred within just a few days of one another. I see no harm in noting that detail here as well. When looking at this article as a whole, a single sentence mentioning the Oregon shooting is not inappropriate. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, the IP 66 is incorrect is his/her description of the scenario. The article on Clackamas is not scheduled for deletion. It is currently the subject of an Articles for Deletion discussion, which, last I looked as of my timestamp, was headed in the direction of WP:SNOW on the side of keeping. And a decision to keep or delete would not be made for a few more dates in any event. (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The above event has no direct referenced connection to the Sandy Hook event and should not be included in the article. The Oregon shooting article is scheduled for deletion and is is of little significance. (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think it is an interesting and relevant addition to the article, although it will probably fit in better when the article on this shooting is longer. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 20:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. (By the way, this is a duplicate section... see above). One sentence about the Oregon shooting is completely appropriate, especially given the number of news sources mentioning both events due to their closeness in time. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It's an unrelated event unless news media specifically makes a connection. And a connection doesn't count as being two shootings in 7 days. The connection must show that the Oregon shooting had some effect on this event. Ryan Vesey 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that the connection will be drawn as reactions to the shooting that relate to the need to increase gun control will likely tie the two together sufficiently. I agree with leaving it out for now, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"has been reported to be"

Please avoid needless words like this. As long as we're using reliable sources, there's no need to hedge our statements. Sancho 20:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

CNN now saying "closer to 30" dead, most kids 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Closer to 30 than what? Sancho 20:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
In context, this almost certainly refers to the early reports/headlines where "20" was the number being reported. Against the current (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

29 dead article has repeatedly been removed by someone claiming that it fails verification for the shooter father's school (Quinnipiac Univ.) which it does not. It says it clearly and the death toll has not been retracted. 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The article, although it has the title 29 dead, doesn't say that 29 are dead. Ryan Vesey 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It most certainly does, and that is what the Connecticut Post is reporting too. 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The number of children dead also doesn't match between the title and the actual article. Sancho 20:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Are we reading the same article? "NEWTOWN, CONN -- Twenty-nine people including 22 children were massacred in a horrific bloodbath at the Sandy Hook Elementary School Friday morning, a source with knowledge of the investigation tells Hearst Connecticut Newspapers...." 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this reference does support that 27 is "unconfirmed". Sancho 20:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The comment about Quinnipiac is treated as a possibility by every news source except for the one you linked. It is based on assumptions from the facebook page. Ryan Vesey 20:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Do a Google News search. Plenty of mainstream sources are reporting it as unqualified fact. 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

More mainstream news sources reporting 29 dead, 22 kids:

I don't want to be accused of edit warring, but at this point it wouldn't bother me if someone accused me of claiming that other editors don't bother to read sources or do a Google News search before making a decision. 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No one's accusing anyone of anything. What would that have to do with the content of this article anyway? If we make a mistake, that's what the talk page is for. Thanks for correcting it. Sancho 20:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The State Police officer giving a press conference right now is confirming 27 - 20 children, 6 adults, and the shooter. There is another adult victim at a second crime scene. Natalie (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

AFP has published shooter's Facebook self-portrait 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And? That doesn't mean we can post it. Against the current (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
If the shooter is alive (I have no idea what's going on), it would not qualify for NFCC. Legoktm (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

New shooter?

I'm watching someone on Fox saying that Ryan Lanza is in custody and that Adam Lanza was the shooter. The source also said the guns were registered to the mother. Keep an eye out for sources to confirm this. Ryan Vesey 20:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"[Updated at 3:22 p.m. ET] It appears that another member of the alleged shooter's family is dead. A senior law enforcement official familiar with the investigation says a brother of the alleged shooter was found dead in a home searched in Hoboken, New Jersey." (CNN) 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh. Someone is posting on Ryan Lanza's Facebook page claiming it wasn't him: 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that too, I've been waiting for news to report on it. I don't know if the "this is the wrong Ryan Lanza" is trolling or if it is true. We need to be careful not to post things directly related to social media until we're sure. Ryan Vesey 20:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It's Adam, according to NBC News: öBrambleberry_ meow _ watch me in action 23:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2012 - Flag Status Reference

Add reference for flag status.

Achbed (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Kayla Morton

It is thought that 5 children were from the same family.--Cotten134 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference? Piandcompany (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I know her, she is one of my best friends. This is so sad.--Cotten134 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. If you wish to try to get this information on the article (though still unlikely), I recommend reporting it to a news agency so it may be able to be included as Wikipedia only allows primary sources under certain circumstances. Piandcompany (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

At large?


I heared there are other possible future shooters that are still at large? Should'nt they lock down all the schools in Connecticutt? One of my best friends lives there.--Cotten134 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Conn. State Police press conference had nothing on that. 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

New sections

There seems to be extreme attention to this topic as there have been many new sections on this talk page whitin a few minutes.--Cotten134 (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That is pretty common around here during a breaking news story. Natalie (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong shooter

Pls fix the shooter ASAP, he is not named Ryan but Adam. [2][3] Tyypos (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I agree with this. We should remove Ryan's name from the article and wait on a police official report on this. 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The entire shooting section needs to be rewritten. Ryan Lanza has been taken into custody, but is not a suspect. It might be pertinent to report that Ryan Lanza was reported incorrectly to be the shooter early on. Ryan Vesey 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed most of the "Suspect" section due to this, since it seems like a BLP violation. It may be that Adam Lanza was the shooter and Ryan Lanza the brother, but we should of course wait for official identification, since there's obviously some misidentification. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Should we assume for the time being that even mainstream news sources are not "reliable" regarding this point? Sancho 21:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we need to report on reporting. At least until we know how important those details are in the context of the larger story later on. Sancho 21:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
If there's any doubt as to the shooter's identity, I say we have to hold off per WP:BLP until the media/authorities get the right info out. If the wrong person has been identified, this is a notable aspect of the coverage which can be added later (much like during 9/11 CNN reported a car bomb going off at the Capitol, etc.) (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You mean WP:BDP deary. Alex J Fox(Talk)(Contribs) 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It was WP:BLP pertaining to the initial mistakenly identified suspect, as appears to be the case; I removed it as such. I suppose WP:BDP applies as well, but the more salient point is that Wikipedia was accusing the wrong (and still living) person of being the shooter. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The suspect in the Connecticut school shootings is Adam Lanza, 20, the son of a teacher at the school where the shootings occurred, a law enforcement official said Friday. A second law enforcement official says the boy's mother, Nancy Lanza, is presumed dead. Adam Lanza's older brother, Ryan, 24, of Hoboken, N.J., is being questioned by police, said the first official. Earlier, a law enforcement official mistakenly transposed the brothers' first names." -- 2010 SO16 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


Is there any information on his motive? Pass a Method talk 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, and the officials are not giving out any info yet so there is not much we can go on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
If the I.P. comes back to post derogotary material i suggest an admin should block . Pass a Method talk 22:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Nadler, Gun control, and all that Jazz

One problem I have is that it seems to be undue to post the comments of a representative from another state. How then do we decide whether or not to post the opinion of Governor Mark Dayton or Representative Darrell Issa (randomly chosen). I think we should limit reactions to the President, Governor, senators from Connecticut, local rep, and other similar figures. The current statement from Nadler should probably be removed on those grounds. That being said, it is likely that this will bring up more comments on gun control. I believe that a section on gun control will be relevant sometime in the upcoming week. I think it's too early to report on it now, but I would disagree with the notion that it would be POV to post it later. Ryan Vesey 21:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Nadler's comments have gotten more press/attention than comments made by anyone else, sans Obama and Malloy. I can be convinced otherwise, though, but something needs to be included about the gun control issue based on the amount I'm seeing about it on the Interwebz. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I suggest to limit the comments to leaders in the State, such as governor, senators from Connecticut, local reps, and other similar figures, or national leaders in Washington, DC, such as Obama, Bohner, and Pelosi.Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
But if it turns out that Nadler's comment is the most visible pro-gun control comment made? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm busy packing, (finals finally done, going home!) can someone link to the statement in question? If Nadler's comment is included, from memory it seemed long and I suggest that it be pared down and then put into a section on gun control debate. Ryan Vesey 22:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It's actually not that long; however, I assume that a section on gun control will have enough related information that it will end up saying "A number of congresspersons have ....."22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed the statement earlier but it was put back. I would see no problem that if (and my gut tells me, "when") a larger debate on gun control falls out of this specific incident, we can have a section about the gun control debate. Nadler's statement is, however, completely out of place on its own when next to those leaders paying their respects, and reads of politicizing the event. It should be pulled, at least in the short term as more typical responses come down the line. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Second scene

There's a second murder scene at the home of the shooter and his victim mother, with at least one body. The house, per the local tax records appears to be (this is OR) located here: 41°24′32″N 73°13′40″W / 41.4090017°N 73.227745°W / 41.4090017; -73.227745. Not adding to article at this time pending better sources. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Any source would be good. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been curious about that. I believe the general idea is that this is from the same shooter; however, would it be appropriate for this article? I believe we'd need to change the article to Newton, Connecticut shootingsRyan Vesey 21:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
No I think not. The school shooting would remain the main subject of the article. Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC).
The concern I have, is that the other shootings might not be considered part of the school shooting, but if others disagree, I'm certainly fine with it all being included here. It's not an issue I feel strongly on. Ryan Vesey 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It will probably just depend on whatever name the media eventually settles on, even if that name isn't literally exact. Natalie (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There are three Crime scenes, the school, a house in the town and the suspect's house in NJ. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
What's the source for the NJ home being a crime scene? 2010 SO16 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Several of the RS linke din the article metnion a body found at shooter's house. A similar issue would be the batman massacre - there was the bomb etc found at his apt. But that isn't really the notable part so it gets ignored in the name etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
For goodness sake, can anyone just list one source HERE that mentions a body at the house? We're not all going off to look through "Several of the RS linke din the article" (sic). HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Adam Lanza, age 20, was confirmed dead by police.

Actually, the police have not released the suspects identity. If the news is reporting that, it is through unnamed or unofficial channels. This needs to be clarified. If you watch the official news conferences the lead police officers are saying they have not released the suspects identity. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree the police have not released a name yet I feel that we should withold this info until it can be confirmed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It will be hard to keep out but BLP rules might apply here. The article was already wrong for many hours reporting the wrong shooter as the older brother Ryan. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I will do my best to keep the info good, also there is a big diffrence between a suspect and a perp - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually I think we are good so long as we differentiate between unofficial/unnamed police sources, and official sources, we can report both, since that is what our secondary sources are reporting. In fact I kind of like the contrast between official and unofficial/unnamed information, something you don't see the actual press doing, which they should be. Makes us look more reliable but not so pedantic that we can't say anything. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I created an Adam Lanza page. please link to it. I am looking up information on him now Bobkeyes (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Why? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

At least some of the reports have stated that his father was killed. Ryan Vesey 22:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
WHAT reports? Please link to one from here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"At least some..." Since the officials are being circumspect in what they are releasing, we should be careful what we put in an article. Beyond that, we should not be categorizing articles based on things not even in the article text. LadyofShalott 22:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't categorize it, I just gave the reason. Here's a source though [4]. They all do say reportedly, it might be a good idea to wait on the categorization. Ryan Vesey 22:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

CNN just announced that the father was interviewed by the police, so obviously he's not dead and therefore this is not a patricide :-o Desdenova (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2012

I believe the death toll is 26, not 28. 18 kids and 6 adults killed on site. 2 children died at the hospital. (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: 2 more are the shooter himself and his mother. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
But the death toll should include anyone killed outside the school, if it was by the same shooter or shooters within the scope of this tragic incident. Coretheapple (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
We currently have the death toll that you described. Ryan Vesey 22:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not clear on whether the death toll includes his father, assuming he was killed by the same gunman. The death toll should definitely include all persons killed, wherever killed. Again, this raises questions as to the title of the article, if this was a multi-state shooting spree as it appears to have been. Coretheapple (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Right now there are confirmed: 18 children + 6 adults shot and dead at school, 2 children died at hospital, shooter himself, and shooter's father. That's 28, so that's the death toll. Unless more related murders are found outside the area (doubtful) I would expect that this would still be named for the school since the bulk of the tradegy was there. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, the title is in part a stand-in until we find out if this shooting gains an established name. There's not much point in fine-tuning a stand-in in the meantime. --Kizor 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

it says 200 children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, before the gunman, identified as Adam Lanza, 20,[3] fatally shot himself it should say 20 not 200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC) page has been corrected thanks


Is it really necessary to have the whole sentence of the mother of the shooter being killed link to matricide?

No, it is not. - 220 of Borg 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
And has been 'fixed'. The same edit that made the link also stuffed up the ref for that statement, and that has been removed too!. Face-surprise.svg- 220 of Borg 23:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I restored the missing ref. <ref name="KSDK" /> - 220 of Borg 23:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Reactions - Bullet list style

Is there any reason why the various reactions are listed in a bullet list, rather than as a cohesive narrative? This seems to go against the grain of WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. - MrX 22:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think when there is obviously tons of reaction from foreign leaders, it's going to be most easily read in list form. Go Phightins! 22:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if we really want every public statement from every politician on the planet. - MrX 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what precedent we have for this, but I would think reaction from at least the G8 and state, local, and national political figures from the U.S. warrant a mention. Go Phightins! 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There's so much churn now that I doubt we can get a handle on it, but eventually I would think we would summarize some of the more duplicative statements of sorrow, support and outrage. - MrX 23:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
As I've said elsewhere, I think that after this debacle calms down a bit, we need a big RfC to determine some procedure and protocol on how to handle these situations other than a massive free-for-all. Go Phightins! 23:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like - MrX 23:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
We don't need an RfC to realize that the French president's reaction, which was described in one word, does not add anything to this article. How do you expect him to feel, happy?  TheArguer  SAY HI! 23:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
A reaction is a reaction (better than nothing), im sure as time goes by there will be more of a response from world leaders. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we need an RFC for things like that, I think we need one to determine how information is added, and other more procedural topics. See User talk:Dennis Brown for some more discussion on unclear items. There are factions who think no article should be created until a few days after, a week after, etc. I just think that hammering out some consensus for how to handle these might alleviate some of the "free-for-all-ness". Go Phightins! 23:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
But do these reactions really need to be on this article?  TheArguer  SAY HI! 23:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It goes to show how this is getting worldwide attention, not every single killing in the USA has this happen. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You don't need to list reactions to prove that though.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 23:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with you. Listing every reaction does not add much to the knowledge of the subject, especially when it consists mostly of cliches such as "...thoughts and prayers...deeply saddened...horrified..." - MrX 00:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for HTML fixing

To many edits made me edit conflict a lot trying to add a mother murder cide (forgot now) and I give up trying. Sorry for disruption I guess I'll stop trying. --Hinata talk 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's an unavoidable hazard with these levels of activity. If you want, you could comment here on the talk page to point out stuff that should be changed. --Kizor 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2012

The second sentence should read

Twenty children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, before the gunman, identified as Adam Lanza, 20,[3] shot himself. Jpmarciano (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you want change?
In my opinion, the number of dead in the first sentence should include persons killed outside of the school, if that is not already the case, and the sentence should be revised to reflect that, adding Hoboken and elsewhere in Newtown. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
28 includes the *one* death elsewhere (the father), not enough to shift this focus from Sandy Hook. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The latest coverage does not mention the father, so forget about that. Jpmarciano, I appreciate your clarifying your point but you did it in a way that made my question seem idiotic. I'm sure that wasn't intentional. It would have been better if you had responded below my question. Coretheapple (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2012

The Sandy Hook massacre is not the second deadliest shooting in American history; In fact it is the third, behind the Bath School Bombings and the Virginia Tech Massacre. Awesomeness169 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A bombing is not a shooting, I don't think. - filelakeshoe 23:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Why don't we just say that it was the third-deadliest school massacre? It would make things less confusing.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 23:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. It is manifestly one of the deadlest school massacres in human history. -- (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
In U.S. history and in recent history, yes. Compared to the mass school killings of Jews and Poles in eastern Europe by the Nazis, though, .... HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
We usually name school massacres like this as "massacres" and that includes the Virginia Tech and the Bath School articles. Undoubtedly this article will, in short time, be similarly renamed, because that's the convention we've adopted with respect to school-related crimes like this. I also think the mention of the deadliest shooting should, be secondary to the more relevant "massacre" piece, again because that's the subject of the article, and is what meets our typical convention. Shadowjams (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Australian PM's reaction

Julia Gillard's reaction (10:06am)
  • Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has published 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". (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Added =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


BBC news reporting Adam Lanza killed both his parents, so how has his father refused to comment? (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fox News said that a reporter told Lanza's father about the shooting. I think we should the father out until there is more verification (preferably from sources less biased and unreliable than Fox). Abigail 00:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Father and mother were divorced and lived in separate towns. Father was originally said to be killed in the home, but that was in error. Father is alive. SilverFox183 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Google mistake

Your teaser for this article on google has a major mistake. It gives the number 200 instead of 20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually that was due to an edit conflict, and is fixed now.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for edit: school administrators killed

The following sentence is ambiguous: "The principal and school psychologist, identified by police as Mary Sherlach, 56, were among the dead." It makes it sound as if the principal and school psychologist were one and the same person. I suggest rewording it to "The school psychologist, identified by police as Mary Sherlach, 56, and the principal were among the dead." (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC) (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Jim N.

Fixed by adding "the" before "school psychologist". 2010 SO16 (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated info: CNN reports the principal as Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, age 47.

Adding. 2010 SO16 (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Ryan Lanza the person they arrested outside of the school grounds?

According to various network television interviews of parents at the parking lot of the school, the authorities had someone in handcuffs wearing camouflage pants, and as they passed the crowd he looked at the parents and stated "I didn't do it." Is there a firm RELIABLE SOURCE yet of who this individual was? It would seem bizarre if the brother was just outside of the premises when the incident happened (according to the parents, he was in a wooded area adjacent to the school).HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of that. The brother Ryan posted on his Facebook through the day saying he was at work. Got a link? 2010 SO16 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Government reaction section

I undid a recent removal of the government reaction section. I don't feel especially strongly about this point, but our recent articles similar to this have these sorts of sections and I think that speaks to their appropriateness. See Virginia Tech massacre, for example.

I do think concern over their size blossoming is legitimate, but I don't think wholescale removal is appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if it gets too big, it may need to be shrunk to a form like "Condolences were expressed by the leaders of the UK, France, Australia, Canada....", with appropriate references for those seeking more. But for a global encyclopaedia, those comments do count. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the reaction section from other world leaders notable? It's just saying that they are "horrified" about the massacre, but I don't think it adds any encyclopedic value. (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Typically we've included things like that in all order of major tragedies, and that's the same no matter the constituent country. If there was widespread discussion of it by heads of state, as opposed to say embassy staff, that seems at least worth of mention. It's a question of degree I think, and like HiLo says, if the section gets too big it can be shrunk down. One could certainly collect every discussion and list it, making it too big, but in the long run, a section like this, so long as its in context, is appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to removal of that particular (content-free) reaction, but the idea that international leaders' reactions aren't noteworthy but national leaders' are seems almost incomprehensible to me. Could there be a clearer example of systemic bias? If we can't include local church and Red Cross services because they are too local, and can't include international leaders' comments because they are too non-local, we might as well just call it the 'Merikan Wikipedia. 2010 SO16 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Just as a practical point, for someone who's edited some current event topics early on, and seen how they've evolved, it's often better to leave these sections in, let them evolve, and then trim them down as time goes on, of course keeping out obviously irrelevant things. Shadowjams (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree. I feel the same way about "Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy said 'Evil visited this community today.'" but I wouldn't remove that because with luck someone will come along and add something more substantial from Malloy's comments. 2010 SO16 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense for the VT article to focus on reactions from South Korea because the gunman was Korean. What's being said here is what makes the reactions not notable. MrX said that "listing every reaction does not add much to the knowledge of the subject, especially when it consists mostly of cliches such as ...thoughts and prayers...deeply saddened...horrified..." and WWGB described them as "predictable, non-notable knee-jerk comments written by media hacks." Even the IP editor above points out how worthless the comments are. We don't need them. They don't add anything to the page. However, I would not be opposed to what HiLo48 suggested above.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 01:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with The Arguer's comments; HiLo48's suggestion above seems to be the way to go, at least for now. —Theopolisme 02:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for edit

The article currently uses the format "Prime Minister X stated on Twitter that..." - this is almost certainly incorrect, as there is no proof anyone but a staffer wrote these Facebook and Twitter messages. I suggest the format be changed to "Prime Minister X's Twitter account carried the message that..." (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not unusual to attribute officials' statements to the releases of their employees, even on new media. 2010 SO16 (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Deliberate POV pushing needs deletion immediately

"Neither handgun would have been legal for the gunman to possess at the time of the incident, as he was under 21 years of age"

This is a pathetic attempt to push Anti-Gun Control complaints into the article in the wake of the shooting. This is not a matter of a "criminal having a gun", the guns were legal and readily available. Trying to paint this as a "take our guns and only criminals will have guns" doesn't apply. The firearms were LEGAL. They were legally purchased firearms left unsecured in a home where the shooter lived.

Delete that sentence. It has no place in this article outside of a possible future "reactions" or "controversy" section. It's place there is clear POV pushing. (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

It's not a comment on gun control at all. It's a comment on illegal behaviour by the shooter (or perhaps the owner of the guns). Please try to separate the two. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, peddle that ignorance somewhere else. It's illegality is NOT in question and you're obvious position on this issue is blatant since you just implied people don't understand murdering children to be illegal.

That the use of the firearms was illegal has no place in this article outside of discussion regarding reactions. As such it is at the top of the article and specifically details something that has NO place outside of obvious Anti-Gun Control POV pushing. It is a pitiful attempt to push the classic Anti-Gun Control fallacy of "if you take our guns only criminals will have guns" in the face of the already established illegal murder of children and tragedy. That gun-nuts would use this article to attempt to push such a POV is sickening and it needs to be deleted immediate.

If you desperately want it in there, you can explain exactly what relevance it has to being presented at all in that particular section. Otherwise it is clearly an attempt to push that POV at the very beginning of the article to quell the rising gun-control sentiment in the wake of the shooting. It can be included if and when we introduce a reactions or controversy section, as it's place as presented with the SUBJECT of the illegality of the ownership and use will be brought up. Currently it has been shoved in a section it has no place in to cause a deliberate POV pushing.

Delete it immediately. (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

It appears that the sentence has been deleted and should remain there. Concerns about POV aside, the sentence is wrong. It is not illegal for someone under the age of 21 to be in possession of a handgun. Ryan Vesey 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It is actually, both under CT law and under federal law. And it was cited. I added it, somebody else cited it, and it serves to balance out the fact that two stolen guns were illegal for the individual to possess. Note that there are obviously a lot of other illegal things about the actions of the killer, beyond the obvious, violation of gun free school zone acts, etc. The statement is purely factual, and makes perfect sense in context. Shadowjams (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand the concerns over POV. Funnilly enough, I happen to be pretty strongly anti-guns. But I do my best to keep that view out of these places. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Woops, I didn't realize that connecticut had a different law. Under federal law it is under 18. Same thing occurs with MN and PA so I had never had to deal with a state being more restrictive. Ryan Vesey 03:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed it earlier when this ref was being used as the reference. That ref clearly says "State law does not set a minimum age requirement for possessing handguns." (And I trust a ref from the Connecticut state government more than an NRA reference...) That ref also states that there are *transfer* restrictions, but again it states that *possession* is legal, contrary to the article. So this should indeed be removed, unless there's a ref that actually says this specific suspect could not have legally possessed the guns in this instance. Not an NRA ref that contradicts a ref. (I guess you could say that the mother was negligent in allowing an illegal handgun transfer to someone under 21...if you have a reference for that.) There is excessive WP:SYNTH going on here. Edit: It could make sense to note legality of the weapons in a school zone, etc...referenced properly, not synthesized based on NRA guidelines. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Connecticut General Statutes § 29-34(b) says, "No person shall sell, barter, hire, lend, give, deliver or otherwise transfer to any person under the age of twenty-one years any pistol or revolver, except that a pistol or revolver may be temporarily transferred to any person only for the use by such person in target shooting or on a firing or shooting range, provided such use is otherwise permitted by law and is under the immediate supervision of a person eligible to possess a pistol or revolver. ...".[5] As I read this, though the shooter would not have been technically in violation of this statute, he would have presumptively acquired these handguns, which were registered to his mother, by illegal means. Someone with a law degree could probably read it differently. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec)You already deleted the original reference, or someone near your edit did, I'm not sure. But you going to the original source to discern the law is the textbook definition of SYNTH. Me linking to a second citation, in addition to the first that is caught in the flood of edits since, is a third party source making that claim expressly. Unless you're a lawyer, or want to dig through Connecticut code, you really have no business removing that, for the second time. You're stomping dangerously close to 3RR territory on this issue. I was tempted to dig through CT law for a while to see if I could find a statute, but that would be SYNTH. This page had 2 separate editors add two separate citations of which you've removed twice. If you remove it again you're going to get blocked for edit warring. Your reason for removal is to favor your [i assume] non lawyer synthesis of a snippet of Connecticut law over a legal guide published by an organization guiding people about state law. Shadowjams (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
After what was posted above, I think this point is reasonably clear. Shadowjams (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Going to the original source to note that it CONTRADICTS another source is reasonable enough. The WP:SYNTH is taking vague guidelines (the NRA page even says to consult a lawyer for a proper interpretation) and applying them to this particular situation, in spite of that contradiction. Are there any sources that say that *this shooter* illegally possessed or obtained the guns due to being under 21? That would be an appropriate ref; basing it off what the NRA says about the age requirement in general isn't. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I changed "possess" to "obtain", since if you're also going to ref the CT statute on that, it seems more accurate...rather than synthesizing a statement that appears to contradict the law. I'm happy enough with that minor change. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Unless he was hunting or at a shooting range with someone of age, it's entirely illegal. Not to mention he brought three guns into a gun free school zone without a permit to carry them anywhere in the state. I added a reference from NBC that indicates the possession piece for people under 21 (which doesn't mention the hunting/target exceptions, but otherwise proves the point). Shadowjams (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Simply because one cannot acquire something legally does not mean it cannot be possessed legally, which is what the apparent contradiction with the first ref is. Yes, that requires interpreting a legal document, but doing so to note a contradiction is reasonable. (And I did specifically note further up that the school zone issue or whatnot might actually be a good addition.) I see you found a more reasonable ref from NBC applying to this actual incident; good. I'm happy with that one having been added, since it applies to the specific incident, unlike the other refs. Perhaps they're misinterpreting it too, but I'm not going to argue with a specific reference from a good source. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

a handgun cannot be purchased by someone under 21 from an FFL. But they may posses and use one, or be given one. I believe they may also legally purchase one from a private seller. This is somewhat addressed in this source : Gaijin42 (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a reference to Federal law. Connecticut has much more stringent laws. Not to mention that's a 5th circuit decision, of which Connecticut is not. And while I'm not willing to get more detailed, I don't think your interpretation of federal law is addressed in the article. Shadowjams (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


We report what is verifiable, if that means politicians religious comments then we put that in the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I hope the religious stuff will be limited, if not completely deleted. It's quite obvious that the 27 people weren't given devine protection, as there's no God. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that we need your POV on religion, but thank you for alerting us to the fact that material previously removed from the Reactions section had re-appeared in a new section. It's gone now. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I see no such notification. I see "Grave dancing".--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not 'grave dancing'. I'm concerned that such articles can develope a pro-religious PoV. News coverage of politicians offering their 'prayers', creates that possibility. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Then perhaps that would have been a better way to prase the post than to state that the 27 killed "weren't given devine protection, as there's no God". That was indeed unconstructive.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinon, of course. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
As are you, of course. But some things have no place on this talkpage and this is one of them.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This conversation isn't going anywhere good as of now. gwickwiretalkedits 03:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope that sourced 'non-religious' comments are kept, so the article remains NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
And sourced 'religious' comments, so it remains fair coverage. Agreed? Agreed. Yay! gwickwiretalkedits 03:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


I removed the image in the infobox for a couple of reasons. First it appears to be a clear copyright violation, taken from news reports without permission. Additionally, an image of scared minors who's faces are clearly visible is not necessary here. Let's leave the exploitation to the media. We done need it here.--RadioFan (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I was about to remove that myself. The minor ID issues pushes it over the line, but already being a press photo makes its use invalid with NFCC#2. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it while you guys were busy removing it. The fair use rationale was terrible. Rklawton (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed here. However, if a map of the school layout can be found, that may be a suitable replacement. gwickwiretalkedits 02:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone who lives nearby should try to get a photo of the school as well (I looked earlier on commons and flickr and found nothing). --MASEM (t) 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

'somewhat autistic' quote

Not a regular editor, please forgive errors, but: the reference article link for "somewhat autistic" no longer contains that phrase. I'm pretty sure it did earlier and I'm wondering if the source news article was edited after the fact. In short, as of this posting, there is no reference for the quote that the shooter was somewhat autistic. (As of right now, it is footnote #22) (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I've changed the source to one that still uses the "somewhat autistic" descriptor. —Theopolisme 02:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The "somewhat autistic" comment appears to be an inflammatory and prejudiced comment, not based on objective fact reporting since (1) it is hearsay by Adam's brother instead of a direct quote from a qualified medical practitioner who actually evaluated Adam, (2) there is no such thing as "somewhat autistic", since by definition (i.e. -- re:APA DSM V or DSM IV) either you are autistic or you or not, and (3) autistic people do not have any history of being serial murderers, have resorted to any mass violence, or have participated in any brutal killing. Therefore the reference to the phrase "somewhat autistic" should either be stricken or it's unprofessional and medical unsoundness should be clearly pointed out. HY1802D (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's in quotes, reported by most news outlets, and clearly attributed as his brother's opinion/statement, not a medical opinion, so I don't see a problem. And actually, since autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders occur on a spectrum of severity, from mild to severe, the "somewhat" is plausible. I'm not sure where you get the notion that no autistic people have been implicated in mass murders: PMID 12455663 is one example, and there is more published medical literature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Lanza's Facebook Page

The article says: "Some news organizations incorrectly showed photos from a Facebook page of a man with the same name as Ryan."

The Facebook page was from Ryan Lanza, as in, Adam's brother, not from "a man with the same name as Ryan".

Yes. That's something I wanted to bring up as well. The link provided as source does talk about "someone with a similar name," but the article was written at a time when the perpetrator was still thought to be named Ryan, so that phrasing made sense. But we now know the shooter was actually named Adam, plus the videos shown of Ryan handcuffed seem to match the pictures on his FB page. Also, that same source states that Ryan's FB page was "taken down." This is not the case. At the time I'm writing this, I can still access it (though the posts are indeed set private, so there's really not that much to see there). Desdenova (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Where are there videos of Ryan handcuffed? 2010 SO16 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
They were on CNN. Oh, wait, I saw it on youtube too, let's see... OK, found the link : Though I'll admit the way it's filmed we never see the handcuffs clearly, but look at how he holds his hands though... Plus, like I said elsewhere on this page, one of the reporters actually made a comment about it at one point. Desdenova (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again; replied at #Edit request - Ryan Lanza was never taken into custody below. 2010 SO16 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Get to writing

Can we please be WP:CIVIL here?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Too many "editors" acting like policemen rather than actually contributing. Start adding stuff, or get out of the way, fer cryin' out loud! grrr
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  • You're right, this isn't a forum. This post isn't a forum type post either, it's about writing the actual article. Be useful by getting off the dang talk page and adding some content Theopolisme (talk · contribs). I'm talking to you here, among others.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
What content would you suggest adding that 1. isn't already in article, 2. isn't a violation of policy, 3. is sourced? gwickwiretalkedits 03:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I've yet to not get an edit conflict here, which isn't surprising, but isn't being helped by people who's only "contribution" is to format some references or shuffle some stuff around. This article is brand new, and there's an absolute ton of information that needs to be added (or, at least, could be). Leave the formatting and heavy editing for later tonight and tomorrow. Go read, and then summarize what you read here, if you want to help. Otherwise, get the hell out of the way!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my question. There's nothing more we can add now! I'd also really appreciate it if you don't tell me to 'get the hell out of the way'. Seriously though, if there's an absolute ton of information to add, go add it, don't come and cry here. gwickwiretalkedits 03:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been, and am continuing to do so... all while you've been whining at me about how I've your hurt feelings. *roll eyes*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with maintaining a current high profile article to keep within policy without adding content. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with Masem. And it's not about you hurting my feelings, it's about you telling editors to basically "go the flip away" because of edit conflicts. gwickwiretalkedits 03:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, there are editors who work behind the scenes who make sure the article is sourced properly and things are cleaned up, ect... Adding new material is just part of the process. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely agree.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Yea, yea. You (hord) of folks being "maintainers" could slow your roll, is all. It's not a game. You don't "win" by "maintaining a current high profile". The idea that there's no content to add at this point is patently absurd, and I'm telling you that some of you are getting in the way.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a reason this is a collaboration and if you don't get that you are welcome to edit your own userpage to your hearts content.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


thumbnail thumbnail Is posible?

Thanks. Deivismaster (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

English translation of captions:
On a side note, I don't think so at this point per above. gwickwiretalkedits 03:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't at this point per above. Also, I nominated most of those images above for deletion because of the rationale given at Wikimedia Commons. TBrandley 03:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Commons does not accept fair use images. Rklawton (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
¿Subo en las imagenes entonces? Deivismaster (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It was not adam it was ryan who did the shooting. please change the name Bzane2 (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there are no stories which agree with this subsequent to the authorities' correction. 2010 SO16 (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Second Shooter Escorted off Scene

State Police confirm that one shooter is dead. A second gunman is apparently at large and multiple people have been shot, sources told ABC News.

According to one television report, a second man was caught by police in an adjoining wood, handcuffed and escorted from the scene. There were very few non-fatal injuries reported, indicating that once targeted, there was rarely any chance of escape, and that the gunman was unusually accurate in his fire.Vance said the majority of killings took place in one section of the school, in two rooms".

There are no recent news stories confirming or even mentioning the arrest or at-large status of a second shooter. 2010 SO16 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted?

Dead horses should not be beaten. It's policy.

I see there is a discussion to delete which has been closed and refused.

I agree that this article should be kept according to the culture of Wikipedia. However, I question to whether this process loses sight of the big picture. We should ask if the big news of the day deserves a Wikipedia article.

If we ask people what the bad news of the past was, the Columbine shooting certainly qualifies. However, there are articles in Wikipedia of the murder of people, which I think do not qualify. Yet, if you read the rules, you will find that even those obscure articles pass the criteria because there are a lot of newspaper articles about them.

If you ask my opinion, I think it is not clear whether this event will be a historical event or not.

Reasonableplease (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a notability guideline for whether to include articles or not on major events, at WP:NEVENT. Normally one needs to see if there is a long-term impact of the event before making an article, but a school shooting - one in the double-digits and now confirmed to be the 3rd deadliest in US history - is pretty much going to be assured an article. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
No. Bui (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Not sure how my comment got deleted, but I'll say it again. After this dies down a bit, I think a major RfC to determine protocol and procedure for future tragic events such as this one would be prudent. As of now, our protocol is a free-for-all. Go Phightins! 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an event of such enormous significance that it's hard to fathom how it could be deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Given the high death toll, it's extremely unlikely to be forgotten by history. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Traditionally major breaking news stories are handled on Wikipedia in a free-for-all, ad hoc fashion, with decisions hashed out in real time in the talk page or even edit summaries. The simple fact is that this works to produce what are almost always regarded as very high quality and well balanced summary stories. The problem with proposing a more formal procedure is that breaking major news often gets several edits per minute. Not only is it impractical to coordinate such a high volume of edits among such a large number of editors, many of whom are completely new to Wikipedia and editing for the first time, but even if such coordination were possible, there is no way to inform all the editors of such a procedure. WP:TLDR: it's not broken so it doesn't need to be fixed. 2010 SO16 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we even could stop the site from covering the matter, either as an article of its own or as sections of related articles (that should probably be spun out into a standalone article anyway.) --Kizor 22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Put down the stick and step away from the horse. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You've spent an unreasonable amount of time on an opinion that is incorrect. -- (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

World Leaders Express Condolences

Here is a collection of reactions from world leaders: Lufkens (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What the local churches and Red Cross are doing is not encyclopedic...

...and will be irrelevant (and hence deleted) after a few days. But we have a couple of editors determined to include this detail under Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Reactions.

I don't want an edit war, but this content is just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Now there's an unsourced comment about the Red Cross been added. Can anyone discuss this stuff please? HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It shouldn't be there. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are the local churches' extended hours not noteworthy? Shouldn't we be sensitive to the locals reading the article? It's about a local event, after all, even if it is internationally newsworthy. 2010 SO16 (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It may sound brutal, but no, we have no responsibility to be sensitive to the locals. We are building a global encyclopaedia. As I said at the start, such content "will be irrelevant (and hence deleted) after a few days". So there's no point including it now. News for the locals about church access and Red Cross facilities belong elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The red cross is mentioned in many disaster articles.

Why should this one be different? --Agnostihuck (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a school shooting, not a disaster.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 01:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Semantics like that aren't relevant here. There are lots of local resources provided after a tragedy of any sort, and mentioning those resources briefly is fine. But it's not encyclopedic to list times and addresses and things like that; besides, we're completely ill equipped to be the source for up to date info like that. That's what local news, organizations that provide them, and other relevant sources are for. Mention the relief efforts briefly in the piece, but consider what you would read in an encyclopedia article 6 months from now. Shadowjams (talk) 01:25, 15 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. gwickwiretalkedits 21:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


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). (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 - © 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. (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)

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. (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 - © 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 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • That sounds like adding politics into a non-political article. And synth. Dennis Brown - © 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. (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 - © 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)

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. -- (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 - © Join WER 00:46, 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 shootingNewtown shooting – Despite most of the shooting taking place inside Sandy Hook Elementary School, the criminal did kill his mother at his home. (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 - © 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 - © 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 - © 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.

Edit warring

  • 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 - © 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)


We are currently not documenting a whole raft of material pertaining to the aftermath, while in many cases I agree with the specifics I am a little worried by this as a blanket approach. It is certainly valid to say that such-and-such a point is not significant to the article, but we are past the point, I think, where Aftermath of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can be considered non-notable - indeed the majority of the article, or close to it, is already about the aftermath. The problem with suggesting that we delay this stuff is that it in itself skews our coverage. There is, for example massive coverage of the funerals, comments by parents etc. While we should not go into great detail about these events we should be reporting that the coverage is extensive. In fact reporting on media coverage is one of the things we seem to do well. The "aftermath" article should probably be spun off when there is sufficient material, rather than written separately, partly because we do not know now what will be the significant and notable parts, though obviously we suspect gun control. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC).

Remember: we are an encyclopedia, not a news source. Let the media cover the fine details. We need to consider what will be important about this shooting to a reader ten, twenty, one hundred years down the road. It certainly won't be the individual funerals or all the explicit opinions made about the case. The only trend that seems to be coming out of this right now is gun control reform, and that is a significant effect. If you want to cover the other aspects in detail, Wikinews is thataways, and we'll be happy to link to those articles. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I've been thinking along the same lines as Rich Farmbrough but had held off on creating an article as it seems most of the reaction/aftermath was words, and not action. If you look at a site like the left sidebar has
  1. Listen: The birth of Newtown United
  2. NRA breaks its silence over shooting
  3. Gun industry faces uncertain future
  4. Lanza's guns | Was your gun banned?
  5. NRA laid groundwork against new laws
  6. Gun control: 'This one feels different'
  7. Concealed gun bill vetoed in Mich.
  8. Opinion: Two ideas all seem to agree on
  9. Ticker: Teachers w/ guns OK, says gov
  10. New details surface in investigation
  11. Lanza friend struggles to understand
  12. Police: Kids lived through hell Police: Kids lived through hell
  13. Opinion: Don't say it was God's will
  14. Beginning to heal | How to help
  15. Killer's barber: His mom did the talking
  16. Friends: Mom was nothing like son
  17. Can Facebook posts get you arrested?
  18. 11 small ways to help Newtown HLN
  19. Photos: Shooting | Reaction | Funerals
There's 19 articles today with the gun debate a significant portion of them. It seems we are getting enough "aftermath" that's not directly related to the shooting that we could use a separate article. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The reason for the blanket approach is because the aftermath is so new, it is hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. Rich, we both know that an aftermath article will be forthcoming, and I've recommended that some editor start one in user space, to go live after the new year starts. Right now, we can make a list of interesting facts, but it would not have context. A few days is just too soon for real analysis to have taken place. This article will probably have very little of it since it is about the event, only a summary of the more notable (I would place my bet on legislation for example), and the bulk in the spin off. At this time. You know its an "enccyclopedia vs. news" issue at play, and yes, we are likely being a little conservative out of necessity and prudence. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I have no idea on exactly when the aftermath article should go live, but there have been so many news mistakes, user space is still the best place for at least a couple more days. I can't guess what tomorrow will bring. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

New claims

Be on the look out. The latest claim is that Adam "snapped" because he learned that his mother was about to commit him to a psych ward. See: School gunman Adam Lanza may have snapped over fears mother was going to send him to psychiatric facility. If/when it gets reported by reliable sources, it offers good information on "motive" for this article. Also, there is some info in there about Adam resenting the school kids because his mom "loved them more than she loved him", evidenced (in his mind, at least) by the fact that she was about to commit him. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We have to be careful if this were to be considered. Keep in mind, the media has screwed the pooch with this event many times, so it would been to be covered in at least a couple of very reliable sources to even be considered, and only if it was from some authority, not just speculation that this was the cause. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, looking that article from the Post, I wouldn't publish that here. The son of the local preacher is the source? Not an authority. They are filling column inches. Speculation at this point. If it was from the police, etc. it would be different but this is too thin for an encyclopedia at this time. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. But it does mention that a court petition was filed. So, if that does indeed exist, it will be easy enough to find. Also, the source is not only the son of the local preacher, but he also claims to be a family friend of the Lanza's. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The article cited by the OP mentions Fox News. Fear of being committed may have caused Connecticut gunman to snap seems to be the Fox News article. It looks like Fox attempted to confirm the court filing but was unable to do so. They report confirming with law enforcement that "Lanza's anger at his mother over plans" was one of the things they are looking at.
The article also shows a recent connection between the Lanzas and the school. Most interesting, particularly if you consider the possibility that Adam was spying on his mother's e-mails. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
That is the key, verification. We need to be extraordinarily careful. You have to remember that the media is being fast and loose with their claims, we don't have that luxury. If we had a confirmation that the paperwork was filed, then that would be worth exploring, but we still need to be careful to not be too absolute in our statement. I know this sounds a little paranoid, but real people's lives, not just the deceased, are affected so we are obligated to be very careful. If it was filed, I would imagine we will have something that really verifies this soon, and something to source it properly with. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought about this more and agree with Dennis. Fox New's source is a single person and that they have not been able to corroborate any of that person's claims. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • comment, There is nothing we can do about human nature and this topic exposure will be milked by every opportunistic little person across the map. In fact I just stumbled upon on a "scoop" from some tin foil hat crazy that calims that this was a kill squad.(I wonder how much time it will take someone to post it as fact) So I suggest to wait for confirmation for various claims and exclusives, especially from controversial sources, after all wikipedia is not a tabloid. --Mor2 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Excessive detail

I'm trying to rein in Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs), who in my opinion is adding way too much detail that does not pertain to the development of the shooting. I'll say it again: not every person's actions during the events needs to be tracked. See my reverts here and here. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. We don't need this to turn into the Columbine article, which is like a doctoral dissertation of everything that happened. Go Phightins! 03:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Deja vu. Perhaps some polite notices should be placed on some editor's talk pages since they don't seem to be reading this talk page. - MrX 03:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I did leave a note (hopefully a polite one) mentioning this discussion; I'll do so again. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A quick and informal RfC on (lead) teacher

OK, I'm copying this from the talk page of David Levy (talk · contribs). I'd like a quick consensus on whether or not we should include in the list of victims that Hammond was a lead teacher rather than just a teacher. David (correct me if I summarize incorrectly) says it's a minor detail that messes with the layout, the IP thinks that it's an important enough detail--and for now I tend to agree with them.

From David Levy's talk page

Hi David--I'm going to undo this one. Column width is important, but she is more important. Plus, she just got the promotion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It isn't a big deal either way, but I believe that our goal is to describe the staff members' basic roles. I don't doubt that "lead teacher" is a promotion over "teacher", but I don't see how the distinction is relevant to the shooting.
I'd never heard of the title before, and from the information that I was able to find, a lead teacher is simply a teacher with a few additional administrative responsibilities that one would associate with a vice principal anyway. So I don't see how including "lead" enhances readers' understanding of her job functions. Regardless, we mention it in the article's body. —David Levy 02:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
She recently got promoted from teacher to lead teacher.[6][7][8] Actually, all four of the elementary schools in the district have a Lead Teacher. It's an administrative role and you're right that they're associated like vice principals, even though they actually are not vice principals. If you hover on the Parents tab for any of the those four schools, you'll see a link to the Lead Teacher page. But I'm sure that however the two of you decide to deal with this in the article will be great. -- (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was asked to look into it and I wouldn't have thought much of it (I'm not in secondary ed) if it weren't for the article (linked above) that points out that she just got the position. Tell you what--I'm going to copy this to the talk page, we can get a quick consensus one way or the other. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Yeah, each of the four elementary schools have a principal and a lead teacher. No vice princpals, even though they're treated like vice principals. I'll stay out of that discussion and allow the two of you to make the call. You're the experts. -- (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If there are no vice principals, why is she described as one? Perhaps that's what should be removed. —David Levy 03:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Your point is very valid, David. I agree with you that vice principal should simply be removed. The lead teachers at the four schools are the 2nd in command and so are looked at and thought of as vice principals, so there's no doubt that's how it ended up in some sources. But there are actually no VPs. Btw, the Danbury News-Times cite I included above is the local major newspaper for the Sandy Hook/Newtown area, and it's one of the ones that verifies her title of lead teacher and specifies that she was recently promoted.Here it is again. -- (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand that she was promoted, and I'm sure that it was a significant career achievement. I just don't believe that it's relevant to the shooting or that its inclusion enhances readers' understanding of her role at the school. (Because the additional responsibilities are of the same sort that one would associate with a vice principal, we convey little about her job functions that isn't already conveyed by that title's inclusion.) —David Levy 03:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your responses welcome

  • May as well include that she was the lead teacher in my opinion. My elementary school had a lead teacher who pretty much acted like a vice principal. I don't see how including the factoid hurts, and it could help...I honestly could go either way, but it does no harm to include it, and it could help someone better understand her role. Go Phightins! 03:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Listing the roles are OK I guess. But vice principal/lead teacher? Let's choose one. The table has excess white space because of that one entry. While we're at it, we should move the three footnote citations that are next to the table's title to the very bottom of the table, as we do with some infoboxes. - MrX 03:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Based on the above discussion, it appears that the school has no vice principal (and that Hammond has been referred to as such because it's more or less the same as lead teacher), so that title should be removed instead. —David Levy 03:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It should appear as lead teacher, but I think it's a de facto V.P. Go Phightins! 03:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah, that seems to be the case. So "vice principal" is redundant. —David Levy 03:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    Right, it should just say she was the lead teacher. Go Phightins! 03:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the lead teachers are treated like, and act like, vice principals since they are the second-in-command at their schools, but they are not actually vice principals. If one cite is going to be used, I strongly suggest using this one from the Danbury Sun-Times because it's the local major newspaper for the Sandy Hook/Newtown area and even specifies that she was recently promoted to the position. -- (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As someone who has worked in public schools, I think the designation "lead teacher" *is* a telling one. Both rhetorically and institutionally, that title foregrounds the role of "teacher" in ways that a duties-based description ("assists the principal", eg) of a position does not. One might expect a "principal" to assume responsibility for all that goes on in a school, but I don't think that assumption holds true for a "lead teacher". We'll never know the thinking that took place at Sandy Hook that morning, but to me it seems logical that a "principal" might feel (and act out of) a different set of responsibilities and expectations than those that motivate a "lead teacher". So to me, the specificity of the title "lead teacher" certainly IS worth preserving. And for me, "recently elected" or "newly appointed" seems less materially relevant to a neutral POV. --Kurt B. Drtheuth (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, just say lead teacher once, and do not mention that she was promoted recently. `Abductive (reasoning) 19:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Improper edit

The article states: The National Rifle Association of America said it was shocked and saddened by the tragedy in Newtown, and is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again",[1] although it has in the past strenuously fought against all such measures.[2]

The last clause (which I have italicized in boldface) is inappropriate and inapplicable. Or, at the very least, it is not well-written to describe what it is attempting to describe. I deleted it, and the original poster reinstated it. A third editor also deleted it, and the original poster again reinstated it. Consensus on this issue? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This material that I removed is POV and unsupported by the source which says "For 138 years, the organization has fought any and all attempts -- real or perceived -- to deny Americans their Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms.'" Supporting the right to bear arms is widely different from fighting measures to keep violence from occurring. Ryan Vesey 05:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I concur with your take, it's inappropriate and inapplicable. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree-POV and draws a conclusion.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which WP policy it violates, but it seems to be inflammatory and biased given the context of the statement and article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV WP:SYNTHESIS Misrepresentation of sources (which would be borderline WP:VANDALISM, but that would involve assuming bad faith) I can't actually find a policy for misrepresentation of sources. Ryan Vesey 05:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
User Harrybilzer it would help if you call for TP discussion if you actually discussed. :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Claim regarding Nancy Lanza/Doomsday Preppers

There's an odd statement in the Perpetrator section about Lanza's mother. It says, "According to her sister-in-law, she belonged to the Doomsday Preppers.[3][4]". The wikilink is to the site of a TV show called Doomsday Preppers. First, someone can not "belong to" a TV show. They could appear on the show, or be featured on the show, but they cannot belong to a show. Second, only one of the two cites even mention the term "Doomsday Prepper", but it's mentioned in a different context; it talks about Doomsday Preppers as a movement, not as a TV show. Does anyone know anything about this. Something just seems very wrong about this, particularly because it links to that TV show article even though there's no evidence that she was on the show. And the second cite says nothing about Doomsday Preppers at all, so why is it being used to support the sentence?? It just alludes to her being a survivalist. Also, are there concerns of BLP violations with this content? I noticed there's a hidden note also next to the text that says "NOTE: Marsha Lanza later changed her story and said Nancy had four guns or so and kept them for the sake of safety as a single woman." I just wanted to bring this up so some experienced editors can decide what to do with it. Thanks. -- (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't crazy about it either as it is contradictory.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw that at the same time as you. I modified it to say movement and link to survivalism. I don't know what the source is for that hidden note and will leave it to some other editors to make a decision on that issue. Ryan Vesey 05:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Ryan, I think that was a good way of doing it. At least for now. But I think the second cite (CBS) needs to be removed because the sentence is claiming she's part of the Doomsday Preppers movement, but that cite does not say that at all. The first cite does. Do you think the editor who posted the sentence meant to wikilink to that TV show, or they just didn't realize where they were linking to? This is confusing. And does anyone know if the movement has anything to do with the show? In other words, is the show featuring people from that movement? I've never heard of the movement, nor is there an article about them. -- (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd heard of survivalists before, and I've heard of them called preppers. It is most likely that the person wikilinked Doomsday Preppers without following the links, not being aware that it went to the article for the show. The wikilink Preppers goes to survivalism. Ryan Vesey 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Doomsday Preppers says the TV show is about the doomsday preppers movement. It also says the show is "the highest-rated show in the history of the National Geographic Channel." Anyway, Ryan, I think you're probably right... the editor (and the first cite) were referring only to the movement, not the TV show which features people from the movement. Whew. -- (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Prepper needs to be changed to Preppers (plural) in that sentence. The first cite says, "Doomsday Preppers movement". -- (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I fixed it, I was originally going to rework it to say she was a doomsday prepper, but decided saying she was a member of the "Doomsday Preppers movement" stayed more true to the source. I forgot to restore the s. You've been helpful here, have you considered creating an account? There's some cool features for reading even like WP:POPUPSRyan Vesey 06:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan. Great job. -- (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Is ANY of this truly reliable reporting?HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If you read the dailymail article which is the ultimate source of the claim, its full of tabloid sensational quotes all over the place. Additionally, if we are going to include that information, we should at least include the full quote, which talks about positive aspects of the Mother's life as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I took this out for now. There's an awful lot of people - friends, neighbors - that news sources interviewed that say none of this survivalist stuff is accurate. She was just a legal gun owner/enthusiast, enjoyed target practice, like so many millions of other innocent Americans, according to them. Wait for an official report on this? I don't trust these rumored-stories. The press has had to eat it now on at least three occasions for this incident. We can wait a few days can we not?HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Bearian reverted this w/o comment. Left notice on TP.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Pasting - It was not a mistake; I was adding back in cited material, and I added another citation. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC) - from User TPHammerFilmFan (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I have rollback for a reason, to use it. All I wanted to do, and finally got to do, was to add back in two citations that were removed and to add in a third citation. If you want to add back in the text, with "allegedly", I don't care either way. All I wanted to do was to add in a good citation, period. I kept getting interrupted. I just think that good citations should not be removed w/o a good reason. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Well the reason is that this stuff has been highly disputed. I suppose I could cite the video links but was hoping we could just hold off for a while. Tomorrow the State Police may tell us "yes, she was stocking up for the big war" or they may say "no evidence to suggest she was anything but a legal gun collector." From what people are saying this was a mom who worked very hard with a difficult child. Shrugs.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've asked him to explain, as I can't figure why he would do that. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the best thing is wait for tomorrow, to see if we get another news conf, and take some sort of consensus vote on this?HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear, if you see my final edit, you can see that all I wanted to do was to add back in the three citations, not the text! Bearian (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this will be my last comment on this as to keep the drama to a minimum, but you don't seem to feel you did anything wrong with using rollback for something that was not clear vandalism and your admin tools to your advantage as an editor. I would feel far more comfortable if I saw you actually understand the point. Do you not see what others are saying? Don't you believe you made a mistake with both tools? If you can say you will never do it again, why not just admit that you were not using these properly in hindsight?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There does seem to be some credible accounts in reliable sources [9] that Nancy was preparing for an economic collapse at the very least. My only contribution was that the link should be to the article Apocalypticism (the philosophy), not one about the various methods of destruction. So if we are waiting until tomorrow, and someone else adds that content back, please consider this. Greg Bard (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hell, I'm doing that! This economy is abysmal. Does that make me an Apoc'o?  :-) But to be serious, I don't trust the sis-in-law. She hasn't even seen them in 17 yrs by her own acct. She was asked by the family not to speak to the press but felt she had to be the "Lanza spokesman" - ok, whatever, but she's backtracked on at least one of her statements. IMHO, the neighbors who regularly interacted with her are more reliable. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Killed/Wounded list

To whomever added the headings to the list (Perpetrator's mother, School staff, Students)... nice job. It looks good and makes sense. -- (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I think looks bad is that for two of the children, the age is sandwiched between two cites (Madeleine Hsu and Ana Marquez-Greene). See below. That should be fixed so that the two cites are at the end, after the age.

-- (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks again! Ryan Vesey 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know why we have two citations for those two actually? Ryan Vesey 06:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan (again)! You're on a roll. Looks like they are articles that feature those particular children, which I think is appropriate if that's the case. But if it's just two cites that show a list of all the names, then only one would be needed. -- (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
In the case of Madeline, it was the same ref twice. Ryan Vesey 06:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Nice catch! Yeah, it was the exact same page but from different newspapers, Greenwich Time and Connecticut Post (sister newspapers). -- (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Video Games

Speculation doesn't belong even if sourced. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lanza's use of certain video games is now getting focused coverage by RS media -- see, e.g., this Telegraph article. Someone might consider how best to sift it in.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Same with mental health. Until we have an official on the investigation that asserts a connection, it's speculation by talking heads. --MASEM (t) 07:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. We do not need an "official". All that we need are reliable sources. Indeed, much of this article does not come from the mouths of "officials". Furthermore, items can be worded appropriately, such as "ABC News reports that ... blah blah blah". All info does not need to come from some "official source". If that were the case, the article would have little to no information at all, since official sources (police, etc.) are usually tight-lipped during the course of their investigation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Information directly related to eyewitnesses of the event, and observed behavior of the shooter doesn't need any official sources (these are things known to have happened, there's no second-guessing of the validity of the information), but to make any connection to the cause of the shooting, whether it is video games, mental health, whatnot, needs an official representive of the investigate to assert that that was the cause or part of the cause for this shooting. Until we have that, any statement from anyone else - people that knew the shooter or the family, medical professionals not involved with the case or with treating the shooter, journalists, etc - that suggests a reason for the shooting are making a speculative connection between that and the shooting. We don't include such speculation on WP. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Where are you getting this "new rule" that we need an official source? All that we need are reliable sources. And, as I indicated above, items can be worded appropriately. For example, "ABC News reports that ... blah blah blah". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
As there is no established connection from an official investigator between the shooting and video games, any other sources that makes this claim is consider WP:FRINGE (even if they are an expert in said field). Further, introducing any speculative viewpoints on what was the reason for the shooting would be a WP:NPOV issue unless we included all of them, which is far too many at this time. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Which doesn't answer my question. You are claiming that some items in this article require official sources, while some do not. Explain. What is the criteria to distinguish which is which? And from where are you getting said criteria? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It's knowing the difference between the facts (what eyewitnesses saw and reports, and what authorities have confirmed about the details of the events) and theories (that this was based on the mental health of the shooter, or that the shooter enjoyed video games and that lead to the cause). If we are talking anything in the realm of theories, the only valid theories we can mention are those stated by the officials on the investigation, otherwise it is mere speculation by a third-party. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Example: Lanza destroyed his hard drive. Does that information "require" that it be delivered by officials or not? Presently, it is not. It is obviously speculative on the part of experts to discuss (hypothetically) what can/cannot be ascertained from a damaged hard drive. Why do we need an official to report this to us? We don't. So, how is your example any different? In fact, later in the article, it talks about experts who do not see a link between violence and autism or Asperger's. Do we need the officials to tell us that? Why or why not? You have set pretty arbitrary rules, and I am wondering where your purported rules are coming from. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it is not that the inline cite source has to be an official source, but clearly the information being given by that source should originate from the investigation team. So the fact that the hard drive was smashed originated from investigators on the case that reported this to the journalists, who subsequently reported it. But right now, no official - as a direct source or through a news agency - has said of any connection of mental health to the cause of the shooting, and thus any other third party that attempts to make or even to refute that a connect exists is a theory, and should be treated like FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. An unofficial source can report that they got their info from an official source? And that is "sufficient" to "count" as an official source? Just unreal. And, all of the other unofficial sources have to admit that their info came from official sources, in order to be included here? Again, just unreal. Your purported rules are arbitrary and non-sensical. I give up on this topic, and I am moving on. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If you follow the reliable sources about the hard drive (and because we consider them reliable, we assume they are not twisting the words they are reporting on), the fact that the hard drive was destroyed appears to originate from "Two law enforcement sources". Therefore, we know this is information from an official source. We have nothing where a link between the shooting and vidoe games, or between mental health and the shooting, has been made that originates from an official source (regardless of what newspapers report it). Until that official connection is made, everyone else is speculating. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. This is just adding the kitchen sink.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Even if he did play Call of Duty, this is routine "Let's find something to blame" by the media.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Exeter, New Hampshire wikilink

In the first sentence of the Perpetrator section, can someone move the cite so it's not sandwiched in between the city and state. See below. The problem is that two wikilinks are being used (one for city and one for state), instead of just using one for both (Exeter, New Hampshire). So can someone move the cite so it's after New Hampshire? Thanks.

Exeter,[9] New Hampshire

-- (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. I just used one wikilink ([[Exeter, New Hampshire]]). Ryan Vesey 07:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Ryan. You're welcome. -- (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Victims images per feedback suggestion

I saw a feedback suggestion [10] and thought I'd bring it up here. If someone was willing to put together a collage, would it meet our non-free image requirements as identification of the victims? Ryan Vesey 07:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if we kept to the children and teachers (26) that would be 26 non-free images even if you put them into a collage. Massive NFC failure, as well as failing WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

a few tweaks

1. Looks like the media is now stating Nancy Lanza was shot 4 times while she slept. 2. Did Marsh Lanza really "change her story" about Nancy keeping the guns simply for safety, or was she misquoted in the earlier news reports? After all, she says she had not seen the family since the shooter was 3 years old. CNN had a video with several neighbors who also say any of these survivalist stories are bunk, and she was a responsible gun-owner and a good mother, friendly, just a normal mom with a troubled child whom she worked hard to help. Anyway, if there is no basis for the "change of story" note on the reference, it should be removed ASAP.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


With the small pgph under the Victims heading and the float-right list of victims, the picture of Lanza takes visual focus on the page. What is the consensus of the group to change the format of the long thin list into a columnar table inside the Victims heading and floating the image of Lanza. Should the image be scaled down? Bill D (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The picture is appropriately sized (it is roughly equal in area to the other images), but a 4-column table for the victims would help. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There was a proposal for a horizontal table, which has now been archived here: Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_3#Do we really need a table to list the victims? I don't think there was consensus to change it. The Lanza photo could be moved down a few paragraphs, allowing the text to flow around it, and making it a little less prominent. - MrX 19:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't look like there was a consensus to change it, because it matched the style of the other school shootings. However, the point still stands that the right-float is very distracting, especially alongside of the detail of the crime. It's as if, editorially, the lost lives are collateral damage to the details of the story. It's very hard to read. I will move the Lanza img down a bit. Further discussions? Bill D (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposed layout: User:Billdanbury/sandbox_sandy_hook_victims Bill D (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I looked at the archived talk and it seems there was at least a consensus to change it. However, it appears that the proposed changes were reconsidered by someone who was not logged in at the time. So, I think that it depends on if we want it to be brought back up or not. Super Goku V (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Somebody with a tool help me out

Resolved: by Writ Keeper, and I'm laughing too hard to trout you.... Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to revert the moves made to the archived talk pages (they were moved, without discussion, to Talk:2012 Newtown school shooting/Archive x) and I screwed one of them up--I moved Archive 3 to Archive 4. I feel an acute heart attack coming up (metaphorically) and I can't wrap my feeble brain around what I messed up and how to straighten it out. Your immediate help is appreciated--with the archives, that is; I'll be fine. With my apologies, and a private rant for whoever started renaming archived pages. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Its OK Drmies. Breath. =) See, I just assumed I screwed it up as its usually my fault ;) (I kid myself)--Amadscientist (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Source verification

None of the sources support the claim that a shotgun was found in the trunk of Lanza's car. Jaybeee3 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources are unfortunately retroactively editing their articles, and this particular item is complicated as it was originally reported that the bushmaster was found in the trunk. The following search shows several sources discussing the gun found in the trunk though.


Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

a good balanced source on the gun control angle

Good article, coherently makes some decent arguments for both sides that might be useful for a NPOV presentation of the issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun control is -> that way. This article is about the shooting. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
And as an aside, that article is far from balanced. It's the washpo's blog and it's an opinion piece written by Ezra Klein. The gist of the entire piece is that all the called for restrictions wouldn't have helped, but we should have them anyway, and then a few other comments all from gun-control advocates. It's the antithesis of an example of an NPOV source. It could be useful in describing some of the arguments made, but it's certainly not "decent arguments for both sides." Shadowjams (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That has been the battle during this edit cycle, keeping out irrelevant material. Once an article on the aftermath is started in a week or two, it would apply there, or in the gun control article, as Todd has pointed out. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


Who was the teacher shot in the classroom in which the first-grader led his friends out the door?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

If I am understanding your grammar, I believe you are asking about Mrs. Soto.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Ms. Soto's room had a few survivors – the five or six children who came out of hiding from the closets and cupboards in order to escape the building. The other classroom had no survivors at all (except for the one child who "played dead" amongst the other bodies). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
My heart goes out to that child. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No doubt. And to all involved. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But if that was Soto, then I (humbly) think the editor should either -- 1)mention her name where he describes the heroic act of the first-grader, or 2) move that sentence back, to the earlier account of Soto's encounter with the shooter. I understand my initial question wasn't worded well ("teacher shot in the classroom, etc.") and I wasn't careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

revisiting the Cerberus sale of Freedom Group

I'd like to revisit adding the information about Cerberus' decision to sell Freedom Group, maker of the Bushmaster rifle used (and also the Marlin rifle, although I haven't seen that in the press). Of (arguably) the three most important American newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post, the Journal and the Post carried the story on page 1[12], [13] and the NYTimes carried the story on page 1 of the business section.[14].

This is clearly important, as we can see from its coverage in secondary sources, and it is directly linked by the company to this event. It warrants a few sentences. GabrielF (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

? Wasn't this already covered and closed? Oppose for this article. (dang edit conflicts)HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with GabrielF here but this is not yet the time to fight over it. BTW, Effects of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting would be a much more encyclopedic article than International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and one awaits Dream Focus's National reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting by US state and county. There is a difference between "effect" and "reaction": reactions are usually words. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Articles along those lines would be the proper place. Hopefully noting (cynically) that the bottom line is what drove the decision - fear of an assault weapons ban in 2013 and having a white elephant on the books.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that an article on the effect, reaction or impact to the Sandy Hook shooting is both desirable and overdue. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I've made a suggestion at the International reaction page and would suggest the same if one wants to a national reaction, that as long as these are just statements or events and not actually contributing towards resolve of the shooting or issues that caused it, that such articles are great candidates to be developed at Wikinews and then linked in here. We don't lose information but we also avoid making WP a news source. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I can understand the "reactions" page, but the "aftermath" page is too soon, per drmies and all my previous comments. It will probably start soon enough, but right now, it would be more original research than fact. The key to an "aftermath" page being proper is not starting it until "after" the event. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Clackamas Town Center shooting

The Clackamas Town Center shooting article mentions this event in a respectable manner. Is there still consensus that the Clackamas Town Center shooting should not be mentioned or linked within this article? Many sources mention both events, especially in the context of the ongoing debate over gun control. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't see how, as they aren't remotely related. Again, maybe in an aftermath article, but this article focuses on the fact surrounding this event, and Clackamas wasn't a reason or factor here. You start getting into original research or synthesis when you try to blend different subject matters like this. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Violently oppose inclusion. :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that it would make sense to include the stabbing in China, but not the Oregon shooting.  TheArguer  SAY HI! 21:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Dead horse about the China incident.

School relocation

There's a very interesting article in today's The News-Times, (Danbury News-Times) - the major newspaper for the Newtown/Sandy Hook area - about how the Newtown school district is going to essentially replicate Sandy Hook elementary at a nearby vacant school, down to the smallest details. NBC News said that 98% of the furniture, equipment, and supplies will be moved to the new school. I'm not sure if there's anything in the story that's worthy of inclusion in this article, but I just wanted to point it out. -- (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Victim list

Do we really need 30 references? Do we really need a footnote after each name, replicated 30 times? I assume that we can find one cite that lists all names ... and just cite that one source one time (at the top or bottom of the list). No? Having 30 different footnotes is unnecessary, distracting, and unaesthetic. Any thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If we have a single reference that does that all, yes by all means use it as long as it is a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we need the victim list with full names in the first place? I don't really see what that adds to the article. --Conti| 21:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "full names"? What are you proposing ... just using the first initial and last name? If so, why? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think those cites should stay. For almost all of them, each cite links to a story featuring that victim only. Obviously, we can't have detailed content within the article about each victim, but providing one cite for each person seems very appropriate and does not violate Memorial since they're all relevant to the article's subject. Also, the list was developed very carefully over several days among very experienced editors and administrators. -- (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I actually did that once. Then I got reverted. I had a CNN source that had the names of the killed and stories about each one. But someone didn't like that. Here's the link for it, and here's the article form of it (I can't find it right now, and if I leave this open I'll EC, so I'll look again later). gwickwiretalkedits 22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd argue with Conti that the victim list isn't really helpful and probably edging against NOT#MEMORIAL - those people that are known to have certain roles in trying to protect the students and others in the shooting are listed appropriately. I doubt that view will get traction and am find with the list. But separate sites for each victim is definitely getting into the MEMORIAL area. I am sure there has to be a source that groups these all together that can be used instead. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
See Columbine and other similar articles, most have victim list. gwickwiretalkedits 22:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Considering OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's not always that the old stuff is "right" (case in point, the breakdown of the events in Columbine is being noted as overkill, in light of using that article as a basis here). That said, I'm voicing that I think it's a problem but by no means to get into a debate over trying to remove it now. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
So, what is wrong with gwickwire's edit? Namely, using this source: Remembering the Sandy Hook Elementary victims. It seems to address both issues. It offers one comprehensive cite, thereby eliminating 20 plus unnecessary footnotes ... and ... it offers a bio for each victim. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it's great the way it is and therefore should not be changed. Many editors spent a lot of time discussing the matter and getting the list to where it is now. -- (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't address the issue raised. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Perp's dad

Father's name was removed per policy. LadyofShalott 02:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why are we referring to him as "ex-husband" and by residence and occupation, but not by name (although his name is found in the title of the reference)? Is this some sort of a refined BLP exercise that I am missing? He's made a public statement and everything, and it's been widely reported who he is, so I don't see why we're omitting his name. I added it at some point, but it's been removed. -- Y not? 21:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BLPNAME. -- (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
That policy (link) seems to support – not refute –the OP's position. Please clarify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, his name is already in the article - it's just in the reference section right now. -- Y not? 22:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." Lanza's father has done nothing wrong, and does not need to be named in a perpetual encyclopedia. WWGB (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The father issued a (very) public statement on the matter. He therefore injected himself (even more fully) into the "issue". No? You can't issue a public statement and then expect to shy away from publicity. By virtue of resorting to the media (to issue his public statement), he is not "low profile". He is not "loosely involved". And, nobody accused the Dad of "doing anything wrong". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No, not really. Of course he made a public statement. That doesn't change the fact that he is not the subject and we don't use his name if it is not needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
WWGB took the words right out of my mouth. That quote says it all ("The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons"). I concur. The fact that the father made a public statement does not negate the policy, which also points out that "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event." -- (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
So, are you guys suggesting that we remove the source listed in the reference section because it has Peter Lanza's name on it? You can't have it "both ways". Issuing a public statement is exactly that, it puts you in the public eye. Which means (a) not loosely involved and (b) not low profile. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the father's name is mentioned in one sentence in the body ("The day after the shootings, Peter Lanza, the perpetrator's father, released a statement:"), and in one reference. It should be removed from the sentence, but not from the reference since that's part of the actual story title from the the Huffington Post. The sentence in the article should be changed to "The day after the shootings, the perpetrator's father released a statement:". -- (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
That father clearly is loosely involved and low-profile (a private person), per the policy. -- (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
For the record, in Columbine High School massacre and Virginia Tech massacre, the names of the perpetrators' parents are not included. -- (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that the use of the father's name is warranted in this article, as he had no direct involvement in the event. However, many of the concepts and some of the information presented would be better served in a biographical article on the perpetrator, where more in-depth information with regards to the shooter, his psyche, his family, etc. can all be incorporated. Aneah|talk to me 23:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Should the perpetrator's father's name be removed?

Based on the above discussion, should we remove the father's name from the Reactions section? It says, "The day after the shootings, Peter Lanza, the perpetrator's father, released a statement:". I propose changing it to "The day after the shootings, the perpetrator's father released a statement:". Feel free to indicate below if you Support or Oppose this proposed removal. Thanks. -- (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless he comes out into the limelight later, yes.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the father's name. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that we err on the side of privacy. There isn't anything "encyclopedic" about his name being mentioned, there are no real facts that relate to him. He made a statement, so what, it was his son, of course he would do that. That is an ordinary thing. If there is a reason to mention him later it can be reviewed but there really is no benefit to us that overrides our concern for his privacy at this time. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I also agreeing erring on privacy. (To counter: his brother Ryan, unfortunately, needs to be named due to Adam having his ID and Ryan's willing participation in the investigation; that alone took away his privacy). If readers really want to know the father's name, there's plenty of articles that report this. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Dennis and Masem, for all those reasons. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Include this image?


Previously, see archive.

Here is an image of the Bushmaster semi-auto used in the shooting. Any objection to putting this image in the article where the weapons are described? Chisme (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a similar weapon but not the actual weapon used.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
We had a previous discussion on this with other images. Unless it is the exact gun, or can be verified that the image and the gun have the same modifications, it would be original research and misleading. People can click over and see the Bushmaster if they want to see something similar, but we shouldn't put in the article if it isn't verified as accurate. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 00:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Iranian reaction

Apparently, Iran's state-run news service now claims that Israel was behind the shooting. A harebrained and offensive conspiracy theory for sure, but considering that it's actually a foreign government making the claim (and a very prominent one in the region at that), does that make it notable or worth mentioning? LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Meh, this falls into "normal and expected". Perhaps in an aftermath article, but it isn't really related to the event. With all due respect to the Iranian government, is anyone here surprised at this proclamation? No different than Westboro Baptist Church....typical response so not notable. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Responding to the OP - If you read the Press TV article the source of this claim is "Michael Harris" who is described in the Press TV article as "a former Republican candidate for governor of Arizona and GOP campaign finance chairman." The Michael Harris article on Wikipedia is a disambiguation page with none of the people listed seeming to match the Michael Harris we are interested in.

A check on Google News finds that apparently only the Iranians were able to detect Mr. Harris's "internationally televised news broadcast."

Shalom Life has a rebuttal to the Iranians. They describe Harris in less flattering terms as "The journalist, Michael Harris, is the financial editor at Veterans Today a website known more for its anti-Semitic and anti-Israel conspiracy theories, than journalism of any kind."

Michael Harris is probably Mike Harris who is listed as a Financial Editor, one of the Speakers Bureau, and one of the Radio Hosts for Veterans Today.[15] I learned that Veterans Today banned links to Wikipedia last year which is probably why they needed to shake the Press TV tree to get our attention.[16] --Marc Kupper|talk 01:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Crazy talk with a political motive from an irrational, brutal regime. No relevance to the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If Iran said "We feel your pain and want to help rebuild the school", that would be unexpected and notewothy. Again, in an article on the aftermath, which is very likely to happen in a couple of weeks, this would probably fit it, but not on the article for the event itself. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 01:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Common rhetoric from Iran. Really no need to include the trivial statement. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:37, 19 December 2012


There is a tradition of including international reactions to dramatic events when there are, so putting it in a section dedicated to such reactions would seem reasonable. — SniperMaské (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If the purpose of such inclusion is to demonstrate that Iran is being run by lunatics, then it could fit. However, this article is not really about Iranian lunatics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


I realize that people pushing to get an article for the shooter, but I would like to reaffirm my request to trim down the Perpetrator section here. I find the current state, where we have 4 lines about the victims, mostly about the process of their identification and bodies. While the shooter get his "sad" life story memorized here, insulting.--Mor2 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we have the shooter picture, I'll appreciate if someone can upload one for the victims. Maybe something like this[17] --Mor2 (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, as sad as it may be, there are good reasons for why the one gets more attention than the others, pace Morgan Freeman. It's the gunman's actions, history, background that led to these events, not the actions and lives of the victims. It's in that sense also that his actions etc. are relevant here and worth explaining. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Perps get attention because of the criminal psychology of the act and to try to understand how to prevent or predict in the future. While it is sad for the victims, from an encyclopedic stand point we cannot "glorify" them any further. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
And yet this exactly a MEMORIAL. This article is about the shooting, not about the shooter. When we get more information, about his motives we can open a section about that with professional commentary, but all the current life story is irrelevant to the shooting.("His parents had married on June 6, 1981" - so what?!)--Mor2 (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It is anticipated (outlined in other sections) that Andy's bio will be moved to a separate article, we are only waiting until the reporting dust has settled and we won't be subject to misinformation. In that thought, giving Andy's history is not a memorial as is more trying to explain the lifestyle that this person had that, in light of any other information, might give the reader an idea of why the crime was committed. If that coverage started to turn sympathetic, then yes, that starts getting into MEMORIAL territory. Besides, in the cases of the teachers and staff that sacrificed themselves to cover the children, they are written in the article as "heroes" to a degree, but that also isn't a memorial. --MASEM (t) 07:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
My concern is this article, not other/future articles and I intend to trimming this section of irrelevant information for the shooting.--Mor2 (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mor2. The Victims section needs to be more informative. Photos of the victims are now published, and there is enough information "out there" to provide a very short biography aside each one. I make every attempt to view wikipedia through a non-emotional lens, and having the list of victims on the same screen as the perpetrator photo just feels wrong. He deserves mention, of course, but the victims are the story. While the artile is indeed about the shooting and one can't have a shooting without a shooter, the victims are what makes this shooting so different from all the others. The victims are the reason this is an international story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoinonia (talkcontribs) 17:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We are not a memorial. Acknowledging who the victims were in the current table is fine, but we cannot go into any more detail about them save for understanding their role in the events (eg the teachers that tried to protect the children). Instead, from an encyclopedia side, it is the shooter's history and psychology that is of importance to the criminal reasons for why this tragedy took place; that is what gets the intense study by criminologists and the like.) --MASEM (t) 17:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If one had to construct biographies of the little children from secondary sources, they would all consist of their name and age. As for trimming the perp section down, it would be best to examine each statement to see if multiple secondary sources report the same thing. Then comment out those statements that are weakly sourced. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Too much detail on shooting timeline

This has been discussed before but in the archives, but I think there's general agreement we don't need excessive detail on the specifics / minute-by-minute movement within the event. We can let other resources provide those answers, but that is not ours to give in that much detail. (Those that might jump to the Columbine article should recognize that we also agree that one is far far far too details as well, and should not be used as an example). This again is maybe where Wikinews would be better to spell this out, and we can certainly link to that. --MASEM (t) 06:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand this was discussed earlier, but do we have a policy related to this issue? I'm of the opinion that we should provide as much information as we can on the event and that minute by minute material is both informative and encyclopedic. If nothing else, we need to provide a link to a page that has a minute by minute breakdown. Ryan Vesey 06:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan (above). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is a tertiary work meant to summarize others - not a primary or secondary source work; just as we don't go into detailed plot summaries of fictional works, we should not go into detailed accounts of actual events. Basically, it starts putting undue coverage on the actual event when this article should cover all aspects, include responses and aftermath (the more important factors here). Again, Wikinews is well suited for the detailed accounts if someone wants to rewrite them there. --MASEM (t) 07:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Correct. Our duty is to summarize events. Once an official timeline is released, we can link to it. But it hasn't been, so the material is suspect, even if it wasn't inappropriate for the primary article. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would think that if there is particular relevance to some portion of the timeline, that portion should be included. For example, although it may still be premature at this point to edit the article to specify how long it took police to arrive at the scene, there are media reports that it took some 20 minutes from the first 911 call, and there is unconfirmed information that the police station is only 2.3 miles away from the school. If this information is true, it might raise questions about police performance that is directly relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopkins200 (talkcontribs) 00:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

They're back in school

That's what I heard on the radio. I don't know where, and I don't know where they'll go permanently, but it's time to at least say the kids are back in school.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source to start with, although I'm sure some of you can do better. This is just a newspaper I see as part of my normal routine.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Wait, that says other schools in town ... it's still a development.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The Conn. gov' stated last week that classes for the students would resume today.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I find it a bit surprising that the kids would be put into school this early following such a horrific tragedy, it must be hard on them.

The Wikipedia article still says nothing, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. I don't want to start the "aftermath" section myself, especially since we seem to be short on details. Or at least I haven't found anything.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It looks like this is a misquote or something similar. It appears that all of the schools in the district, except for Sandy Hook, are currently open and running, as stated here: [18] In addition, it seems that it will be in January when the replacement school will be open for the remaining students. [19] Super Goku V (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't confuse the students returning to class Wed (which they did, at another school - as the Governor said, the law required this) with opening of Sandy Hook - the State Police say it's still a crime scene.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The article should certainly say that. Is Huffington Post considered reliable?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
HammerFilmFan inserted a response to what I said earlier, and as you can see from the time, I didn't respond to this person, until now. What's the source for that and can it go in the article?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


There is a new report that Adam Lanza was taking the drug Fanapt (Iloperidone). See: The Antipsychotic Prescribed To Adam Lanza Has A Troubled History All Its Own. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Which came from this story - - very interesting, if true. The press has had to retract so much about this whole incident that I'm nervous about using this kind of thing until it gets some more solid confirmation. So the uncle reported this? HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Why Diagnosing Adam Lanza Is a Problem is also worth reading. Many claims and counterclaims have been made, but authorities have yet to make any public statement on a motive for the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
That is the key. We don't have the luxury of speculating here, which means we shouldn't publish anything until we know it is reliably sourced fact. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I just removed this from the Fanapt page: "Fanapt was revealed to have been the medication prescribed to Sandy Hook mass murderer, Adam Lanza." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

slight inconsistency regarding weapons


There is a slight inconsistency in these two sentences regarding the weapons used:

At home, Lanza "had access" to three more firearms: a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle, but it is not clear where these weapons were. Lanza used the .22 Marlin rifle to kill his mother, but did not bring that weapon to the school.

Specifically, I think the .22 Marlin should be dropped from the first sentence since we do have information from the CT medical examiner (sourced to the Hartford Courant) about the .22 Marlin.GabrielF (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be better to just drop the words ", but it is not clear where these weapons were". Then you end up with

At home, Lanza "had access" to three more firearms: a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle. Lanza used the .22 Marlin rifle to kill his mother, but did not bring that weapon to the school.

How's that? AzureCitizen (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. GabrielF (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There is conflicting reports regarding the weapons used. NBC reported this morning that 4 handguns were used by shooter and that the ar-15 wasn't used and was found in the vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"At least three guns were found -- a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car," [10]

Remedy for coatracking

Why don't we just limit this to items that are directly about the topic, not items that are just somehow related to the topic? For an active prominent article like this, the latter is a bottomless pit coatrack. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • There is always debate about what is "about" and what is "related". Better to just consider the reader, who is here to find out about the event and the people involved in it. Abductive (reasoning) 20:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • We always consider the reader first, but in doing so, our first obligation is accuracy, verification and relevance. We have had to trim back the article several times, and likely will again. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This only reformulates the already existing problem: What belongs in here and what doesn't? I'm against such vague let's-draw-a-line-and-get-tough-on-crime-zero-tolerance slogans. What exactly is being proposed here? Be precise. What is "about", what is "related"? See also Nbauman's comments here and here. -- (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Victim's section

I noticed a little while ago that the Victim's section actually only comprises two new sentences, one saying that the bodies were removed and identified during the night, the other saying that a State Trooper had been assigned to each family to support them. The sentence about multiple gun shot wounds to each victim is already covered in the Investigation section. Since the two victim sentences themselves actually fit well into the Investigation section, I tried a WP:BOLD edit to see what would happen if we simply incorporated the sentences there, which has the added advantage of moving the Victim's list (it floats at page right) up and away from the Perpetrator section, which I've never liked because the previous section ended up listing out all the names alongside Lanza's biographic section. Take a look and judge for yourself. I was being bold here, so feel free to revert me if you feel I've made things worse by doing this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Good thinking. That separate little section wasn't needed. I like the edit. -- (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a good edit. Thanks for being bold. - MrX 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

UTC time

The article states: "Some time before 9:30 a.m. (1430 UTC) on December 14, 2012, Adam Peter Lanza ...". Is the UTC time supposed to have a colon, like the regular, standard time? Or is the colon deliberately left out? In other words, should it be listed as 1430 UTC, or 14:30 UTC? I looked at the UTC article, but it was of no help. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I may be naive here, but I don't think the lack of colon's standard. The lack of one is used in scientific and military applications, but I think that's a space/stylistic concern. Most published UTC times have a colon, by say scientific press releases. Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I removed the UTC statement, after all. There are many specific time references within the article. I think that they either all should be converted to UTC, or none should (for consistency). I think "none" is the better option. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Some redlinked refs

An editor deleted all the cited-refs for the children in the 'Killed Infobox', but left a massive amount of redlinks in the wake of that edit. I am trying to fix it now. Shearonink (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

All fixed now. Just wanted to make it clear why I ended up doing that series of edits. I thought my commenting out of a malformed orphaned reference had caused a cascade of redlinked references. All fixed now. Shearonink (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Context - death rates

Understanding mortality numbers requires context. The media often fails to provide it, but we can. Underlying Cause of Death, 1999-2010 (aka "Detailed Mortality (2010)") on CDC WONDER is a source.

Some US numbers: 2010 US deaths age 6 (466) and 7 (461) were 927. Of which 359 were non-disease (ICD-10 Codes V01-Y89 (External causes)), of which 166 were transport accidents, and 40 assault. Ages 5-9, US, 2010, were 2,330 total, 919 non-disease, 108 assault. Some CT numbers: 2008-2010 CT deaths (3 years) were 22, or 7.3 per year. 2000-2010 CT non-disease deaths (11 years) were 23. Ages 5-9, CT, 1999-2010 (12 years) were 278 total, 85 non-disease, 10 assault.

Analysis. So for the US, 20 deaths ages 6 and 7, represent 8 days of average US mortality for ages 6-7, 20 days of non-disease, and half a year of assault. Or 3 days of average for ages 5-9, 8 days of non-disease, and 68 days of assault. But CT is a small state (1% of US population). So the deaths represent three years of average CT mortality for ages 6-7, more than a decade of non-disease, and several decades of assault. Or a year of average mortality for ages 5-9, three years of non-disease, and decades of assault.

Writer notebook. Saying "more children than" is problematic, because infant mortality is high. "more children this age than" is ambiguous in age range, but if the comparison is imprecise enough, it can be correct regardless.

So what are some lines that might be added to the article to provide context? ... more children this age than CT usually loses in a year; loses to accidents in a years; loses to assault in decades. ... is a big part of the children this age lost to assault this year in the US; was only a small part of all children this age who died this year in the US.

Disclaimer: It's late, and I didn't double check the work. Someone else will have to take on any edits.

Re WP:NOR, I suggest this was routine calculation plus wordsmithing, but at some point, the selection of numbers from a database starts looking like synthesis of non-explicit conclusion, and what would a cite look like, so... I don't know how to call it. (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that twenty children killed in a mass shooting at a school is unprecedented. Other causes of death are off topic in this context.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Most people care about the homicide factor... and how to stop murders. Most people could care less about the method. But the IP seems to be comparing accidental deaths, etc., which is obviously irrelevant and "context" in that sense is not appropriate in the article. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Plus, context is already provided in the lead by comparison with other school shootings. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


Resolved: There is so much editing going on, it is hard to keep up and may have to get put in again down the road. The consensus was/is that the "had" belongs. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Per this discussion I've put the "had" back in. The last time it was removed without discussion; it would be nice to see it being given some thought this time. DBaK (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think that made your head explode, try reading Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. LOL! Ok...let consensus decide the "had", but I kinda support the usage.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Present or past tense

Resolved: It is resolved. Or was resolved. Or something.

The article currently states: The massacre is the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It is also the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the Bath School bombings of 1927. Another editor wants it to read: The massacre was the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It was also the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the Bath School bombings of 1927. Any consensus? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This massacre currently holds those "titles" or positions or rankings or whatever word you want to use. So, the present tense "is" is appropriate, not the past tense "was". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's reasonable. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the sentence should read in the present tense (because even though the event happened in the past, the sad 'deadliest' record is an ongoing occurrence). Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my. ...

A Virginia man was arrested Wednesday after police say he brought a 2-by-4-foot board with the words 'High Powered Rifle' written on its side into Sandy Hook Elementary School in the town of Strasburg.

Wow. Interesting, but not relevant, in my opinion. Go Phightins! 20:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I would say this is a direct link to the shooting - this (probably) disturbed person is acting on what happened, and chose a school with the same name. I hope this is the last of such "copycats" and that the presiding judge will not be amused. But that's neither here nor there.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I know it's off topic. But what exactly is illegal about carrying a piece of wood (the 2 by 4)? Or did I miss something? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Pretty sure this would fall under 'communicating a threat' or causing a threatening presence on the grounds of a school. The writing on the wood would seem to be the key.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I guess the threat angle ... not to mention, probably, trespass into the school. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Here you go - from a local paper there: "According to Sheriff's Office rep Major Scott Proctor, the school's resource officer was on the scene within seconds and Johnson was arrested for disorderly conduct." HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't see the direct link. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Huckabee et al reactions

Now that things are a little calmer, I think we should re-consider whether the assertions by Huckabee, Fischer and others (that their God had abandoned the schools because children are no longer forced to worship Him by government teachers) belong in the article, properly sourced and without the POV my sarcasm conveys. I would say that the political backlash indicates that it is notable; certainly far more so than some pro sports team's "tribute". --Orange Mike | Talk 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

They are (as individuals) by themselves not related/notable to the incident (such as CT politicians etc). Their views themselves are WP:FRINGE, and the "backlash" against those particular statements seems very temporary - the stories have moved on. I don't think it is notable enough for inclusion in this article, but if we develop a larger spin-off "reactions" article with a lower bar for entry, then it would be appropriate there. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should, at least not now. Their statements lack substance and have no demonstrable impact on public policy. Contrariwise, I do think that the reactions/statements from the NRA are significant.
I appreciated the comment in your edit summary when you removed the sports team tribute. Much better than what I was about to write. - MrX 21:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Like the WBC whackos, wouldn't support putting this in wouldn't add to knowledge of the article. Just more talking heads yadda-yadda. Btw don't really think you are summarizing what he said accurately.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I am summarizing what I hear; but then, I'm an evangelical Quaker historian who has observed that mandatory, government-imposed generic acts of surface piety seems to work as an innoculation (on the "killed virus" model) against any actual religious impulse. My God is not that petty: He never left the schools; sorry about theirs. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I want to say yes, probably based on similar thoughts as have led OM to propose it. But tempting as it is, the typical preemptive rightwing backlash has no place in the article unless this is being discussed somewhere above the gossosphere. -- (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Local and state official response...yes. Media```Buster Seven Talk 22:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing else, in your opinion? Only "media hounds" and "official sources"? I'd say an article or two in higher-profile news outlets would perfectly suffice in my book. And even the media hounds from Salon come pretty close. -- (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Seperate article? Fine. Here? Not so fine. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
That's an ideological response, not an encyclopedic one. If the rightwing nutbag remarks are being prominently discussed in connection with the shooting, we will mention them in the article. Even if you don't like it. -- (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Huckabee's ignorance-and-superstition-based comments have absolutely no relevance. And in fact, the kids had just finished doing the Pledge of Allegiance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The real reason Huckabee and similar "religious" pundits have shut up is the revelation that Lanza went to a Catholic middle school. Abductive (reasoning) 20:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Per the discussion above, I would imagine a new article will be created about the aftermath, and think it is best to wait and add it there. There is going to be so much grandstanding that if we put it all here, even the stuff with lots of sources, it will dwarf the rest of the article. By the first of the year, I'm guessing some experienced editor will have a copy in their user space ready to serve as a start (that was a hint...) where it would be within the scope, appropriate, and much easier to balance the POV. Mixing it with the horror that was the actual event is undue and too soon as the aftermath is just getting started. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 22:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has clear rules on what belongs in an article and what doesn't. The main rules are WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Those rules say that viewpoints must be included in the article in proportion to their coverage in WP:RSs. If WP:RSs repeatedly quote Huckabee, Fischer, etc. (or anybody) in stories on the incident, then this article must include those viewpoints.
This isn't up to the discretion or consensus of WP editors; WP:NPOV is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS of Wikipedia. "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." (Emphasis added.)
Putting reactions into a separate, later article also violate WP policy. WP:POVFORK "This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." --Nbauman (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Rules-schmul- I meant, hear, hear! -- (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


There have been reactions like, (a) higher gun sales (b) schools ought to be provided with guns, with staff trained in their use (c) Divine retribution (d) too many women in the school allowed the incident to happen. (e) the incident is not as serious as the many abortions that happen in USA each day... These reactions have come from notable persons, people's representatives, and other public persons. The exclusion of such reactions from the article makes this article unbalanced. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The comments of various publicity-seeking figures have no relevance at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Would it not be better to determine their importance using various Wikipedia parameters? Additionally increased gun sales is a reported fact. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If it is a 'reported fact' cite the source that reports it - and what they have to say about its significance to the topic of this article, if any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
A story from Florida, also stocks of manufacturers also rose after the initial fall, that should be in the reactions and not condolence messages.[20] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Illinois State Rifle Association comment

I removed this POVish statement from the Illinois State Rifle Association, as well as the sentence immediately after it which is no longer true:

Richard Pearson, executive of the Illinois State Rifle Association, told the Chicago Sun-Times, "The problem we have is a gun-free zone. We have a gun-free zone around a school. Every crazy person knows that. And so, the gun-free zone is like a magnet for the lunatics. He or she knows there won’t be any resistance there". Pearson also said, "Had there been a teacher who was armed, this wouldn’t have happened".[11] Gun rights activists declined to comment, with all but one choosing not to appear on talk shows the first Sunday after the shootings.[12]

Content such as this risks taking this article about the shooting in a very political direction. I think it would be better for a content fork article that discusses the array of reactions that arise from this shooting. - MrX 01:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC) - MrX 01:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

NRA's statement is appropriate; this one is definitely not. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It's just one guy's opinion, so it doesn't really belong. He's not wrong, though. I saw someone on The View the other day, obviously a liberal-leaning show, and the guy (I think it was a Cuomo) said that schools need to arm themselves to keep these characters away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Many pro-gun politicians have said that the massacre could have been prevented if teachers and other bystanders had been armed, and it's been reported in many WP:RSs. ( for example has had several stories about that.) According to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, if something on the subject of the article is reported by many WP:RSs, it belongs in the article.
This article has a WP:NPOV problem, because many pro-gun sources have been making that argument, as quoted in WP:RSs, and we haven't included it in the article.
POV forks as MrX suggests actually violate WP policy. WP:POVFORK "This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." --Nbauman (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The "pro-gun" pov should be represented, IF we hare presenting the anti-gun POV, however, the we have many choice (on both sides) of who to include, and we should include either the most notable/influential quotes, or most relevant (proximity/relationship to the event). The Illinois NRA fails both criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a good video for the pro-gun side: It depicts an Internet Cafe getting robbed by 2 young criminals, but old grandpa is packing heat, unbeknownst to them, and while we don't know if they were going to kill anyone, we do know 2 things:
#1, they fled when gramps fired upon them, thus saving lives at THAT time, and
#2, the "future" threats to that cafe just went down, and the safety went up -as word got out that the patrons were packing heat.
Alternate links (also PG-13, with the cuss word changed) and and and and and
Any thoughts on how to incorporate that "pro-gun" view into either this article or a related one? Thanks, (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Um see WP:SYN as this is an article about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting not an attempted robbery in a Palm Spring internet cafe. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Reactions, why the Gun control section

Its just another reaction, why the special heading? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel like gun control is a very specific reaction. Gun Control debate should probably be it's own section with reactions related to gun control and any aftermath related to guncontrol included. Ryan Vesey 05:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Not at the present time. One paragraph that splits off one viewpoint (which we agree should be included in some high level summary) doesn't need to be called out like that. Again, once dust settles, maybe. --MASEM (t) 05:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is a specific reaction, but why should it stand out among others? Do you feel that there should be a "Mental health" section? I've heard or read no end of news reports about the perpetrator's metal state which has led to discussions of the availability of free mental health services among others. The same goes for the issue of "school security" and "parenting standards". Do these deserve separate sections as well? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Gun control is easily the most widely discussed reaction. Mental health is up there and might deserve it's own section as well. Ryan Vesey 05:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that's its widely discussed, but I'd have a hard time calling it "the most" out of the many I've heard. But now we're just comparing anecdotal experiences, not discussing what should be in the article based on verifiable facts or data. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
We've been through this before. Gun control is obvious to include because, well, duh, guns were involved. The mental health angle has not been a proven connection - there's tons of speculation about this but no official or medical professional attached to the investigation has asserted that Andy's mental health was a contributing factor. Same for parental standards, school security, video games, lack of religion in schools, gay marriage, etc. etc. Gun control is presently the only reaction that is clearly not a contentious connection and that we actually have officials in high levels promising action on it. But because we don't know to what degree at this point, we shouldn't be calling it out any more than a single para in the reaction section. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Works for me, its a matter of timing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The mental health angle belongs, under WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, if many WP:RSs about the shooting discuss it. And they do. --Nbauman (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Plenty of sources discuss it, but there's no official connection between the shooting and mental health. Any inclusion is speculation on sources, which we should not be doing. We can say that the shooter was diagnosed with mental health problems but that may have no connection to why he did what he did. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If I read multiple articles in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal about the shooting, and they all discuss the mental health issue, doesn't that belong under WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV? Wikipedia guidelines don't tell us that we should decide whether something belongs because it is or isn't speculation; WP:RS and WP:NPOV say that if multiple WP:RSs say it, it goes in the article. If the New York Times and multiple WP:RSs quote psychiatrists commenting on the shooting saying that Asperger's has nothing to do with violence, shouldn't that go in? --Nbauman (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Even if they are saying it is not related, that's still not the official word, and would be FRINGEy in nature. It is better for us to wait (per DEADLINE) to get an official statement, at which point the opinion/speculation that arise from that connection can be introduced. But if we put in the "wrong" opinion, (say, that we include opinions that the shooter's mental health was a cause) and later it is asserted by officials give word that completely contradicts that, we'd have to remove it. There are likely articles where these opinion can be put in that are not strictly about this shooting, but we need to focus here only on the facts as to the cause given by those on the case, and not speculation by others. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
"The mental health angle has not been a proven connection etc": good point. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Even the president's briefing discussed mental health as one of the options to look at. It's irrelevant if it's ultimately concluded that the shooter had mental health issues: it's being discussed so it's worth mentioning that it's being discussed. Calling discussion of mental health fringe when the NYT is reporting on it is absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I would urge you to read WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If multiple WP:RSs report something, it's not a fringe view and it must go in the article. "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." Wikipedia must not restrict itself to official statements. During the runup to the Iraq war, official statements about WMDs were false. The solution to "wrong" opinions is to add "right" opinions and let the reader decide. --Nbauman (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As the article matures, there may be merit in notable subheadings under Reaction for Condolences, Gun Control, Access to Mental Health, and Media Coverage. Dawson College shooting is one such example. There are many sources analysing the early criticism of inaccurate journalism Poynter, BBC, NYT, Business Insider Canuckle (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Other shooters with Autism/Aspergers

Is it necessary to list other killers thought to have had Autism/Aspergers syndrome? This seems to promote the idea that there's a link between Autism/Aspergers and violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Section has already been deleted as original research. Shearonink (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, there is evidence that Autism/Aspergers has made up an aspect of the total psychological makeup of some spree killers (an already small group of people). And the fact that they were spree killers, not serial killers, etc, is significant (for researchers). After this attack, the killers thought to come within the "autism-spectrum" (or whatever their name happens to be this particular decade) will certainly come in for closer scrutiny & study as a sub-group within the larger spree killer group. TreMinty (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Jon Lapook, the medical director for CBS News, said they checked with experts around the world to see if there is a connection between Asperger's and violent behavior. He said that although not a lot of studies have been done, there is no evidence of a link between the two.[21] -- (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
TreMinty - do you have Reliable Sources to cite? (notice put on this newly created User's TP)HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • But this isn't relevant here, likely ever. Maybe in an article on the broader subject, but not this event. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a terrible idea, however saying which shooters had Asperger's is very subjective and usually not based on scientific study. For instance some people say that the Virginia Tech shooter had Asperger's some don't, some people even say that the Dark Knight shooter had it, others don't. So as you can see there is no unanimous agreement on who had it and who didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The quote above says it all "There is no evidence of a link between the two" - therefore there is no reason to make them a "See also". Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree that Asperger's is irrelevant here and in any article where it might be discussed as related to a crime. The DSM has just (December 2012) deleted Asperger's as a separate topic; it is now considered part of the autism spectrum. (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Killed list - Victoria Soto

Is there a reason why Victoria Soto is the only name without a cite on the Killed list (besides Lanza's mother)? I thought there used to be one. There have been many stories about her in reliable sources, including this one from today's New York Times. Just wanted to point this out in case it needs addressed. -- (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

List of dead

Should there be a list of all those who lost their life? I can see a yes and a no. Please discuss and decide.

Yes: Part of history. No: Excessive list of non-notable people.

I lean toward yes, inclusion. Auchansa (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that this issue was covered somewhere on this Talk Page (or its archives). The result was, yes ... keep the victims list, as we do for other similar events/articles. Here are some examples, where a list is included: Virginia Tech massacre, Bath School disaster, Columbine High School massacre, and Dunblane school massacre. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible misdiagnosis

Should there be a mention of the possibility that Lanza was misdiagnosed? This columnist (Robert Stacy McCain) has suggested Lanza actually had childhood onset schizophrenia, which fits better with what we know about him (as well as with the shooting; there's a known connection between schizophrenia and violence while there isn't one for Asperger's). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not an expect tied to the investigation - talking head and opinion. No. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we know, for sure, that he even was diagnosed? (Let alone, misdiagnosed.) I have not seen that he was "officially" diagnosed with Asperger's. Was he? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, Why Diagnosing Adam Lanza Is a Problem. No opinion from an expert in the media who never met Lanza counts as a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
And we can all be patient and wait to hear some official reports on all these matters. Encyc, not a newspaper/tabloid.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggest criteria for diagnosis / misdiagnosis

Might suggest WikiPedia use a professional standard here. Diagnosis must be made by someone state licensed to do so. Would suggest that the licensed person making any diagnosis be required to follow their own professions generally accepted standards. i.e. they administered a broad array of well accepted psychological tests (or reviewed prior testing results), meet with the person directly, typically on several occasions, had free access to and reviewed other records, had input from third parties, etc. The diagnosis absolutely must then be reduced to, and committed to in writing, ideally as part of a full report that concludes with the specific diagnosis, and perhaps includes discussion other potentially alternative diagnosis, and providing reasonable explanation for the conclusions. Suggest the professional standing of anyone claiming to make a diagnosis be completely verified (license number, currently licensed, etc.)

Any subsequent suggestion of "misdiagnosis" should likewise be approached with a high degree of skepticism. Ideally it would be someone officially licensed, with full access to all prior records. Beyond that there may be "Experts" who perform reasonable forensic evaluations and perhaps can offer expert opinion. Suggest not publishing such opinions without holding "experts" to a high level of expertise in the subject they are expressing their opinion on, and that they have significant input data from this case specifically to draw from. Examples would include psychologists and psychiatrists with a reasonably long and independently verifiable track record in any of the following: bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dementia, criminal behavior, homicide / suicide forensics, anti-social personality disorder, etc.

Would basically ignore all other non verified "expert" opinion. Rick (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The diagnosis of "personality disorder" is more significant in relation to his actions than Asperger's/autism. That is because it is a mental illness. I think it is time to start addressing the issue of Lanza's emotional health, support for mental health in society, etc., as they are being written about and are now glaringly absent here. Charles Ferguson had an article in "TIME" about these issues following the shooting.Parkwells (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

School versus educational institution

The article states: The massacre is the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Another editor wants to change it to: The massacre is the second-deadliest shooting in an educational institution in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Any consensus? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be "school". There is no reason for the verbose "educational institution". Furthermore, the Wikipedia link is to "list of school shootings in the US". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it doesn't make the biggest difference, but "educational institution" might be needlessly verbose. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
To me 'school' is better, also more succinct than 'educational institution'. Shearonink (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
But none of those reasons address the issue that school is confusing to many readers. Please at least try to address that issue otherwise we'll going to get no where. Dpmuk (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"School shooting" should be treated as a single term, not just "shooting at a school". It could also refer to someone fishing with a howitzer (beans), but I don't think anyone is that confused. Skullers (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I agree with the general idea of what you're saying in that the context is important and makes it obvious we're not referring to shooting fish with a howitzer. However even in context school is still confusing as from the context an English person (or many others) would still think school was referring to a pre-18 institution. Dpmuk (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
School is a common word in the English language for at least a couple of centuries now. How anyone could be confused .... HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Have you actually read our school article where it states quite clearly that in much of the world school is not used to refer to a university. Hence for non-Americans it would be quite easy to get confused. Dpmuk (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
As an Englishman who came to America in 1974 and became a citizen, and lived in Australia for three years (on assignment,) and having spent a great deal of time in Canada, I can assure you "school" will not be confusing to readers of the ENGLISH version of Wikipedia. To me this just a tempest in a teapot.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an international encyclopaedia and as explained at school the term "school" does not refer to a university in most of the English speaking world. As such this sentence as it stands is confusing to many readers. I'm not particularly bothered by the choice of words as long as it's not potentially confusing as "school" is. One of guidelines, WP:COMMONALITY, states "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia" and "Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences (rather than alternate, use alternative or alternating depending on which sense is intended)" and to me that makes it pretty clear that school should not be used. As for the title of the linked article that's essentially a WP:OSE argument and I think that title needs changing as well. To put it simply I'd rather be verbose than confusing. Dpmuk (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of where this article is being read, this incident happened in the USA. "School" is an everyday, common word that is familiar to everyone. The word "school" is hardly confusing (to anyone, much less to "many people"). The title of the article is Sandy Hook School. Should we change that, also? Should that be changed to "Sandy Hook Educational Institution", so as not to confuse some people? I really don't see the problem. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
To my knowledge, universities aren't formally labeled "schools" in the United States either. But they comprise schools and sometimes are referred to as "schools" informally, so in American usage, the term "school shooting" encompasses all shootings at educational institutions.
I strongly support WP:COMMONALITY, but "shooting in an educational institution" probably would confuse many American readers. Sadly, we're so accustomed to "school shootings" (and mentions thereof) that we would wonder what distinction this unusual wording was intended to draw.
Because this is an American topic, if no suitable English variety-neutral wording is possible, we default to American terminology. Of course, if there is an alternative that makes sense to Americans and non-Americans alike, that would be ideal. —David Levy 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with David Levy on all points. "School shooting" is common parlance in the USA. And using "educational institution" is awkward, clunkish, confusing, and unfamiliar to many here in the USA. Without better alternatives, as David Levy states, the USA "preference" trumps any other, as this is a USA event. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Well I originally tried "school or university" but that got reverted (in a very round about way) but I also think that's clunky. Obviously we don't want to confuse Americans either and I tried not to - I got the term "educational institution" from the school article to try to avoid this. As I'm currently living in America I'm aware that school also refers to university here so and so if we invoke TIES then I'd agree school is fine. In this instance I don't think we can simply invoke TIES or COMMONALITY as there are phrases we could use but they do have disadvantages so instead we have to weigh both. In my opinion this clearly comes down on the side of not using school. I'd be more willing to invoke TIES if this was an article that seemed likely was mainly going to be read by people from the US but this had a worldwide impact so many non-Americans will be reading this as well. Dpmuk (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONALITY, with which I strongly agree, advises us that "universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms" and that we should "use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences".
The problem is that no "universally used term" or "commonly understood word or phrase" has been suggested. All of the options presented are potentially confusing to either Americans or non-Americans. How, in your view, does this "clearly [come] down on the side of not using school" (i.e. not using the terminology that's standard in the country in which the event occurred)? —David Levy 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Americans can't understand "educational institution"? Want to just say outright, "Americans are stupid"? I don't buy that argument at all. (Lest there be any confusion about it, I'm an American.) LadyofShalott 03:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That isn't I'm saying at all. (Lest there be any confusion about it, I'm American too.)
Did you read what I wrote above? I'll copy and paste it:
Sadly, we're so accustomed to "school shootings" (and mentions thereof) that we would wonder what distinction this unusual wording was intended to draw.
"School shooting" is the standard term in the United States, so substituting the highly unusual "shooting in an educational institution" would cause confusion. The problem isn't that Americans wouldn't understand what the words mean; it's that they wouldn't understand the reason behind their use instead of the phrase "school shooting" (and whether some difference should be inferred).
Likewise, we refer to a car's "trunk" or "boot" (depending on what English variety is in use). We don't substitute "outdoor-access storage compartment". —David Levy 04:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I see what you are saying. I don't necessarily agree, but I get the idea. However, the article is not written only for American readers. "Educational institution" is still less clunky than something like "school (including university)" which is what would be needed to make the meaning clear to the non-American readers unfamiliar with that general a usage of "school". LadyofShalott 04:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
We don't replace standard terminology with constructed descriptions or insert awkward (and in the above case, inaccurate) qualifiers. We do our best to write for an international readership, but it isn't always possible to accommodate everyone perfectly. —David Levy 04:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
What was inaccurate? We are talking about schools ranging from elementary to university level. LadyofShalott 04:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "school (including university)" seems to imply that universities, in American usage, are "schools" (as opposed to comprising them). Of course, you weren't advocating that wording's use. —David Levy 04:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)