Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

adam lanza seperate page

it appears to have been a while since this was last requested but there's a lengthy draft ready to be published. I just need to reach a consesus before it can be published.

Draft here for anyone curious. Lmk what yous think: Draft:Adam Lanza Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am in favor of Lanza having a separate page. 71.221.216.157 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Current consesus status is: 2-3 opposes favour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizzaflanagan221 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

ive updated it heavily since this post. feel free to drop ur thoughts. i need to reach a consesus before i can nominate it as an article Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The image of Lanza here probably isn't free to use as it has been taken from a news article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

it was taken by a news article but was released by police Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That image file makes the false claim that the image is in the public domain as the work of an employee of the US federal government. It is a college ID photo, and college ID photographers are not federal government employees, except possibly for those working at the military academies. I do not believe that photo is in the public domain. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree to Adam Lanzas own wiki page TheGoodChief (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Im in favour of Adam Lanza getting his own wiki page TheGoodChief (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BLP1E, which policy does not support a biographical page exclusively for Adam Lanza as opposed to the page related to his crime. General Ization ^Talk 19:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a well known image of Lanza and it appears to be his school ID photo. I'm not an expert but would be cautious about saying that it is in the public domain. Police mugshots etc in the US are usually not free to use unless clearly stated as such.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

i understand but Wikipedia:Article size says articles over 9,000 words "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The text of this article does not currently exceed 9000 words. [1] General Ization ^Talk 19:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

says 9087 not including info box Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Click on the link in my comment above. XTOOLS reports the current text as being 8,451 words. Assuming either figure, the length is not excessive given the significance of the case and the multiple facets of its 11-year aftermath needing to be covered in the article. General Ization ^Talk 19:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

take Nikolas Cruz's article for example. Parkland high school shooting page had 9500 words prior to his article's creation, got reduced to 6000. I read somewhere that the ideal page byte size is 50,000-100,000 per article and Sandyhook page has 200,000. I believe making lanza's page will improve readability. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BIO1E. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  This has to be approved. Lanza needs his own wiki page. TheGoodChief (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  TheGoodChief, please explain why you think that Lanza is an exception to WP:BIO1E. Lanza does not "need" anything. He is dead. Cullen328 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Why does Dylann Roof, Nikolas Cruz, James Holmes and Martin Bryant have their own Wiki pages? Some people have an interest in Adam Lanza, we need a separate page for more info on him TheGoodChief (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  'Some people' could no doubt be found wanting more coverage of more or less any topic one could think of. Wikipedia is under no obligation to cater to the needs of obsessives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  doesn't answer the question. Also, your statement about summarising topics is flawed. Yes, it's meant to summaries topics, but if they can be expaneded upon in a seperate article, they should. for example, Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or even Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, there is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy that states that the same topic 'should' be expanded over multiple articles. Normally, I'd advise those advocating such article bloat to consider starting their own Wiki, but given the subject matter, I'd have to instead suggest that they find something healthier to obsess about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.

  This was taken out of the BIO1E article that you's keep sharing around. If you could explain why Adam Lanza is not notable in one of the most notable mass shootings after columbine then please do so. There is more than enough media coverage on him as there are still articles and researchers talking about him to this day. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Adam Lanza has no 'notability' as defined by Wikipedia policy, except in the context of the Sandy Hook shootings. If you have trouble understanding this, that's your problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  i've clearly lined out where in your pitful argument it states he can have an article, yet you're displaying no argument to it. So unless you've got a better argument, the WP:BIO1E is basically invalid. I'll re-state what it says and even highlight where it says he's eligible for an article:

  In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.

  I've seen you do stuff like this before with Brenton Tarrant's old article for no reason. It's obvious you for some reason just dont like the perpetrators of crimes getting their own articles and if that is the case, you shouldn't use your bias to make invalid arguments in mass shooting talk pages. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's enough with the personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Elizzaflanagan221: Please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. You've now heard essentially the same response from 3 editors (including myself) who have a combined 46 years of experience on Wikipedia, versus your apparent 11 months. There's nothing at all wrong with being relatively new to editing Wikipedia, but when you assume you know everything you need to know about our policies and practices here, and start getting belligerent when more senior editors consistently inform you otherwise, that sounds like the beginning of a problem. In any case, please keep it civil. General Ization ^Talk 03:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  i've listened but after reading the BIO1E, i can't find anywhere that says lanza is ineligible for an article. I'll repeat it once more. "he degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it" AND "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." I think many would argue Adam has significant media coverage to this day. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:BIO1E exists for a reason. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, that summarises topics. It is not a venue for documenting anything and everything ever written about a subject, and article bloat is not a valid reason to subdivide articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:BIO1E states:

  "In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified."

  BIO1E doesn't seem to work in this case, cheers. Don't use your bias to stop perpetrators getting articles, like you did with Brenton Tarrant. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Persist in making unfounded accusations of bias, and you may find yourself blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  yeah ive heard. anyway, are you going to provide a better reason for the oppose because i've outlined several times where it says Adam is eligible for an article. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Read WP:SATISFY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  thats got nothing to do wit this bruh. if ur gonna oppose the article then you need to provide a good reason. i've already stated WHY WP:BIO1E wouldn't be valid. im not trying to be "satisfied" im just trying to reach a consesus on whether the article could be created or not. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, that's not how consensus works. As the article Andy shared with you explains, no one is under any obligation to explain their position to you in any detail, much less convince you to agree with them. So far, consensus is against the creation of a separate article for Lanza. Consensus can change as more people participate in a discussion, but that doesn't license you to harangue those who have already participated and demand that they explain themselves to your satisfaction. Also, you have not "explained WHY WP:BIO1E wouldn't be valid". You have stated that you think it "says Adam is eligible for an article", when it says no such thing. It says "separate articles may become justified" (not "is justified"). That determination depends on the specific article involved, its subject, and the consensus of editors involved. General Ization ^Talk 17:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Facts TheGoodChief (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for multiple reasons outlined above. General Ization ^Talk 17:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• In Favor First I just want to say that Wikipedia as a whole should really come to a consensus on which mass shooters get their own article and not others. How does Jared Lee Loughner, who killed 6, have his article but Lanza and plenty others who tripled or quadrupled Loughner do not?. Anyway, I would be in favor of a separate article for Lanza simply because of how many he killed and the subsequent media and gun rights attention the shooting received. I mean, there's an entire article on Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, if were going far enough to create that article, shouldn't we make one for Lanza? - User:Genberg47 (Talk)
• Oppose. Agree with General Ization & AndyTheGrump & Cullen328. Shearonink (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In Favour. I think it’s absolutely necessary that there is a page for Adam Lanza. There is so much information that so many people could learn from his case and prevent similar events from happening again, i.e. parents of children who exhibits traits like Lanza.

There is a lot of misinformation about his case and a lot of assumptions, however I feel that if the information was more readily available for those who aren’t willing to do thorough research, people would have a better understanding of what happened and factors that could’ve contributed. I personally believe that there could have been leaps and bounds of progress made in relation to prevention of shootings, and understanding and support for autistic youth who may exhibit similar traits to Lanza had the correct information been easily obtained by the public, rather than the false info which is still very easily obtainable to this day via google search.

While I understand the logic behind not creating wikipedia pages for people who have committed such acts, I find it very unfair that other shooters have their own pages in that case. I think that either all of them should have a page, or none at all. And as it has been pointed out numerous times, Lanza does qualify to have a page.

It does feel like there is a personal bias, which is non-sensical to me. It looks like this argument is being shut down under the assumption that Elizzaflanagan221 is an ‘obsessive’. Whether or not that is true doesn’t feel relevant to me, as it is a discussion concerning facts. And at the end of the day, the obsessives already have all the information they need. An Adam Lanza wikipedia page would benefit those uneducated much more. It’s also important in my opinion that we don’t assume the reasons for people’s curiosity, and don’t deny people that out of personal bias.

I am new to this, so please do explain (in a more digestible manner) if I’m misunderstanding anything. Fever2tell (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

In Favour. Adam Lanza was far more globally discussed and analyzed than Elliot Rodger ever was. His actions have caused billion dollar lawsuits, the biggest Second Amendment reckoning in modern American history, a President in tears. And his back story, including the killing of his mother, including mass media blaming his video game usage for his actions, are all related to to him as an individual and doesn't fit this current page. If there is any school shooter that is notable enough for his own page, it's Adam Lanza. Nokia621 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. on the grounds that in addition to WP:BIO1E, given above, Adam Lanza is the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and that the principle set out there is that "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." I believe this is a higher bar than WP:BIO1E alone. There is no need for an entirely separate article, a biographical section within the main article ought to be sufficient for a biography about Lanza. That way, all the information is in one place and readers do not have to shuttle between articles to read the full story. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene but I have recently rejected the draft on grounds of the WP:BIO1E. I've read the comments above but unfortunately, with many votes in favor from users with no edits or less edits outside the topic area, and proposer Elizzaflanagan221 disrupting the discussion by casting personal attacks, I can see that there is consensus against having an article on Adam Lanza. I've seen attempts of reconverting the redirect to the article, including Nokia621's attempts to have the redirect deleted to make way for move from the draft. Nokia621's actions to this topic could be considered disruptive and could lead to sanctions. I also suggest having the redirect fully protected as this is going too far and against clear consensus. Toadette^Edit! 16:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

FEMA Drill

Why is there no mention of the FEMA school shooting drill that was going on at the school during the time of the shooting? The drill is on the FEMA calander of events, water booths and sign in tables were present at the event becauese of the FEMA drill, without mention of the FEMA drill going on, these other aspects could be taken out of context and be used to promote conspiricy theory. 2600:8800:2221:F500:1810:B1D3:30B7:2BA2 (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any evidence in secondary reliable sources that there was a FEMA drill? This is something that James Fetzer and others have said, but it doesn't appear in mainstream accounts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Just another baseless allegation that was part of James Fetzer's publications and internet posts about how supposedly nobody died at Sandy Hook. He was sued in 2019 by a father of one of the dead children for making those claims. Fetzer lost & at one point owed $450K for promoting that conspiracy. That is why there is no mention of it in this Wikipedia article, because reliable sources have not stated that claim/allegation/assertion as a verifiable fact with actual proof. Just because Fetzer & his co-author Mike Palacek wrote those words and got them published does not make them true. - Shearonink (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Discovery of the Izhmash Saiga-12 shotgun

The final report by the state's attorney says that the shotgun was discovered in the passenger compartment and then subsequently moved to the trunk for safety purposes. I think the following sentence should include these details.

"Outside the school, an Izhmash Saiga-12 shotgun was found in the trunk of the car Lanza had driven to the school, a black 2010 Honda Civic."

I propose it be changed to something like the following.

"Outside the school, an Izhmash Saiga-12 shotgun was initially found in the passenger compartment of the car Lanza had driven to the school, a black 2010 Honda Civic. A police officer subsequently moved the shotgun and ammunition to the car's trunk for safety purposes."

You can find the report here (see page 13). 2A00:23C5:6013:C201:E1A5:875F:D6B4:7FF (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

And this is a vital detail because? Acroterion (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the wording in the article for the sake of consistency with the Final Report, page 2.[2] The shotgun did not play any part in the shooting and was left in the car.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

There probably wasn't a lot of value to pointing out that it was moved, as mentioned, but thanks for the responses. 2A00:23C5:6013:C201:584D:60AF:1CAD:A0D5 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Number of video games played by Lanza

Re this edit: I did check the source and it looks like twelve games. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is listing video game series. For example, they simply list "Shin Megami Tensei", but he was never found to own the Shin Megami Tensei series' eponymous first entry (which wasn't even released outside of Japan), he owned Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 FES (bottom game in the stack on the top left side of this crime scene photo https://imgur.com/WS1ltTJ). The same goes for "Call of Duty" (he just owned Call of Duty 2-4 along with unnumbered sequel "Finest Hour"), "Dynasty Warriors" (he just owned an unspecified PS2 entry (while the eponymous first Dynasty Warriors game was only on PS1) in the series along with some spinoffs), etc. However, for some reason, the article lists "Vice City", referring to "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City", even though it already separately lists "Grand Theft Auto". He was never found to own the Grand Theft Auto series' eponymous first entry, but he was found the own Grand Theft Auto III, IV, San Andreas, and of course Vice City, so they were already referring to the series. Therefore, I find it less redundant for this page to just list the eleven clearly represented series in that article and ignore the Vice City discrepancy. PizzaStallion (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the problem seems to be the Vice City discrepancy. The source gives the list of games as: “Grand Theft Auto”

“Shin Megami Tensei” “Dynasty Warriors” “Vice City” “Team Fortress” “Doom” “Left for Dead” “Metal Gear Solid” “Dead Rising” “Half Life” “Battlefield” “Call of Duty”
This may involve counting Grand Theft Auto twice, although strictly speaking Grand Theft Auto (1997) and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (2002) are separate games. I've stuck to what the Final Report says, although it may be inaccurate according to the video game purists.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying (the "although it may be inaccurate according to the video game purists" part made it seem to me like you were about to disregard the technicalities I pointed out), but I agree with your subsequent edit. PizzaStallion (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the problems is that the interpretation of the photo here seems to involve some degree of original research. However, I removed the exact number of video games/game series from the article as it isn't a key issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Unfortunately, most aspects of Adam are either unreported by the media or reported horribly and even some FBI reports are bad (none of them even specify which Shin Megami Tensei game he had. It gives a completely different idea because Persona 3 hardly even counts as a Shin Megami Tensei game, it’s a spinoff at best and the Japanese title didn’t include SMT in its name), so it’s hard for a Wikipedia page to accurately depict him. PizzaStallion (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

I added some new videos to the page. Could any of them be used in the article? Trade (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits & reverts

The following content has been removed and restored and removed and restored several times:

When police interviewed survivors, a teacher recalled hearing Lanza curse several times, as well as telling them to, "Look at me!", "Come over here!", and "Look at them!"<ref name="Michael P. Mayko and John Pirro" />

which resolves to the following:

<ref name="Michael P. Mayko and John Pirro">{{cite web|first1=Michael P.|last1=Mayko|first2=John|last2=Pirro|url=http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/The-voices-of-children-who-saw-evil-5104362.php|title=The voices of children who saw evil|newspaper=[[The News-Times]]|date=December 31, 2013|access-date=January 3, 2014|archive-date=January 2, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140102131829/http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/The-voices-of-children-who-saw-evil-5104362.php|url-status=live}}</ref>

This reference is valid, verifiable & reliable. Unless there is some reason I am unaware of, the sentence and the references should stay. But, let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can't see anything obviously wrong with this source, so it should not be removed without discussion and consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep it. I accidentally deleted my edit summary, but the claim made in the article isn't that Lanza said those things with certainty, but that a teacher recalls him saying them. That is verifiable and the source is solid. Happieryet (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Adam Lanza page

I think Lanza himself is notable enough to merit him having his own page. James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Nikolas Cruz, Stephen Paddock, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and Eric Harris + Dylan Klebold all have their own articles. I am asking for input before I go and create the page, though. Praiawart (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ, specifically Q9. What is new that hasn't been discussed before? Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think he is notable enough. It will allow us to give him more information without overloading the article. FriendlyNeighborhoodAspie (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"Let Me in" Quote

I'm leaning toward removing either the entire following paragraph from the article or just the second sentence of it: "Music teacher Maryrose Kristopik, 50, barricaded her fourth graders in a tiny supply closet during the rampage. One of Kristopik's students later said that Lanza arrived moments later, pounding on the door and yelling, "Let me in," while the students in Kristopik's class quietly hid inside."

Lanza pounding on the door and shouting "Let me in," or even approaching Kristopik's classroom is not corroborated by any of the official reports or by any sources published after the week following the shooting. This, despite the fact that many survivor testimonials are included in the DESPP report. Kristopik herself, as far as I can tell, has never claimed Lanza approached the door of the room, despite being interviewed shortly after the shooting.

At risk of leaning on original research, if we look at page A117 of the appendix to the State Attorney's report, Kristopik's room is on the complete opposite side of the school from where the shootings occurred. More importantly, the timelines of the shooting in the State Attorney and DESPP reports seem to preclude the possibility of Lanza ever being in that area of the school. I just don't think its possible. WP:BNS seems to apply. Thoughts? Happieryet (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Accounts of what happened during the shooting by the survivors are sometimes unclear due to the panic of the situation. It is probably best to stick to what is in the official reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)