Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Sandy Hook Shooter Adam Lanza Wore Earplugs

Various interesting new information in this article from the Hartford Courant. Lanza was found dead wearing earplugs, and is described as "wearing all black clothes under a drab olive green utility vest with pockets filled with 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster." He is not described as wearing a mask, which tends to confirm the view that this was an early mistake.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Or the bulletproof vest claim? I suspected early on that anything that appears military would be interpreted as a "vest" and a system of telephone would turn that into "bulletproof vest"... so is the current reporting saying there was no bulletproof vest? Shadowjams (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The reports are generally that he was carrying a load bearing vest (MOLLE style) to hold his magazines, not a bullet proof vest. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Police specifically said that it was not a bulletproof vest/body armor, contradicting the early reports: "It was a fishing type vest, a jacket with a lot of pockets; it was not a bullet-proof vest."[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the use of earplugs, if the Lanza family were shooting enthusiasts this would not be anything unusual. Most ranges (indoor or outdoor) require their use. I can't speak to the tactical consequences of using earplugs in a situation like Sandy Hook, but all I can say is that the relevance of this piece of data is simply not known at this time.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Adam Lanza

Why is "Adam Lanza" not hyperlinked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.212.115 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinks point to other articles in Wikipedia. There is no article on Adam Lanza, so no Wikilink. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Father's name

The father is mentioned in the article but not by name. Should the father be mentioned by name?

We have in the section titled Perpetrator:

"Lanza's body was claimed by his father in December. No exact date was given."

And we have in the section titled Reactions:

The day after the shootings, Adam Lanza's father released a statement:

"Our hearts go out to the families and friends who lost loved ones and to all those who were injured. Our family is grieving along with all those who have been affected by this enormous tragedy. No words can truly express how heartbroken we are. We are in a state of disbelief and trying to find whatever answers we can. We too are asking why. We have cooperated fully with law enforcement and will continue to do so. Like so many of you, we are saddened, but struggling to make sense of what has transpired."

This question is addressed in this thread in Talk page archives. It is also addressed in this thread which I initiated on the WP:BLPN. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It is being left out as to maintain privacy issues for the father who is pretty much unrelated to the case outside of being the biological father. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me make clear that I have not suggested delving any deeper into the father's privacy beyond the bare mention of the name. Let me make clear that I would argue against inclusion of any other material pertaining to the father. This sort of material might include place of residence or occupation, or anything else. Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The user is one google search away from finding that information on his own. Not needed in the context of the shooting. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that "The user is one google search away from finding that information on his own." But what are we trying to accomplish by not providing the father's name in this article? Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Privacy within BLP on WP. Since we're not going to be talking about him in any great degree, we shouldn't be a google hit if people are searching for info on him. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the mainstream media operate by a different set of rules. Adding his father's name here does not add significant context per WP:BLPNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Even a Google search isn't necessary - the father's name is listed in the reference for the quotation. However, whether his father's name is George or Peter or Steve doesn't add any value to the body of the article. GoingBatty (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

specifically covered by Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names. The name does not add significant value. should not be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)Agreed this is an encyclopedia article, and the father isn't part of the event being described. Rklawton (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are we providing a lengthy quote from the father if his significance is as slight as some purport? Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question, but the significance of including his quote and the significance of including his first name in the article body are two different questions. GoingBatty (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

GoingBatty—we also read "Following her divorce from Adam's father, a corporate executive, Nancy Lanza was supported by alimony payments."[2] Isn't that a statement attributing significance to Adam's father? We would not consider financial support insignificant. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're suggesting that because Adam's father provided alimony payments he should be named in the article, I still say that whether his father's name is George or Peter or Steve doesn't add any value to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

GoingBatty—the father is not absent from our article. The father is mentioned 3 times at 3 separate points in our article. We of course provide sources in support of the 3 mentions the father receives in our article. In every case the source is mentioning the name of the father. WP:BLPNAME questions whether "inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." Our sources are demonstrating for us that the name of the father "adds significant value". If we are trusting the judgement of these sources on the material they are supporting for us at 3 disparate points in our article then we should trust the judgement of the sources that the father's name adds "significant value". They too could have omitted the name of the father. We should be adhering to the wording used by reliable sources. We are demonstrating the significance of the father to our article by mentioning him 3 times at 3 separate points in our article. A total of 4 sources are being used to support the assertions we make concerning the father in our article and in every case those sources are including the name of the father in fact in most cases they are mentioning the father's name more than once. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Against Inclusion, Wow, have we already forgotten that this event includes a "name confusion" incident with the early mis-reporting of the brother's name instead of Adam Lanza? Now we're discussing naming the biological father when he clearly has no involvement. I'm with GoingBatty, MASEM, and ♦IanMacM♦ on this one.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion. We quote Peter Lanza and mention his claiming of the body. There are also cited sources that use his name in the headline, and it's standard to include someone's name with a quotation. We should either remove the quotation and all mention of him throughout or use his name. It's not like it's some big secret, and we make it clear he had not had contact with his son in some time but was providing financial support. I don't think there's any suggestion that he is complicit or guilty of anything because we include his name. Because he gave his son his own name as a middle name, I feel it actually helps clear up potential confusion. Also, let's leave this open long enough to have an actual discussion after the holidays. The last one was closed after just a few hours. Jokestress (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm flip-flopping on this one. Jokestress makes a good point with the quotation. He basically outed himself to public attention with his statement and opened himself up to the scrutiny. The reliable sources protect WP from any BLP issues.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Jokestress. It's bizarre to quote someone without identifying him/her by name (assuming that this information is publicly available). I can understand the initial reluctance, but the individual in question chose to issue a statement (widely published with his name attached), so he obviously didn't intend to conceal his identity. We're under no obligation — legal, moral or ethical — to provide privacy that isn't even sought. —David Levy 17:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• What about all the other guys with the last name Lanza? Isn't it better to remove any confusion and report what major news sources have reported, that is, "Peter"? Is it right to name Ryan Lanza but not Peter? Abductive (reasoning) 16:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with corrections, the car

How is Wikipedia dealing with corrections which were made to the original, official story claiming that Ryan Lanza was the killer? Because Wikipedia is based on citing reliable sources, and these reliable sources claimed that Ryan was the killer before making changes to the story. Are we no longer citing the reliable source claims that Ryan was the killer simply because reliable sources have published a reversion of that claim themselves?

I ask because, although reliable sources first reported that Lanza stole his mother's black Honda civic and drove it to the scene, since the police background check of the car was released, we can hear them say that the car, with the license plate 872-YEO, was registered to (Redacted). It could be that Lanza's mom purchased the car from (Redacted), or that Adam Lanza somehow obtained access to this car, which did not belong to his mom. Both are conjecture. In any case, are we simply reporting that the car belonged to Lanza's mom because the press did not revert its original story like it did with the Ryan Lanza report?

Adam Lanza then drove his mother's car to Sandy Hook Elementary School.[12][13]

Here are our two sources, dated December 14, the day of the incident:

• "Gunman dead after killing 20 children, 6 adults at Connecticut elementary school". Fox News Channel. December 14, 2012. Retrieved December 14, 2012.
• Esposito, Richard; Smith, Candice; Ng, Christina (December 14, 2012). "20 Children Died in Newtown, Conn., School Massacre". Associated Press. ABC News. Retrieved December 14, 2012.

But since then the audio tape where police run a background check on the car has been released.--Nonono2222 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I took out the pharse "his mother's car" as it is a disputed detail at this time. The article discusses the error regarding his brother, citing sources. Jokestress (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The black Honda Civic is shown here. People in the blogs have claimed that the police audio recording shows that the vehicle was registered to another man, whose name has been redacted for BLP reasons and should not be given here. This is another area where confusion has occurred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I am happy with the change. Of course, the questions remain, but I understand that's not our job. Cheers. --Nonono2222 (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just remember that a source is never reliable if its authors have retracted it. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a massacre, not a shooting

Both the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech tragedies have Wikipedia articles which refer to them as "massacres". Since the circumstances surrounding this shooting were very similar to those two shootings, and the number of victims was even greater than the number of victims at Columbine, why in the world is it so controversial to retitle this article "Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre"? That's what it freaking was, a freaking massacre!!! Get over your silly issues and call it that already! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.44.248 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 January 2013‎

What do reliable sources call it? Just a quick google search for the 2 names, shooting comes back with About 9,950,000 hits and massacre has About 1,800,000 hits. It looks like shooting is used more often. GB fan 00:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As we are guided by what sources call it (per WP:COMMONNAME):

• Google search of "sandy hook shooting": 65,000,000 hits
• Google search of "sandy hook massacre": 4,760,000 hits.

It is not our place to ask why the media calls an event a "shooting" and another a "massacre". --MASEM (t) 00:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, somebody needs to go back and rename the "Virginia Tech massacre" page to the "Virginia Tech shooting" page

• Google search of "virginia tech shooting": 28,000,000 hits.
• Google search of "virginia tech massacre": 2,100,000 hits.

and then after that, go ahead and do the same for the "Columbine High School massacre" page

• Google search of "columbine high school massacre": 1,010,000 hits.
• Google search of "columbine high school massacre": 894,000 hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.44.248 (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And just as a note as I was about to close that search window, nearly all the hits on "sandy hill massacre"'s front page are about a Florida university professor asserting the "massacre" was staged by Obama. This gives me even stronger conviction that the fewer sources calling it a "massacre" are trying to drive home a point. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

has this been discussed? The word massacre might fit. However, I always interpreted massacres to be over ideologies or religion and perpetrated by a group on another group. Could be wrong. It was a shooting but was it a massacre? Mass sacrifice is what massacre comes from...see the wiki. I'm not sure on this. I will leave to linguistic experts on the precise word. Shooting implies guns, but there Is always the war of word choice.Justanonymous (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that we did talk about a review of the article name some time after the event died down to determine what sources end up calling it (whether it was "Sandy Hook/Sandy Hook Elementary/Newport" or "shooting/massacre" and other details. Massacre is a rather strong word (it implies a more emotional response than just "shooting"), and to me would fall in the "weasel words" realm, meaning that we would need most sources to use that word that "shooting" to justify it as the title here. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• As the editor who moved this article to its present title, I have no objection to "massacre". I did this because that seemed to be the norm at List of school shootings in the United States. However, those shootings which exceed 6 or 7 victims are named "massacres" on Wikipedia. Google searches are unreliable at this scale, especially because Wikipedia itself is such an influence on Google. Abductive (reasoning) 16:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If we restrict to Google News (where WP has no influence): "Sandy Hook shooting" has 22,700 hits, "Sandy Hook massacre" has 9,240. Still favors the former name. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • What is your evidence that Wikipedia has no influence on Google News? "Sandy Hook elementary school shooting"" has 25,600 results on News, and it can't be a coincidence that this happened to be the title I chose. Abductive (reasoning) 16:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a source that is used to pull news articles for Google News (Google search in general, of course it is). Glancing through the hits of "sandy hook elementary school shooting", the text is not used with any connection to Wikipedia. In other words, this is a term the media has come around on its own. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are we discussing something that's a non-issue? There is a redirect at Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre so anyone looking for either will find the article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:LAME. WPians love to argue over titles even though they end up at the same place. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OMG, ROFL! I'm not sure which worse, the fact that it happens often enough that there is an article or that anyone cares enough to track it! Oh Vey! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that this page should be titled massacre rather than shooting because it well fits the definition of massacre:

The definition of 'massacre': http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/massacre 1. The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the norms of civilized people.

The definition of 'shooting': http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shooting 1. An instance of shooting (a person) with a gun. Police are hunting the people who carried out the shootings last week.

What happened at Sandy Hook School better fits the definition of a massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.13.205 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As posted above, a re-direct already exists for 'Sandy Hook massacre'. The article could conceivably be called many different things... 'Newtown, Connecticut shooting', 'Newtown shooting', 'Newtown massacre', 'Newtown mass murder', 'Sandy Hook school mass murder', 'Sandy Hook Elementary School mass murder'... Shearonink (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we lose the scoreboard?

I'd like to go on record saying I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the quasi-statistical sports-themed scoreboard box. This looks like nothing less than glorifying and highlighting individual aspects of the shooting completely liberated from the terrible nature of the crime. This is the same format used to highlight reasons to be proud of or impressed by athletes and other high achievers, and I think it actually feeds into encouraging this behavior as somehow normative. There's a long-standing, hateful meme about "high scores" and gun spree killers that is widely circulated. Additionally, this presence of this scoreboard box could well be traumatizing for relations and victims of these events. Is there some discussion or justification about using this design element that has taken place? If not, I am going to remove it as highly inappropriate, hurtful, possibly to be seen as an endorsement of this kind of behavior, and it adds very little of value to the article in any case. None of the information presented is tabulated or aggregated in any useful fashion to the best of my knowledge, so why put it out there as if it represents a valid body of statistical data when it does not?146.115.156.66 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the "list of victims" table, then I agree with you. I think it violates the principle of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. However, I think it's been discussed and other editors have developed consensus to keep it, though I could be wrong. A search of the talk page archives could prove or disprove that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see this listing of the dead and wounded as a scoreboard at all, to me it is simply a list. I would also like to point out that this listing is the only place in the article where many of these victims people are mentioned by name and age and that this information is important to understanding the subject. And, yes, how to list the victims has been discussed before, specifically in Archive #3 at Victims section on December 15th and 16th. Editors posting there also stated that the list is in line with the format of the victims' lists at Virginia Tech massacre and at Columbine. Shearonink (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of giving this information in a list format, but there is a similar one at Dunblane school massacre.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF applies there, just because another article has it does not make it right or wrong, I also agree that the list of victims should be removed its an eye catcher and goes against WP:MEMORIAL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not post that I thought the list-box was right or wrong, just that a precedent had been set by the usage of such list-boxes in many other similar articles. If editorial consensus is that this victim/list-box (yes I now know the original post is about the article's main infobox) is offensive or unneeded or against policy in this article, then what makes a similar listing inoffensive or needed or within policy for all similar articles? Shearonink (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The list makes it easy to read, and shows the age of the victims. Hopefully that will stick in people's heads, and they'll watch out for warning signs and try not to go crazy themselves. Dream Focus 18:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind a list of victims. I'm talking about the pull out box at the top right that lists facts about the event, like "Attack type" and "Weapon(s)" used. Its ghastly to portray this information as if this mass shooting was a golf tournament or a shoot-em-up video game. Not only is it a shock to the conscience, it's a poor way to represent the information. As I said before, this information is being presented as if it were pulled from a body of statistical data; and it isn't. Can we replace this scorecard box with a short, factual blurb that summarizes the information and doesn't literally look like the level summary screen from a violent video game?146.115.156.66 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, you've brought up an interesting point. Article Infoboxes are supposed to succinct, they don't *have* to include every single reported fact about the subject. Shearonink (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The pull out box at the top right in question is called an infobox (See also: WP:INFOBOX) and gives overall detals about the article, I agree though that the weapons used is not needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, I misunderstood when I first read your comment. I agree a few details can be removed from it. Maybe we should have a full discussion about the list of victims, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

See discussion below about the victims list.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories merge

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.

---

I propose merging Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories with this per WP:FORK, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE pbp 00:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nom: pbp 00:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  That's automatically assumed, no need to state the obvious. Dream Focus 00:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Against How would fit all of that over here? If you mean delete, just nominate it for deletion. You aren't going to be merging all of that. Dream Focus 00:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If I did that, you'd claim that the few references that are in there constitute passing GNG. BTW, have you been following me? You !voted in this 4 minutes after I started it pbp 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think I was following you? Look in the sections above, and the time I posted there. You shouldn't try to have a pretend merge, just as a way around a proper AFD. Dream Focus 01:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• oppose WP:FRINGE would tend to support keeping it seperate as to not create WP:UNDUE here wouldn't it? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, FRINGE would say just dump all the content. The content of the article pretty clearly doesn't represent a mainstream view pbp 00:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles about fringe theories. These are getting enough attention to pass WP:GNG I dont think fringe would overrules that. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I dont think a merge would help this article, you cant deny it passes per WP:GNG. Someone should go through it though and cite things from the opposing point of view to add to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gaijin. The subject easily meets WP:GNG, but extended discussion of it in this article would be WP:UNDUE. --BDD (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have started a discussion about the article's issues here: Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose My reading of WP:FRINGE is that a fork article is exactly what should be done. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose anything that gives this FRINGE crap any semblance of credibility. Against the current (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Take it to AFD and delete that crap per WP:FRINGE (not WP:Notability). Don't clutter up a decent article with that nonsense. Toddst1 (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Also, recommend deletion of the conspiracy article.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2013 (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.

Conspiracy theories

Perhaps some mention in the article could be made of the conspiracy theorists who are now claiming that this tragedy was in fact staged or created by Obama in order to further his gun control policies?

"(SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL) A communication professor known for conspiracy theories has stirred controversy at Florida Atlantic University with claims that last month’s Newtown, Conn., school shootings did not happen as reported — or may not have happened at all.

Moreover, James Tracy asserts in radio interviews and on his memoryholeblog.com. that trained “crisis actors” may have been employed by the Obama administration in an effort to shape public opinion in favor of the event’s true purpose: gun control."

Here are some other links: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/08/florida-professor-questions-newtown-shooting-massacre-calls-for-more/#ixzz2HPUHuNSg http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/01/absolute-proof-sandy-hook-massacre-was-staged-2447514.html http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/01/theater-shooter-actors-linked-to-sandy-hook-actors-exposed-as-a-fraud-video-2530994.html http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/latest-news/1129--further-evidence-shows-sandy-hook-was-staged http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/professor-obama-staged-sandy-hook-massacre/#cQClK1b3Y1drVLEk.99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.208.202 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the murders, not about the beliefs of various conspiracy enthusiasts. WP:FRINGE applies. Shearonink (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

None of the conspiracy theories so far has reached the grassy knoll stage where it would have to be mentioned in the article. There are bound to be various people putting forward alternative/fringe theories, this always happens. The theory is unoriginal, as some people in Australia said that the government staged the Port Arthur massacre to push through new gun control laws. Elvis Presley assures me that this is untrue:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No.

• WP:UNDUE
• WP:Fringe

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

These Sandy Hook conspiracy nuts are idiots, but very sadly its getting more and more press attention as of today. I think Sandy Hook truthers or similar could be inevitable, or treatment somewhere else, I would suggest a subsection of Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, because these conspiracy whackjobs are indeed a reaction to a tragedy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If it gets to the same level as JFK assassination conspiracies or 9/11 Conspiracies, sure. But every big event in America, especially if it has any political consequences will generate fringe conspiracy claims. We don't have to document them all, and should just document those that have become significantly prominent. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Time

Time (in the summary box) of the shootings listed is the time of the response, not the shootings. Why is the wrong time listed? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The time given is circa 9:35 - 9:49 AM, which allows for a margin of error. The first phone call to the emergency services was received at 9:35, and all the indications are that the shooting had stopped by 9:50.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary personal details and injuries

I found this personal detail about the injuries associated with a name to be unnecessary: "and at least one victim, six-year-old Noah Pozner, 11 times." While it is true those details were given in the references I wonder if such details could be cut from this article. Personally I don't see how the number of times they were shot or where they were shot are of any importance unless they formed a pattern of some significance. The fact that the details were published elsewhere may not be good reason to post it here. Zedshort (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It shows how mentally disturbed the person was. He shot a six year old 11 times. Helps to understand his mindset better. He wasn't just running around trying to kill as many as possible, he was shooting nonstop at some victims. A map showing where all the shots were fired at, and how many bullets he used from what weapons where, would be useful also. Dream Focus 19:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. You could make the case that we need to know how much blood oozed from each wound or the tormented screams of the wounded but I doubt it would be of use at this encyclopedic level of information dissemination. There comes a point where more information is unnecessary and even uncalled for. This article is not a forensics science investigation of a crime scene and should not come close.Zedshort (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a WP:NOTCENSORED issue here. As mentioned, the fact that one of the victims was shot eleven times was widely covered in the media. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The gruesome nature of the shootings is highly relevant. Coretheapple (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Words likes "mentally disturbed" and "gruesome" are not appropriate to be considering here without reliable sources to back them up. By human nature we want to sympathize for the losses and paint the shooter as much of an evil person, but at the same time, we as WPians need to be impassionate about the event, and thus we have to be careful about assigning meaning and intent when none is known or has been documented. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are not subject to the same rules as the articles. We can openly discuss just how crazy the shooter was if it helps craft the article. At present, saying "six-year-old Noah Pozner, 11 times" is extraordinarily well-supported by the sources. The speculation about the shooter's mental state and possible underlying illness is very delicately handled in the article. I see nothing to change. Abductive (reasoning) 22:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The name of the victim should probably be removed per WP:NOTMEMORIAL (discussion in #List of victims revisited (Do we need it? Opinions sought)). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTMEMORIAL and you'll see it does not apply here at all. If you need an explanation I posted one in the section above. Dream Focus 23:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the name of the victim should be removed, not the number of times shot. While the referenced source supply that information (and other not relevant information such as his ethnicity) that is the mistake of those sources and the brutality should not be perpetuated. I think there are some people on WP that are too fond of throwing the blue flags into the air and not spending enough time thinking about their intent. Keep in mind that they are not rules just guidelines, and if our consciences guide us I am sure you will understand we do not need to know the gruesome details down to the trail of blood and where their brain matter was found. Separate the name from the details. Zedshort (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the families would be upset seeing the names listed there? Might be upset if they weren't listed. And we aren't listing where their brain matter was found, but could mention what part of the school they were shot in. Dream Focus 01:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the names be removed except to separate them from the details of their injuries. We don't need to know the extent of the injuries or the type of bullets used to be connected to their names. The names need to dissociated from the injuries. What part of the body, the number of times, should not be connected with the names of the individuals. Zedshort (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories--article written

I've gone ahead and written Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. As press coverage of these theories continues, the topic is more solidly meets WP:GNG with every passing day. However, since the issue has caused controversy before on this talk page, I wanted to build consensus before forcing it into the article. I was thinking a very short section with a {{main}}, but it may also be appropriate to name some of the more prominent theories. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, all these Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are utter bullshit, but I begrudgingly admit they are getting press coverage. I'd keep the mention in the main article short, e.g., Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is a mere see also mention in Abraham Lincoln because that debate is utter bullshit too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's bullshit that some people are so untethered to reality, and agree with Milowent that I don't want it besmirching this page. Can we keep it to the "see also" section? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that. I'll add it now. Based on future coverage, we can make a judgment call whether or not it deserves integration into the article itself. --BDD (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:ONEWAY this seems like a good solution. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a 'See also' is the best/least offensive solution. Good idea. Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Change to lede

The current lede has several deficiencies, an obvious problem is the irrelevant mention of his age in the lede, but the whole structure of the lede is an issue as well. Proseline is problematic in any part of an article, but in the first part of the lede starting off with "on x date" and never giving a formal name for the subject makes the article seem more like a journal entry or news timeline than an encyclopedic work. Additionally, while the editor restoring the status-quo and the little note on the page cites MOS:BOLDTITLE, by keeping the current version we are ignoring several more important aspects of WP:LEDE. The first sentence does not name the actual subject and it does not explain why this event is notable. As such I would suggest the following change:

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, also called the Newtown massacre, was the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history and the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school. It occurred on December 14, 2012, when Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members and wounded two at the elementary school in Sandy Hook, Newtown, Connecticut. Before driving to the school, Lanza had shot and killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

While there is some redundancy, it is not even close to the extent of that provided in the example on the guideline page. I do not believe the redundancy is distracting in this case and it helps distinguish aspects of the event's notability. Please suggest any changes, but I think we can easily incorporate the article title into the first sentence of the lede and have it read well at the same time. There is no reason to keep reverting back to the old lede.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You note that we "never [give] a formal name for the subject". That's because the subject lacks a formal name (and it isn't our place to invent one).

"Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" is merely our short-form description of the event, in use because every article requires a title. Likewise, "Newtown massacre" is merely one of numerous descriptions appearing in various media. Neither is the event's de facto name (a designation settled upon by most reliable sources, à la "Columbine High School massacre" or "Virginia Tech massacre"), so there's no reason to assign seemingly official status. (See WP:SBE for elaboration.)

Regarding Lanza's age, I don't object to its removal from the lead. But I strongly disagree that the statistics are "why this event is notable" and should precede the basic description of the shooting and when/where it occurred. —David Levy 05:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" does a pretty good job of describing the event and where it occurred. It doesn't give the date, but there is no need to give a date for an event in the first sentence of the lede and it would be in the sentence right after that. Also, while it isn't the formal name, it is definitely a common name that was being used right from the start, though sometimes leaving out the word "school". Nothing you have mentioned is of such importance as to demand keeping the current the version.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" does a pretty good job of describing the event and where it occurred.

Only in the most general sense. My point is that "On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members and wounded two in the village of Sandy Hook in the town of Newtown, Connecticut." is more important to convey upfront than the statistics are.

It doesn't give the date, but there is no need to give a date for an event in the first sentence of the lede and it would be in the sentence right after that.

We routinely include the date in the first sentence, irrespective of whether a commonly accepted name exists.

Also, while it isn't the formal name, it is definitely a common name that was being used right from the start, though sometimes leaving out the word "school".

Again, numerous variants have been used to describe the event. There's no need for us to arbitrarily single out two of them and treat them as official names.

Nothing you have mentioned is of such importance as to demand keeping the current the version.

Nothing you've mentioned is of such importance as to demand changing it. —David Levy 06:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a moment to look at when that note was first added and located it. Funny thing is, that editor seems to be saying "I've seen this elsewhere so adding it here", and I also noticed that in every article I could find on this sort of killing, the only other times such a note or style occurs on these major articles is when you have been there shoving it into the article. This is just MOS POV-pushing, and I also see that you have been repeatedly forcing this style of lede, and the note, into this article: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. At that time you reverted five times to an identical version based on your own personal preference, four of those reverts being within four hours. Yet you had the gall to warn me of edit-warring, absolutely absurd.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a moment to look at when that note was first added and located it. Funny thing is, that editor seems to be saying "I've seen this elsewhere so adding it here",

No, the note wasn't blindly copied. The editor wrote "paste comment from similar instances where titles get rebolded". Users unfamiliar with the MoS convention mistakenly attempt to "fix" the style unless they're advised of the guideline. That's the note's purpose. You seem to believe that it's some sort of attempt to impose authority. As I explained on your talk page, it carries no weight in and of itself. It's merely informative.

and I also noticed that in every article I could find on this sort of killing, the only other times such a note or style occurs on these major articles is when you have been there shoving it into the article.

That simply isn't true. I certainly have performed such edits, but I'm far from the only user to do so. (As you just acknowledged, I wasn't the editor who originally added the note to this article.) I neither created the guideline nor authored the supplementary essay.

This is just MOS POV-pushing, and I also see that you have been repeatedly forcing this style of lede, and the note, into this article: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. At that time you reverted five times to an identical version based on your own personal preference, four of those reverts being within four hours.

One of those edits undid a change made by someone who misunderstood the note (but didn't contest the guideline's application). Another entailed the note's restoration after its accidental removal (by someone who neither contested the guideline's application nor switched to a different style). Another, as explicitly noted, was performed with the consent of the party reverted (with whom I discussed the matter first).

Yet you had the gall to warn me of edit-warring, absolutely absurd.

Instead of reporting your three-revert rule violation, I left a polite reminder on your talk page. I was trying to be helpful. As I explained there, I did so because I recognized that you sincerely intended to improve the article and were performing constructive edits. —David Levy 17:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the existing version seen here is better because it puts the emphasis on what happened - Lanza fatally shot 26 at the school, as well as killing his mother and himself. Similarly, I think the portion about deadliest school killing rankings should not be elevated to the first sentence of the lede... the Virginia Tech and Bath School Bombing articles do not do that, so why should we do that here? As far as Lanza's age is concerned, I'm fine with that being removed, it's a bit like "the gunman" text that was added five times today. AzureCitizen (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be rewritten, I see there was an earlier version that might be more consistent with how we handle these articles. Now that I see this current format is the product of one POV-pushing editor's campaign to force everyone to adopt his preferred style of lede I am open to anything that moves away from the current version.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should provide some diffs to support the allegation that the current lede "is the product of one POV-pushing editor's campaign to force everyone to adopt his preferred style"? AzureCitizen (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See my comment to Levy above. It appears multiple editors have previously tried to change the current style of the lede away from its current state, but Levy has been repeatedly reverting to keep it the way he likes it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See my replies. —David Levy 17:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your accusation is baseless. I didn't create the guideline, author the supplementary essay or introduce the note to this article. I'm one of many users who work to ensure that the MoS style is properly implemented.

Likewise, I have no doubt that your edits reflect a sincere desire to improve the article. I disagree with some of them, but I won't characterize them as a "POV-pushing editor's campaign to force everyone to adopt his preferred style of lede". —David Levy 17:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

We should keep the who/what/where/when information in the first sentence. Comparative/editorial content needs to come after that, as you have to be able to define what you are talking about to compare it to something else. No comment on if any particular version are POV pushingGaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Who and when are not of paramount importance in describing the event unless Sandy Hook Elementary has been the site of multiple notable shootings, which I do not believe is the case. Perpetrators are rarely mentioned in the first sentence of the lede of an article on a criminal act. The title already indicates where and what so including the title in the lede satisfies that easily. As I said, I am open to suggestions on how to handle the rest, but I see no compelling reason to keep the article title out of the lede.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Im absolutely fine with the title in the lede (first sentence) as well. My objection was to the version that had the first sentence as "The sandy hook shooting was the second most deadly" etc. I can see leaving the who to a secondary sentence though. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The simplest way to incorporate it is to have the title followed by "took place on" or "occurred on" and then just keep the rest of the first instance, except maybe removing some potential redundancy. Something like:

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, also called the Newtown massacre, took place on December 14, 2012, when Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members and wounded two at the school in the village of Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut.

I think that is suitable for the lede and would be an improvement over the current version.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, neither "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" nor "Newtown massacre" is a generally accepted name for the event. One is our article's title and the other is one of many widely used descriptions, selected seemingly at random. Your argument seems to be based on nothing more than disagreement with the MoS.

Unless and until a de facto name is established, there's absolutely no reason for us to manufacture one or redundantly state that a shooting took place when people were shot. —David Levy 19:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Both of those are widely accepted names. The MoS definitely does not forbid using widely-used titles in the first sentence and it doesn't forbid having them in boldface, nor does it even discourage either of those things in any way. My proposed changes are completely consistent with the MoS despite your attempts to claim otherwise.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

The event has no generally accepted name (in the sense that I mean). Unlike the examples that I cited ("Columbine High School massacre" and "Virginia Tech massacre"), no designation has been settled upon by most reliable sources.

As noted above, your selection of "Newtown massacre" is seemingly random. Numerous phrases (including "Sandy Hook shooting", "Sandy Hook shootings", "Sandy Hook massacre", "Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre", "Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings" and "Newtown shooting") appear to be in wider use, some by large margins.

All of these terms (and others) have commonly appeared among reliable sources. And and this juncture, all of them are merely descriptive. We needn't list these variants in the article, let alone arbitrarily single out two and misrepresent them as the event's formal names. —David Levy 23:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Age

Is there a reason the age should be omitted? I've restored it. Can we discuss this? Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Two editors agreed with me about this in the above discussion. It is not sufficiently relevant to the actual subject as to merit mention in the lede. Mentioning it in the article body is reasonable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Putting Lanza's age in the first sentence makes it appear that age is somehow significant to the article. It isn't. Indeed, Lanza's mental illness would be more relevant, and it's not mentioned in the lead at all. His birth date is already in the article. Rklawton (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Key Questions

Watched a conspiracy vid, and though geeze, this is crap, but i decided to try to debunk it myself. I found: https://www.facebook.com/VictoriaSotoCausePag/info and https://www.facebook.com/pages/RIP-Victoria-Soto/331085463672239?sk=info The second link actually says "Test Event Webpage" in the description! Really? How did they know she was going to die 4 days ahead of schedule? Now I am starting to wonder if there is something behind the conspiracy theory after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.229.193 (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Those two particular pages are easily explained. You can change the title of a group after the fact, which does not change its creation date. So any random group created on that day can be re purposed as an RIP page. No comment on if it was done to perpetuate a hoax in this case, or is an honest RIP page that happens to look suspicious. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant here see WP:FORUM. Please close this discussion and take the discussion to another medium outside of Wikipedia. - Justanonymous (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Murder vs Slaughter vs Killing

Adding this to discuss terminology. In President Obama's statement in the reaction section, originally there was an entry calling the actions "slaughter" I changed it to "murder" and then it was changed to "killing" The notion is that murder requires maliceaforethought, mensrea. I reverted killing to murder per WP:BRD - let's discuss - I think it's pretty clear that these acts were murderous. The alleged criminal destroyed a hard drive, killed his mother, drove to the school, put on earplugs, and went on a shooting spree. the word kill seems like it could be innocent without fault while slaughter seems like something that is done to animals not humans. What say you all? - Justanonymous (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Murder is a legal term. I think everyone would agree that had this gone to trial, he would be convicted of murder, but he wasn't. Beyond that we get to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS. killing is the most neutral, but does indicate an intentional act, (as opposed to the passive "died" etc). Slaughter, Massacre (and murder) etc are more charged terms, but often used by notable comm enters and reliable sources, so I do no think we could on policy say those words were NOT acceptable. Slaughter is used for illustrative effect, by those who mean to say Lanza treated them like animals, without regard to their humanity. (Not saying we should use that world, just saying why the word may not be inaccurate). I think your objection that "kill" could be read as "without fault" is unlikely , but is technically correct (just as homicide includes the subset of justifiable homicide). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree slaughter gives a connotation that they were treated like animals but also generally when you slaughter an animal, it's also generally for a useful purpose - at least we rural people think so, we slaughter a cow not for pleasure but for sustenance. On the legal front - yes murder is a term that in used in law but its also also used in common language - My contention is that this was homicide - humans killing humans. It's a criminal act. It doesn't require a trial to label something a homicide or to say that a murder occurred. Police do it all the time, that's why they charge someone with "murder." you don't charge them with homicide, you charge someone with "murder." Don't need to go to trial and there likely will never be a trial here. We even categorize these things as mass murders on the wiki. I understand that killing is the most noncharged term but this was a mass murder, to leave it at killing seems like we're oversanitizing what happened here. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Small quibble. They are charged with murder, but they are not a murderer until convicted. However, that logic applies to the perp, not the event. The medical examiner can rule any death to be a Homicide, but in absense of a trial it is supposition that Murder occurred (Although in this case WP:COMMONSENSE can get us there.). My point is not that we MUST or MUST NOT use any particular word. I think a case can be made for all of them. I'm just saying we will have to decide this via consensus, and those who say "Word X must/must not" be used are not relying on policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, not a big deal. let's see what the group thinks and we'll go with what the consensus word. Cheers. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There was one place in the article where I changed "murdered" to "killed". (My change was since reverted.) There were several other places in the article that used "murder" that I did not change. I made that particular change because my impression is that we should be aware that there can be some POV expressed by repeatedly preferring one term over the other. My impression is that in the particular sentence that I changed, the word "murdered" seemed like it was intentionally being used in a judgmental, opinionated way. It's best to generally try to prefer more neutral terms instead of constantly using opinionated or judgmental terms. If we use the word "murder" over and over everywhere, in reference to an act committed by someone who clearly had serious mental problems and is now dead and thus unavailable for further investigation of his mental capacity or state of mind at the time of the act, to me that seems like we are just trying to express personal outrage and failing to maintain a neutral point of view. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's always hard but we should not try to impress emotions on the statements of others. We should assume good faith on the part of our fellow editors. I read a sentence three or four times before I make an edit to let the initial emotion pass. The word choice is a legitimate debate, although not a big one, on which term should be used here. I thought that slaughter was not the right word and that killing did not accurately reflect what happened. Lanza will likely not be judged in a court so no conviction will ever be made and his state of mind is most certainly in question. In history and in WP:Comonsense, this will be remembered as a mass murder, so I chose that word as the most appropriate. The common understanding is that this person shot and killed a bunch of innocent people, many of them very young - we as a society generally classify that as murder, I'm ok with that word but no, we likely won't be able to convict him or exhonerate him based on reason of insanity.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 January 2013

Please change the first line of the second paragraph under the "shootings" heading. The rifle was found locked in the trunk of the car and was never used at the school. Incidentally, the rifle was not even a Bushmaster. The way it is currently written is not true. I respect Wikipedia and use it often for research. I am troubled to find such a glaring lie on your website.

69.10.216.9 (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We have sources saying otherwise. Unless you can provide us with a WP:RS saying otherwise, then we'll not change it. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

See Q4 in the FAQ at the top of the talk page, this is the result of early confusion and some hype in the blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is vitally important to document the crimes committed

This article is incomplete without a thorough listing of the specific crimes committed in this horrific event. I respectfully request that this information be added by local experts in law enforcement and/or the judicial system. Without this information, we are unable to have reasonable and objective discussions about changing existing laws or adding new laws to try to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.114.167 (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to have something added, we need to know exactly what it is, and where you heard it. For example, if I were to want to add "Bill was charged with a count of third-degree murder" I need a newspaper article to back it up. So, please provide us that before continuing. Also, the purpose of Wikipedia is NOT to facilitate discussions about changing laws. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Forum. That said, the perpetrator is dead, no one is going to be charged, arrested, or even indicted. How is your request going to be accomplished and substantiated by WP standards?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The evidence has been sealed by a judge for 90 days. The information may never be available, which is what's fueling the conspiracy theories. USchick (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that "The evidence has been sealed by a judge for 90 days"? HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

News report [13] USchick (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that means we have neither information nor sources. All we can document is the fact that the information is not available. It's not our job to comment on that situation. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The available information is full of contradictions. We may want to say that. [14] USchick (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In investigations like this, where the lone perpetrator is dead and the details are straightforward, it's not usual for a state to seek to seal records sealed for additional time and to keep details from the general public unless they're just having a hard time making heads or tails of the evidence or if there is too much evidence to piece together in the time they've had. The statement that the state's interest outweighs the release and that the release of details could affect the outcome of the investigation means that the state is still conducting their investigation - they might be chasing a loose end, something or someone (but we don't know and we should not conjecture on the wiki). I think it's noteworthy to add a one liner indicating that the state sought and won a request to keep the records sealed for an additional 90 days as their investigation continues.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

And as a cautionary tale, I've seen this go both ways. Sometimes people think the fact that the state sought to keep the records sealed for a longer period means that something big is out there and sometimes that is the case but at other times, it turns out to be some administrivia reason for keeping the records sealed. So we should really not try to read at all into this sealing decision.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

polls

I recently reverted some (good faith) additions of polling information. I do not think we have consensus for such information, but if we do, we certainly must include the ragnge of reliable polling information in an WP:NPOV manner, not just 1 or 2 poll results that support a particular POV.

Here are some additional reliable/major polls that would need to be incorporated into a balanced view.

• http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx
• http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/cnntime-poll-slight-dip-in-support-for-gun-control-measures-in-last-month/
• http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/28/record-high74-percentoppose-handgun-ban

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly don't think this kind of polling information is material to describing this crime. We should be discrete, this article is about a crime, not about gun control, mental health, school security etc. This kind of information might fit in some long term article about the politics and perception of crime in America but not in this article. -Justanonymous (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2013

Add interwiki link please: ur:سینڈی ہک ایلمینٹری سکول فائرنگ Fmc47 (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes article

Snopes has a new article looking at conspiracy theories surrounding the shooting.[15] It also debunks the claim that the man CR was the owner of the black Honda in which Lanza drove to the school.[16]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes says that the police scanner picked up two requests simultaneously, one for information on the car with the YEO plates, in front of the school, and one for an alleged traffic stop by the police involving CR "out of town". The Ct Post article cited by Snopes does not clear up the owner of the vehicle, however. It only says it belonged to a "Lanza family member".--92.231.97.44 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial reports said that the black Honda belonged to Adam Lanza's mother.[17] The ctpost article from January 3 says that "the black Honda with that license plate, belongs to a relative of Lanza's." The police audio recording is a primary source and is not suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 January 2013

Update on my request per Gwickwire's suggestion: Please change the first line of the second paragraph under the "shootings" heading. The rifle was found locked in the trunk of the car and was never used at the school. Incidentally, the rifle was not even a Bushmaster. The way it is currently written is not true. Here is my source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iGn4o1Lb6L0 This is a link to the NBC news video.

69.10.216.9 (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The video you linked from youtube is from a live NBC News report aired on December 15, 2012, the day after the shooting. In it, they mistakenly say there were four handguns recovered from inside the school, and that an "AR-15 style rifle" was recovered from the car he drove to the school. This is incorrect. It was a shotgun that police retrieved from the car, while the rifle and two handguns were found with Lanza at the location where he committed suicide. AzureCitizen (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The handguns/Bushmaster/rifle/erroneous-NBCTV-report has been discussed previously on this talkpage many times (see Archive 3 and Archive 5). It is also mentioned in the FAQ section above under "I heard there was an NBC News report that said only handguns were used. Why isn't that in the article?". Shearonink (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2013

Please remove all notice of Adam Lanza using an AR-15 assault rifle, NBC news reported on Jan 14th that te AR was found in the car in the parking lot. and not used in the shootings and that there is validiity to the "conspiracy theorists" becasue their is so much contradicitng information.

71.36.9.212 (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Scroll-up and see the answer to the previous request and then please check the Talk archive for the previous 3 or 4 answers to the same question.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

weapons used

Contrary to NBC News, NO rifles were used. My source is NBC Today Show news, which aired at a later date than the footnotes about the Bushmaster in the article, therefore NBC had updated news about the weapons used. NBC aired this on Jan 17, 2013. In the future I'd like to see the actual coroner report instead of links to news articles. The news got every detail about this shooting wrong multiple times. A coroner report would settle this most significant detail, and stop bad information from being spread further.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGn4o1Lb6L0&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelava22 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Scroll-up and see the answer to the second previous request and then please check the Talk archive for the previous 3 or 4 answers to the same question[18].   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL, nicely put... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I didn't attribute it earlier.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

NBC did not air that clip on January 17th, 2013, Bluelava. Your link is to a youtube copy, which youtube user 123erfdsf has labeled as "NBC admits that there was no assault rifle at the Newton Sandy Hook school shooting" and "Published on Jan 17, 2013". This is incorrect. If you click on this link at NBC itself, http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 , you will see that it's the exact same video, and below it says "Aired on December 15, 2012". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2013

He did not use an assault rifle. He did not use a bushmaster, He used handguns. Get your facts straight. 76.22.152.245 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Click this link (http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226) for the January 18th, 2013 statement from the Connecticut State Police. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Investigation - Misleading Sentence

"Under Connecticut law,[74] the 20-year-old Lanza was old enough to carry a long gun,[75]"

"Carry" has common meaning in conversations surrounding US gun law, inconsistent with the sentence's intended meaning and the content of the cited source. Specifically, with regard to carrying of handguns on one's person. Recommend replacement sentence... perhaps something like, "the 20-year-old Lanza would have met the minimum age requirement for purchase of a long gun [...]". Though that might imply it is the only requirement, which it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveD-0101 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is misleading to imply anything he did with the guns was legal. He didn't legally acquire them. He couldn't legally take them to the school, he couldn't legally carry them. All of this should be made clear. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The descriptive sentence is very correct as written. Twenty year olds have a broader right than to just purchase a long gun as the suggested revision would read, they indeed may carry long guns in Connecticut. There are specifics about how people should carry long guns but in general 20 year olds can carry long guns under the law in the state. The word carry in the sentence is consistent with the meaning and intent of the sentence. It's also quite common actually for hunters under 21 to carry long guns for hunting purposes. We do not know and should not conjecture on whether Lanza was barred from purchasing firearms - that part is not clear. Regarding Promontoriumispromontorium's comments, the sentence is not implying anything. It is attempting to establish whether 20 year olds can carry long guns and guns. Technically we could argue that Lanza broke the law when he assaulted and murdered his mother - at that point technically he should've been instantaneously taken into custody for trial - hopefully at the point that his mother apprehended mortal fear before he pulled the trigger he could've been taken into custody and then nothing bad would've happened - sadly we don't live in the world of Minority Report. No, the sentence in the Wiki article is correct. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think where we disagree is on implied meaning. I'd argue that use of "carry" here has real rhetorical effect, though I certainly concede that the use is (partly and only pedantically) defensible. A judgement call, I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveD-0101 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Was it an XM-15?

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.

---

I am questioning if we can say for certain the long gun that was used to kill the children was an XM-15. See this CNN article and they say it was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon" and "Police didn't offer details about the specific model of the rifle Lanza used." I've seem other articles say authorities said the Bushmaster XM-15 was use, but is that a direct quote from authorities or supposition on the part of some journalist. Maybe the news outlets are just quoting Wikipedia. Do we have a direct quote or better yet a press release? See Bushmaster's product page for XM-15s, MOE and Carbon 15. You can see the all look based on the AR-15 and thats just what they are selling now. They may have had other products in the past. Do we know what he used? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources say XM15, and we generally don't second guess that unless we have good cause Some sources saying they don't know what it was does not contradict the sources that say they do know. Bushmaster makes many rifles, but only a subset of those would be legal in Connecticut due to their in force Assault Weapons Ban. (CTs ban uses the "2 evil features" rule, so to avoid the ban likely had a fixed (non-adjustable) stock) Not all of the rifles are available in post-ban configurations. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for referance this is where XM-15 entered the article as a link and here as a visable name. here the editor mentions the rational for adding it, however the article he references no longer says anything about the rifle. It may have been changed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The assault rifle was not used to kill. It was in the trunk. http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.217.245 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The source you used has come back and released another article reaffirming the presence of the Bushmaster rifle: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/31221-update-state-police-confirm-weapons-used-in-newtown-shootings/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.133.221 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for referring that link, I've added it to the article. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Federal Officials are now saying their investigation showed that BOTH the shotgun and rifle were in the trunk, and that all shooting inside the school happened with the 4 handguns. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.166.118 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Read the links above, it will become clear to you that the NBC Today video you've linked from December 15th, 2012, had their facts wrong. The CT State Police re-confirmed on 18 January 2013 that a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle was found inside the school, while a shotgun was found in the car. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (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.

Edit request on 23 January 2013

Under the 'Investigation' portion of the article, in the first paragraph, the usage of the word "clips" is incorrect. It should read "magazines" instead. A clip is not used on AR-platform rifles. While not an urgent revision, it can simply be seen as a mirror towards the media's ignorance. 99.187.145.247 (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Police described the weapon as a XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round clips while some of the sources use the word magazine. There is an article here explaining the difference between a clip and a magazine.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference is of no consequence and provides no insight into the subject.Zedshort (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The IP is correct, you can not use clips in the magazine well of an AR-15 style rifle; you can only use clips to rapid-load a magazine. Furthermore, clips for AR-15 style rifles only have 10 rounds, hence it takes three stripper clips to load one 30-round magazine (and in practical usage, it's really difficult to strip-feed the last ten in, because by the time the magazines reaches 26 or 27 rounds, there is great resistance from the magazine's spring which is highly compressed). Lanza had to be using magazine(s), or he wouldn't have been able to fire the rifle in semi-automatic fashion. Putting that aside for a minute, did anyone else notice what has happened in the last 24 hours with the CT State Police press release? Yesterday (January 22nd), the CT State Police press release said "with high capacity 30 round clips". Today, the same web page says "with high capacity 30 round magazine", and at the bottom of the page you'll see the annotation "Content Last Modified on 1/23/2013 8:18:21 AM". So it looks like the authorities corrected it this morning, and not only did they change "clips" to "magazine", but they changed it from the plural to the singular. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The term "clip" is incorrect. A clip is a strip of metal that holds rounds for quick reloading of certain guns that don't have reloadable magazines. Magazines are self contained containers of rounds with springs. XM15 rifles have detachable magazines. The correct term is magazine. Members of WP:GUN will agree with me on that. Wikipedia sounds dumb when we use terms like clip and magazine interchangeably. The good folks at WP:GUN work very hard to fix these kinds of technicalities. This is a technicality. Make the change to magazine or I'll do it right away. It's not a point of debate, if a newspaper uses clip, they are in error, if the state police uses clip, they are in error (unless the perpetrator had a different type of firearm that). Let's fix this right away.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As a side note (to clarify for others reading this), when you speak of a clip above, I know you're referring to en bloc clips, which do not exist for AR-15 style rifles. For AR-15 style magazines, the clips are stripper clips. For anyone interesting in seeing examples, Ianmacm posted an article which has a good picture in it here. Pictured at far left is a commercially made AR-15 style 30-round magazine. Directly adjacent to it, one step to the right, is a 10-round clip holding .223 rounds which a user could strip feed into that magazine. At far right, an M1 Garand en bloc clip can be seen, which in operation would be fed (top loaded) directly into an M1 rifle. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem with weapon name Canta-12

I thought it was Saiga-12? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiga-12

Spelled "canta" if you try to read the cyrillic as english.

Niberto (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Good point. If you've read the thread immediately above, you'll note that it appears the Connecticut State Police corrected their January 18, 2013 press release this morning, changing "clips" to "magazine". It looks like they need to correct "Canta" to "Saiga" as well. It leads one to believe that perhaps the CTSP does not have one of their foremost firearms experts working the issue of accurately communicating technical and nomenclature aspects to the public. For now, I'll fix the link in the article and add a note. Thank you for pointing this out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is Сайга-12 in Cyrillic, the Russian version of the Wikipedia article about this shotgun is here. The police press release still says Canta-12.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

High Capacity Magazine?

As this has been removed twice from the "Investigation" section, we should probably have a discussion as to whether or not we should retain the words "high capacity" in the sentence "A 30 round high capacity magazine was recovered with the rifle" or if we should delete those two words so that it simply reads "A 30 round magazine was recovered with the rifle." The source citation is to the Connecticut State Police press release dated 18 January 2013, which says that seized inside the school was a "Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine".

One could argue that a 50-round or 100-round drum magazine is high capacity, hence a 30-round banana magazine shouldn't be. Conversely, they also make 10-round and 20-round magazines for AR-15 style rifles, in which case you might argue 30 rounds is high capacity. I'm not sure if there is a definitive definition of "high capacity", but with regard to the source citation before us, the State Police described it as "high capacity", hence I think we should stick with what the source says. Others may have a different opinion, so please share them here and we'll sort this out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"high-capacity" is a term commonly used, but it is a POV term, and we should treat it with the same care we treat sources that use "anti-choice" in abortion discussions. There are magazines of significantly higher capacity. There are magazines of significantly lower capacity. In the M4/M16/AR15 family, the weapon was designed to use and has standard issue (for military use) comes with (for civilian use) a 20 or 30 round magazine. The 30 round capacity was in fact a major contributing factor in the selection of the 5.56/.223 round for use (replacing 30-06 and .308) since they could more easily carry additional rounds. The official designation for the magazine is STANAG 4179 which defines the STANDARD size of magazines. (Although NATO did not in fact approve the standard, because all the countries couldn't agree on a single weapon. ). Gaijin42 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The non-POV use is just to say 30 round magazine, and not say high-capacity, or standard capacity, as both of those are expressing a POV. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

agree 100% with Gaijin42.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, just give the size. There is no need or value for/from giving an opinion on wheterh that number is large or small. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Autism diagnosis

A month and half after the incident the autism diagnosis is not confirmed by a psychiatrist or past medical records? may be rumors only, but the article states it as a fact. Kiatdd (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is covered in FAQ Q5 at the top of the talk page. The article is careful not to state this as a proven fact, but it has been seen as a line of inquiry by investigators.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Unidentified adult?

This statement, "The other was an unidentified adult.[6]" regarding the wounded sent to the hospital seems to be remedied in the section above that names the teacher being shot in an arm and a leg. Anyone care to update this? Or is this too ambiguous (i.e. WP:SYNTH? Rklawton (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 January 2013

I don't know how best to say it but I saw on NBC news that the AR-15 was not used in the shootings. In the shooting section of this article t is stated that it was used to go into the school then it intimates that it was used throughout. The citations for those statements are either nebulous 'sources say he changed magazines a lot' or were reported, incorrectly, in the flurry of activity immediately after the shooting. More up-to-date and wholly different information is now available and should, in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, be substituted for the earlier and inaccurate statements. 99.88.195.58 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the Connecticut State Police in a statement released this week, an AR-15 type weapon was the weapon used in the shootings. GB fan 00:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

to clarify on that reply...there is an early NBC clip going around Facebook, etc about the AR-15 being found in the trunk. This was an error on NBC's part, and was subsequently corrected. Unfortunately, some people are still presenting it as current fact. See the FAQs for this issue.204.65.34.246 (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 January 2013

Please addend "alleged" where relevant. I.e.throughout the ENTIRE post. No investigation has been completed. Godxkiller (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I think they already found him guilty. They don't really have a trial for a dead person do they? They already ruled his death a suicide, and said he was the one in there shooting the children. Dream Focus 05:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done I believe that posthumous jurisprudence is effectively prohibited by Constitutional restrictions on judicial power; standard legal, journalistic, and Wikipedia practice is to consider a deceased suspect the perpetrator once the police have said so, unless there's significant controversy over whether the police were correct. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Outside the Texas School Book Depository there is a plaque with the word "allegedly", and someone has scratched the plaque to underline the word. Like Oswald, Lanza never faced trial. There is also an issue with WP:ALLEGED, which can be used to cast doubt on material without providing a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In line with PinkAmpersand's comment above, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories are notable. I don't think that we've demonstrated that any alternate theories about this event are notable. GoingBatty (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but that would be more of a comment to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories article instead of this article since that deals with other theories. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I didn't know the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories article existed. My point was that I can understand why someone would describe Oswald as the "alleged" perpetrator because the JFK conspiracy theories are so notable. but I didn't think the Sandy Hook theories were notable. Now I know they're notable enough for their own article, but are they so notable that Lanza should be described as the "alleged" shooter? GoingBatty (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD for Grace Mcdonnell

Just a heads up that one of the child victims was made into a seperate article which is now up for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2013

Social Security Death Index (SSDI) Death Record states that Adam P. Lanza died on Thursday December 13, 2012. That is the day before the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident.

http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/ssdi/doc/ssdi/v1:143EB37C71A1FA78

Slorri (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that is a user-submitted website, plus the provenance/origination of that particular assertion is unclear. As such, that reference would not be considered a reliable source. Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not a RS, they have probably got it wrong, not the other way round.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Incidentally, this is all over the blogs, but they are all quoting http://www.genealogybank.com which is nowhere near a RS. This will probably end up in the FAQ.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Also Ancestry.com is reporting the same date of death, Thursday December 13, 2012. Both these sites get their data from Social Security Administration (SSA). One need to be registered to get all of the date from ancestry.com http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2_s&gsfn=Adam&gsln=Lanza&mswpn__ftp=Newtown%2C+Fairfield%2C+Connecticut%2C+USA&mswpn=71&mswpn_PInfo=8-%7C0%7C1652393%7C0%7C2%7C3242%7C9%7C0%7C1000%7C71%7C0%7C&uidh=000

I suppose that Social Security Administration (SSA) is a RS. Slorri (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that the U.S. Social Security Administration really does have Adam Lanza's date of death mistakenly listed as Thursday December 13, 2012, instead of Friday, December 14, 2012. At present, however, it's not readily apparent what the "edit request" is here, Slorri. What is it exactly that you are suggesting should be edited in the article? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The date of death of the alleged perpetrator is relevant, and should be in the article. Something like "Social Security Administration (SSA) is confirming that Adam P. Lanza died on Thursday December 13, 2012." And then a reference that could go to Genealogy.com or Ancestry.com who are showing the data from SSDI, as I understand that Social Security Administration (SSA) does not show this themselves. Slorri (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The date of his death is relevant, because it is the date of the incident. We have hundreds, maybe thousands of reliable sources saying he died on the day of the incident. Pu tthis into the conspiracy theory article if you want. This is one of the core reasons for WP:PRIMARY , and why we prefer tertiary WP:RELIABLESOURCES Gaijin42 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for specifically addressing what it is that you are seeking to have added or changed in the article Slorri; without intentions being clear it is difficult for other editors to engage on the issue. With regard to the date of death of the perpetrator, the voluminous multitude of reliable sources identify it as sometime around 9:45 AM to 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time on the morning of Friday, December 14, 2012. The fact that the SSA may be currently listing Lanza's date of death as December 13, 2012 appears to be a recently emerged oddity, most likely a mistake of some sort, which will probably be corrected in the very near future. In my opinion, I think it would be misleading at this time to add a statement to the article saying "The SSA is confirming that Adam P. Lanza died on December 13, 2012". The sourcing at present for the SSA disparity is still problematic and we don't have reliable news coverage of this yet, or it's purported significance beyond what appears to be a clerical mistake. Most of the discussion about it right now looks to be taking place on blog websites and Internet forums, where talk is heading in the direction of conspiracy theories and claims that this somehow proves that Lanza wasn't really the perpetrator who died on December 14, 2012. That might have a place over at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories article, but not so much here until further information develops. Does that help put things in perspective? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Billboard Death Certificate.jpg

Genealogy websites are not a reliable source

The GenealogyBank.Com information is not technically from the SSA, even though it is reported as such and continues to be reported as such. To state that the information is directly from a US Govt agency is unverifiable. And, by the way, other online geneaological websites' SSDI info does not agree with the GenealogyBank linkage. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be surprising and disappointing if a US government clerk had made a mistake on the actual death record. This could end up like the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. The problem with genealogy sites is that they do not have the actual documents, so it is hard to verify the material. Ideally, someone from the mainstream media should find Lanza's death certificate and SSA death record, and check what they say. If someone from Wikipedia did this, it would be WP:PRIMARY material and could not be used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting information

There was conflicting information and inconsistent reports about the event. I request a section talking about the inconsistencies. The name and identity of the shooter was wrong, the car was reported belonging to someone else, number of shooters, etc. Media coverage of the the event is relevant to what happened. [19][20] [21] [22] [23] USchick (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As an FYI, the lede of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories article speaks of "early media reports that included inconsistencies about the identity of the shooter, wrong photos, incorrect location of victims, weapons used and other misinformation". It wouldn't be hard to further build out a section there that explores mistaken media coverage of the event. In so far as the main article here, I'm not sure if other editors will be very receptive to the idea. Nearly all events like this have mistaken early reporting, hence it's to be expected, hence WP:UNDUE attention to it is not desirable. As a side note, the fact that the initial identity of the shooter was wrong is discussed in the "investigation" section here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting information and inconsistency in reporting is not a conspiracy theory, it happened. Media professionals criticize their own ethics in the industry. [24] And the inconsistencies continue with the questionable date of Adam Lanza's death. (See discussion above.) USchick (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree, conflicting information and inconsistencies in reporting are not conspiracy theories, and they happen all the time. Including a section dedicated to that here, however, will probably be seen as undue. I could see it potentially justifying a sentence or two, with citation to an article like the one you've linked above. It would let the reader further explore the issue and read of the discrepancies without the article having to engage in expounding on the mistakes itself. In any event, I will stop there and let others comment. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced info needs to be removed

According to anonymous reports, authorities were investigating whether Lanza attempted to buy a rifle at a sporting goods store in Danbury, Connecticut, two days before the massacre. Anonymous sources claimed Lanza was turned down because he did not want to undergo a background check or abide by the state's waiting period for gun sales.

The source for this statement is a dead link. Unless another source is found, this is unsourced info and needs to be removed. USchick (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Washington Times article disputes it, I'm removing it if there are no objections. USchick (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead not long enough

Can you expand the lead section to include info on the school shooting's background (or what happened before the shooting) and its aftermath, legacy and impact (like its impact on gun control for example), please. Thanx. 67.172.190.101 (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, add a paragraph on how Sandy Hook impacted violence in video games in the last section before "References". 67.172.190.101 (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Also write information on what kinds of entertainment Adam Lanza likes in the section about him. 67.172.190.101 (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the current version of the WP:LEAD is too short, and should mention the proposed new gun control laws. On the issue of video games, there was an event in Connecticut on January 12 asking people to hand in violent video games in return for gift certificates.[25] Various people told the media that Adam Lanza had an extensive collection of first-person shooter games, although this is not unusual for a person of his age and investigators have not claimed this as a factor in the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey yo. Found this ref from the news website Kotaku: . Good opinion, IanMacM. 67.172.190.101 (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that there is very little "official" to say outside of the bounds of the actual events of that day and the few findings they've found about Lanza, the lead is just right. We can't make the VG connection because it is a postulated reason, much like the mental health one, so we don't include it at this time. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory of the day

This edit was reverted, but it is worth taking a brief look at it. The inventive people in the blogs have claimed that the words "Aurora" and "Sandy Hook" appear in the film The Dark Knight Rises. This article takes a look at the claim. It is surprising how much conspiracy material the shooting is generating, but cherry picking is not new and can be used to prove almost anything. A famous example is the article Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

that is one of the more interesting conspiracy theories, in that at least the basic facts are true. Regardless it would only go into the conspiracy article, not this one, and I don't think this particular theory ahs gotten any coverage in reliable sources yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

this is Quite interesting but I assume this are just coincidences w/o intention of anything by the filmmakers Fox2k11 (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The word Aurora appears very briefly at the 40 second mark in the SKYFALL - Official Teaser Trailer and is apparently not in The Dark Knight Rises. It is a night time shot of the Aurora Plaza in Shanghai. The Sandy Hook claim appears to be correct though, unless anyone with a copy of the film knows different. There are several other places named Sandy Hook.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is the Sandy Hook pointed to in the movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed additions to Reactions page - impact on gun control, mental health issues, video games

Fully aware that we have been keeping most of the speculative issues out of this article, I've been looking at the Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article - one that I would normally consider for deletion - as a way to describe in neutrally as possible the impact on gun control, mental health, and video games - among others - that came from the shooting, that we are purposely avoiding here to avoid bias/unsubstantiated claims.

Take the area of video games, where no, there is no connection outside of Lanza playing some of the more violent ones. That said, we can talk about how the media pointed figures there, a few new bills that have come about to restrict sale of violent games, the whole mess with Senator Lee of California, and a bunch of sourcable details of what has happened in the VG arena due to the shooting. As long as we start off : "Some politicians and media journalists have suggested that the presence of violent video games contributed to the shooting", we are not affirming or condoning this theory, and thus stay NPOV, particularly since I know for the VG industry we can talk both sides of the issue.

I can believe we can do the same with the mental health aspects, pointing out that Lanza's conditions has been suggested by others (providing such links) to be tied to the event and the reactions from various mental health experts on why and why not that would be possible.

Obviously gun control is easy to do this as well - we effectively have it, but I would support moving what we have to the Reactions page to strengthen that one. We can leave summaries here, until such a time where the reactions become more significant - eg say that we eventually get the "Victoria Soto Gun Control Law" passed in Congress (just an example), we can describe that since it will become more tightly connected to the topic at hand.

There may be other theories that otherwise fall outside of FRINGE territory (eg: we are not going to mention the Westboro BC's theory that gay marriage was at fault). As long as the issue can be approached on either side as with the three mentioned above, it should be good to include there. This would also alleviate some of the points we've got in the FAQ about why X isn't mentioned - I think having it on the separate page helps to break any implication we (as WPian editors) may unintentionally make here and would make it easier to keep the sections there unbiased. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2013

At the end of paragraph/sentence that says "She often took her two sons to a local shooting range.[100]", just above the section entitled "Reactions", please add.

"During an interview with Connecticut State Police, it was said Nancy Lanza's guns were not secured. "They weren't under lock and key," the friend said. "She kept her stuff all together in a closet."

Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/23/Friend-Nancy-Lanza-did-not-secure-guns/UPI-96501358921210/#ixzz2JCmjAL8w

Chris87654321 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

How is this relevant? Is there a law against keeping guns in a closet? USchick (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a law, but it probably doesn't apply: "Responsibilities re storage of loaded firearms with respect to minors. No person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or (2) carries the firearm on his person or within such close proximity thereto that he can readily retrieve and use it as if he carried it on his person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years." (bold added) Conn. General Statute 29-37i So, keeping weapons locked up is more of a norm of responsible gun ownership, rather than a legal requirement here.Erudy (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff, Erudy! Could you please add this to the appropriate section of Gun laws in Connecticut? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There is some relevance, because Adam Lanza was not the registered owner of the guns and as a 20-year-old was not able to carry a handgun under state law. Somehow he managed to gain access to a considerable amount of weapons and ammunition which should have been firmly under lock and key in a gun cabinet. The problem with the source is that it is an unnamed friend of Nancy Lanza. The figures show that a gun kept in a house is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, as Nancy Lanza (and Adam Lanza) both discovered the hard way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more relevant to talk about his access to psychotic and hallucinogenic inducing medication. USchick (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

How many people died of medication-wounds? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing on medication is vague and second hand.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

15,500 deaths each year: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [26] USchick (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The gun safe article says "Access prevention is required by law in many places, necessitating a gun lock, metal gun cabinet, or gun safe." I didn't see anything Gun laws in Connecticut or Gun law in the United States saying what the appropriate laws are. GoingBatty (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

According to 60 Minutes, CT gun laws are strictest in the nation AND Adam Lanza was on medication. [27] Here's an opinion stating that Psych meds linked to 90% of school shootings [28] (need a better source, I know.) These sources talk about untreated mental illness and how it relates to this event. [29] [30] [31] [32] USchick (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What percentage of school shootings are linked to guns? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Im pretty sure all of them, unless the killer uses a rubber band and pellets. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

They all use different guns, so I would argue that the guns are not the problem, but what's the same in all these cases are disgruntled young men who are white. One solution would be to shoot a few of them before they do any harm, and stop bothering millions of law abiding gun owners. USchick (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is veering into WP:NOTAFORUM territory with content that has become a general discussion about the subject or associated subjects. Let's all try to keep our comments on this talk page about improving the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Wikipedia article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

New reference to cite, 2 questions...

Newtown Sides with NRA: Votes for Armed Guards In Schools

Should this be incorporated into the article?

If so, how should it be incorporated (Reactions section presumably)? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is better suited to Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Sylvester Stallone's comments are also worth considering.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The random utterings of a shoot them up bang them up movie star has no place in the Sandy Hook Page (no disrepect Sylvester I love ya brother especially when you run arround with full auto miniguns blowing up entire buildings) and neither is the random sputtering of the other guy Robert Redford (love ya Robert but stick to acting). And yes, security measures adopted by the newtown school board directly in response to this shooting are eminently notable in this article, not in a related article that might be deleted. I like it the way it is in there now.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Official Findings of Coroner and/or Medical Examiner

Having scanned the FAQ and the Talk archives (and the page itself) it seems that these findings or reports or ... have not yet been released. There have been officials having press conferences, but not the "official" findings. Correct? (Asked because I'm getting tired of people asking me where they are and I thought there would be a link here, if anywhere.) htom (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've read the results are done but sealed by a local judge for ~90 days. Ergo, we obviously don't have them. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Aha. I'd read that too, and had forgotten it. Thank you, Masem. htom (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bump to keep out of archive for another week or so.htom (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Er, I think that only the search warrants have been sealed for ninety days. See here. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That link says (now) nothing about the autopsy reports. It appears that in Connecticut only a general cause of death has to be reported? htom (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

List of victims revisited (Do we need it? Opinions sought)

Killed

Perpetrator's mother

• Nancy Lanza, 52 (shot at home)

School personnel

• Rachel D'Avino, 29, teacher's aide
• Dawn Hochsprung, 47, principal
• Anne Marie Murphy, 52, teacher's aide
• Lauren Rousseau, 30, teacher
• Mary Sherlach, 56, school psychologist
• Victoria Leigh Soto, 27, teacher

Students

• Charlotte Bacon, 6
• Daniel Barden, 7
• Olivia Engel, 6
• Josephine Gay, 7
• Dylan Hockley, 6
• Madeleine Hsu, 6
• Catherine Hubbard, 6
• Chase Kowalski, 7
• Jesse Lewis, 6
• Ana Marquez-Greene, 6
• James Mattioli, 6
• Grace Mcdonnell, 7
• Emilie Parker, 6
• Jack Pinto, 6
• Noah Pozner, 6
• Caroline Previdi, 6
• Jessica Rekos, 6
• Avielle Richman, 6
• Benjamin Wheeler, 6
• Allison Wyatt, 6

Perpetrator

• Adam Lanza, 20 (suicide)

Wounded

• Natalie Hammond, 40, lead teacher
• One unnamed adult

This section stems from a discussion above here on the talk page the question being do we really need an eye catching list that in my opinion goes against WP:NOTMEMORIAL in the article? So what I am going to do is form a consensus on it, please choose one of the following proposals, and place your opinion on it.

• Proposal 1 Delete the list of victims, make a ==Victims== section, and have the names with a summary of details in prose.
• Proposal 2 Delete the list of victims there is already enough info about the victims in the article as it is.
• Proposal 3 Keep the list of victims as status quo.
• Proposal 4 Downsize or revamp the list of victims to make it less of an eyecatcher.

Please voice your opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that it'd go against NOTMEM to have anything more than a simple list. This is the clearest, concicest (word?) way to have their names in the article. There also seems to be precedent (I know OTS) from Columbine and other articles (which is where I took the precedent and style from when I created this table a long time ago) that tables are better than long prose with extraneous detail that isn't really needed (and may fail NOTMEM). If this is to be a contentious discussion, someone may wish to list it at WP:RFC. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I do see bits and pieces of the victims involved elsewhere in the article here so I do think there might be another way to show the info without having a list for it, I will go with the consensus that forms here though may ir be or not be to my own liking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal 4 - I'm not sure this is possible, but the list IMO is fairly innocuous as is as serves its purpose well. But if it can be made more subtle, I'm for that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxymoron alert! "Consensus poll" makes no sense. If we're going to get this right, let's at least demonstrate that we can use language correctly here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for that I must have spaced out on that one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Realistically, any list of victims without comment (outside of ages) is NOTMEM territory. The teachers and others that were confirmed to try to stop the shooter can be listed in prose in discussing the event. Plenty of outside sites list and memorialize the victims and we can link to those, but as an encyclopedia, this is not appropriate data. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is really on point. Why do we need to list any of the victims, aside from the ones who should be mentioned for their specific circumstances (such as Victoria Soto)? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the victims were the people who were shot and this article is called "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting"? Shearonink (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because they were victims doesn't mean it is necessarily encyclopedic to know all their names - remember we are supposed to be approaching this from an non-emphatic point of view. It is hard to talk about the events of the shooting without mentioning a few of the teachers that tried to protected their children, so their names of course should be included, but the bulk of the children were innocent victims - in human terms, extremely tragic, but for the purposes of the encyclopedia, just a number in the shooter's body count. Again, it is not like we're the only site covering this - they're plenty of sites that give detailed biographical sketches for all those killed, and we can certainly link to them, but it is otherwise a failure of NOTMEM to include the full list. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements."

In this case, the shooting is the subject of the article. The deceased are not. They do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, with the possible exception of Soto. Therefore, we don't need to be listing their names, and doing so can be construed as memorializing the deceased. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, Im sorry for the victims and nobody here is being heartless but the list of those who died table for this article (WP:OTHERSTUFF for others), just stands out too much for an encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep it like it is. WP:NOTMEMORIAL obviously doesn't apply here. This isn't a memorial, its a list of the victims and their ages. Other articles of this type do this already. Columbine High School massacre shows also what part of their bodies they were shot at, and the location they were shot at. Dream Focus 23:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And as pointed out before, the Columbine article is far too detailed for Wikipedia. There are plenty of books and references that go into the minute-by-minute actions there, we have no reason to be listing that much detail. Same here. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • See also: WP:OTHERSTUFF, every article is diffrent on wikipedia. Not every victim needs to be placed on an oversized detailed list when it can be explained in the article which alot of the victims already are if you read through the article. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the list, if you wish to revert or reinclude it please state a reason on why you feel it should be kept, keep in mind that the names of the victims are already included in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this thread is, in effect, a type of RFC and the time from when this discussion was opened to when the complete list of victims was removed by the proposer was a span of slightly over three days. Shearonink (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an innocuous and helpful list. I think it belongs in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's an innocuous and helpful list. It belongs in the article. Articles on Columbine and Virginia Tech have similar lists. Manipande (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

So far nobody has addressed the WP:NOTMEMORIAL issue though (WP:ILIKEIT)The list is overly detailed as per above, reading the article you see some of the victims names involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the purpose of WP:NOTMEMORIAL is to keep things that only serve a purpose of memorializing out of the article namespace - for instance, an article about a person who wouldn't otherwise be notable except that someone wants to pay tribute to them, or commentary that asks the reader to remember someone. I don't see the policy as intended to limit otherwise encyclopedic information just because it happens to be a list of names of people who are deceased. In this case it seems to me that a list of names and ages of the deceased is relevant and informative. GabrielF (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that including a list of the victims in the article is in bad taste. However, it can be justified for either side. I don't think it would belong in an infobox, but maybe a list within the article, if it is determined by consensus to include it. There is no standard, the Virginia Tech Massacre contains the names of the individuals killed, but in something like the Oklahoma City Bombing, the victims are not mentioned. Aneah|talk _to ^me 23:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont understand why we need it, reading the article and clicking on the external links will give you the same result. The list as you said is in bad taste and eye catching to the rest of the article, I have not seen any arguement on why it should be kept other than it looks pretty so okay have it stay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Which editors here are arguing it should be kept because "it looks pretty so okay have it stay"? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal 1 - I don't have a problem with it being in the article, it just seems to make sense for it to be integrated into the prose so that it isn't an eyecatcher. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd to me to acknowledge the shooter, and not the victims, particularly as other mass shootings Wiki entries acknowledge the victims (e.g. Aurora, Wisconsin Sikh Temple, and others already given). If Sandy Hook is to be an exception, what is some of the reasoning for delisting the victims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.100.15 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

*Proposal 1 - This Article should contain a Victims list in the same fashion as on the Aurora 2012 Shooting Article! Fox2k11 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that a list of the victims is quite appropriate and its removal is a bit absurd. This is a deadly shooting, which is most essentially one person killing others. The killer has an entire section and picture. The people killed can at least be listed. This is quite in line with nearly every other similar article. Bath School disaster. Virginia Tech massacre. 2012 Aurora shooting. 2011 Norway attacks. In Aménas hostage crisis. Kandahar massacre. University of Texas clock tower massacre. Waco Siege. All of these articles appropriately have separate lists of victims. Rock Springs massacre, a featured article, appropriatly lists victims. I read WP:NOTMEMORIAL to ban articles about these people unless they are independently noteworthy, and limit excessive description. Something like "Victim Smith, age 6, was a loving young boy who liked playing with his pet dog Fido, building forts with his brother Sam and sister Betsy, and reading Dr. Seuss books. His parents called him the 'light of our life.' ..." has WP:NOTMEMORIAL problems. Merely "Victim Smith, age 6" is not problematic.Erudy (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

At the time Rock Springs was elevated to an FA, there was no list of victims - it was added since. This is why one has to consider that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not always a good argument. The reason we have a full section on the killer is that people are trying to understand motive and reason for why he shot 26 people. The victims - primary the children - were innocents with little else beyond being at the wrong place at the wrong time; the few that are above that, the teachers killer , are important to name in describing their efforts to protect them, but anyone else is trivial information. We have plenty of off-site links that will give that full list, we can let readers refer to those. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the article did not have a list. Instead, it linked to an entirely separate article that simply listed the victims. Now, that's excessive, and sure enough the separate article was deleted...but not until the list was preserved by being merged into Rock Springs massacre. It's true that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not always a good argument, but sometimes it is a good argument. It is a good argument here. Again and again, we've included lists of victims in dozens of analogous events. Not because were "memorializing," but because this is important, concrete, factual information. I think in the case of recent events, the decision to list victims may be colored by strong emotions. Being conscious of this and working to correct actual memorializing is good, but removing the basic list goes to far.Erudy (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Since WP:MEMORIAL has been cited in regards to the list of victims, I thought I would take a look at what that policy actually states.

WP:MEMORIAL links to Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social network, or memorial site and underneath that is a numbered list from 1 to 4, with #4 being...

4. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.

so, there are two operative/important words here, the first of which is "Subject" and the second of which is "memorialize".

• Per "Subject": This discussion is not about making the victims the subject of their own standalone articles or even one single WP article, this discussion is about including a complete list of the people who were killed at Sandy Hook within the 'Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting' article, so it would seem to me that this list does not fall afoul of being the 'subject' of an article.
• Per "Memorialize": Wikitionary defines this as "To provide a memorial for someone; to commemorate" which can then be traced to "memorial" which is defined as "Serving as a remembrance of someone or something; commemorative" which in turn is then traced to "commemorate" which is defined as "To honour the memory of someone or something with a ceremony." and "To serve as a memorial to someone or something." As an associated word, "memorial" is defined by WP as "an object which serves as a focus for memory of something, usually a person (who has died) or an event." and Dictionary.Com defines it as "something designed to preserve the memory of a person, event, etc., as a monument or a holiday." or "preserving the memory of a person or thing; commemorative". So is a list of all the Sandy Hook victims commemorative? Does it contain the types of details one finds in an obituary or on a memorial plaque, does it delineate the people as individuals? In my opinion a list of the victims simply adds to the reader' understanding of this event...that the dead are not just a number.

In my opinion, a list of the victims as verified from multiple, independent reliable sources should be included, especially in its previous incarnation of only stating the verifiable facts...names, ages and not including any of the life-details one would normally find in an obituary or on a memorial site. Shearonink (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Shearonink I Criticized this Behavior already when the Aurora 2012 Shooting Happened and I.M.H.O I have the impression that wikipedia is likely to roll out the red carpet for perpetrators and slap the victims in the face but yes there is WP:MEMORIAL and I accepted that but not listing the victims and mention only the perpetrator is a unnecessary weight towards WP:NPOV I agree that there should not be any life story's of the victims but at least name & age should be mentioned I think! Fox2k11 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Victims names are mentioned in the article, all the adults killed as well as 2 of the children's names with the words 20 children killed in the lead, in addition there are external links to more information about the victims so sating there isnt enough info on the victims is wrong yo ujust have to read through the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Some victims are named... some but not all. In my opinion, if we are going to state that only the people who are considered notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia article can be included by name within this article, then at this time only Victoria Leigh Soto would qualify...none of the other adults or children could be named. But a close reading of WP:MEMORIAL seems to indicate that it could only be relevant for consideration when the person is the subject, not when multiple, independent reliable sources cite information about the victims as a large part of their coverage of a particular incident. Much of the world's horror & sympathy (as documented in this article and in Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting) is in reaction to the fact that so many of the people who were killed were children of a certain age. With names. In primary grades. Why must we be so squeamish about the fact that these victims were not mere numbers but actual people? Shearonink (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Shearonink there should entirely named with name & age or only "26 people where killed" or "6 Adults and 20 Children have been killed"! but I disagree with him in the fact that any Victim should have his/hers own standalone article until he or she has a notability otherwise it would be an Issue with WP:BLP and / or WP:NOTMEMORIAL I learned this after the Aurora Shooting Fox2k11 (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though I'm counter to inclusion of the list, I do strongly agree that we don't limit ourselves to only those with standalone articles. We should name those that are critical to understand the events of the shooting: the teachers like Soto that sought to protect their students which have been named in news reports in that fashion. It is necessary to mention these names in the summary of the actual event (the running prose) to make it understandable. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal 3 - After looking at the talk page archives for the Virginia Tech massacre, especally a section on a removal of the list and an AfD on an article list about the massacre, I support a restoration of the list as I do not think that WP:MEMORIAL has merit here. To do a partial quotation from the Afd, with added emphasis,

  [...] It should be noted that the fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial does not proclude covering those who died in notable events- merely that people should not be included merely as a memorial. The overwhelming consensus was that these people were collectively notable as a result of the circumstances of their deaths. [...] (emphasis added)
  — User:WjBscribe 125316593

  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary and Proposal

I think there's a consensus (below) to put in the list back in. I'm going to be bold and do so. Erudy (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Killed

Perpetrator's mother

• Nancy Lanza, 52 (shot at home)

School personnel

• Rachel D'Avino, 29, teacher's aide
• Dawn Hochsprung, 47, principal
• Anne Marie Murphy, 52, teacher's aide
• Lauren Rousseau, 30, teacher
• Mary Sherlach, 56, school psychologist
• Victoria Leigh Soto, 27, teacher

Students

• Charlotte Bacon, 6
• Daniel Barden, 7
• Olivia Engel, 6
• Josephine Gay, 7
• Dylan Hockley, 6
• Madeleine Hsu, 6
• Catherine Hubbard, 6
• Chase Kowalski, 7
• Jesse Lewis, 6
• Ana Marquez-Greene, 6
• James Mattel, 6
• Grace Mcdonnell, 7
• Emilie Parker, 6
• Jack Pinto, 6
• Noah Pozne, 6
• Caroline Previdi, 6
• Jessica Rekos, 6
• Avielle Richman, 6
• Benjamin Wheeler, 6
• Allison Wyatt, 6

Perpetrator

• Adam Lanza, 20 (suicide)

Wounded

• Natalie Hammond, 40, lead teacher
• One unnamed adult

There hasn't been much discussion on this for a few days; let me try to summarize, with the obvious caveat that I'm on record as in favor of having a list.

Masem and Mobushgu strongly believe there should be no list of individuals, due to WP:NOTMEM concerns. Knowledgekid87 has similar concerns, perhaps more particularly about a "oversized" list rather than in-text exposition.

Aneah finds an infobox to be in bad taste, although perhaps justifiable; would prefer in-text exposition. RedSoxFan2434 similarly suggests that a list is OK, although would prefer integration with text so as not to be an "eyecatcher".

Scalhotrod, Dream Focus, Coretheapple, Manipande, GabrielF, Fox2k11, Shearonink, Super Goku V, (and, of course, myself, Erudy) variously think the list is innocuous, helpful, and appropriate.

I think that WP:NOTMEM is an important policy to keep in mind, especially for tragedies such as this one. But I think getting rid of the list entirely goes too far. Let me propose that we keep the list, with certain modifications to reduce its visual signature. Hopefully this will reduce the NOTMEM concerns (although I assume that it won't completely satisfy Masem), partly meet concerns about an "eye-catching" list, but still follow what I propose is the weight of opinion expressed so far.

In the proposal at right, I've removed the bolding of the names, put some of the notes in italics to soften their impact, and slightly reduced the text size. Are we willing to put this compromise back in the article?Erudy (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The list isn't proscribed by WP:NOTMEM, hence this is an issue left up to local consensus and editors opinions on whether or not it enhances encyclopedic coverage or detracts from it. On the balance, I think the article is better with the list than without it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral (read: won't oppose if there's major support). I personally think it should not be included but other articles on mass shootings have such boxes. I do believe there needs to be a WP-wide discussion on the matter across all such articles, but in the interim, I'm opposed to the idea here but I don't see this being the consensus position. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Your proposal is better than the box that previously appeared on the article. I'm not sure that each person's age is necessary. I have a bunch of coworkers who would hate having their age displayed so prominently.  :-) If you want to further reduce the size of the box, you could have a heading of "First grade students" with a comma separated list of students (e.g. Charlotte Bacon, Daniel Barden, Olivia Engel, ...) If the ages for the adults & children are needed (for people who don't understand that US first graders are 6-7 years old?), they should all be italics or all be non-italics. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I do think the age provides a minimal amount of useful context. Good catch on the italicization; I made it uniform.Erudy (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. My thoughts on this issue: There are similar articles that do not have a standalone list, such as Texas tower shooting. However, a timeline of the individual sub-events integrated within the text, such as is found at that article will probably prove to be impossible with this one. Unlike the Texas shooting, where there were numerous survivors and multiple credible witnesses, given that there are so few surviving Sandy Hook witnesses who could attest to any valid sequence of Lanza's actions, we might never be able to integrate the names of the victims within this article's text. I think it is a good idea for editors to keep WP:MEMORIAL in mind for mass-murder articles or massacre-event articles. But if editors are unable to integrate the victims' names within the article's text owing to the very nature of the crime, I don't think that WP:MEMORIAL means the names of massacre/shooting/event victims (or a list of their names) as a matter of Wikipedia policy must be erased from the encyclopedia. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I went back and forth on this a lot. It is hard to be objective when you know these people have been denied a chance to make their mark in life, but I do not want Wikipedia to become a memorial site. That said, who was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School is useful knowledge and we do not want to suppress knowledge because it might appear to memorialize. The ages of people on the list is useful as well and that it would offend some to have their age on the web is not a consideration. The list should be titled "Casualties" as it includes the wounded and would have less impact then "Killed". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we have both killed and wounded on the list. "Casualties" would have to be in addition to, rather than instead of "Killed".Erudy (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The definition of "Casualties" is "A person killed or injured in a war or accident". Killed and wounded on a list of casualties.

• Neutral I still don't like the idea of a list it is eye catching and tacky and there are ways to include the victims in the article without having to throw a 3 columns long list in, but hey there does appear to be a consensus I also think that there should be a WP-wide discussion on the matter as this problem has popped up a number of times reguarding these type of articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support May I suggest as a innocuous middle ground that we put the name & ages (nothing more) in some sort of non bold non italic plain running text in the shooting area (f.e "there where 27 casualties 7 adult 20 children namely[...]")? I think this would be less tacky and more encyclopedic! from the POV of an reader if I lookup an encyclopedia to seek / find information I should not have to perform a google search in addition to find out the names! just an idea! Fox2k11 (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - To mostly quote myself since my opinion has not changed, "[...] After looking at the talk page archives for the Virginia Tech massacre, especally a section on a removal of the list and an AfD on an article list about the massacre, I support a restoration of the list as I do not think that WP:MEMORIAL has merit here. [...]" To do a partial quotation from the Afd of the closing comment, with added emphasis, at the end of this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  [...] It should be noted that the fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial does not proclude covering those who died in notable events- merely that people should not be included merely as a memorial. The overwhelming consensus was that these people were collectively notable as a result of the circumstances of their deaths. [...] (emphasis added)

  — WjBscribe, 125316593

I should have checked here first

While I don't have an opinion on whether to include the list or not, I have reverted my edit on the page. While the list looks pretty, it has way too much markup. If it stays, it should be rewritten with more maintainable markup per MOS:MARKUP. Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Privacy of the victims?

I heard the recent news about the Aurora shooting victims' families being harassed by conspiracy theorists, and wondered if we this was an issue with the Sandy Hook victims, and if this should be something to consider when discussing changes to this article Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 January 2013

Two paragraphs under the heading Shootings are in slight conflict with each other.

The first passage cites an early, less accurate report. I propose changing the passage,

Fifteen of the sixteen students in her class were killed; a six-year-old girl was the sole survivor.

to

A six-year-old girl was the sole survivor.

In a first-grade classroom, Lauren Rousseau, a substitute teacher, was shot in the face and killed. Fifteen of the sixteen students in her class were killed; a six-year-old girl was the sole survivor. ... Sanchez, Raf (December 17, 2012). "Connecticut school shooting: six-year-old stayed alive by playing dead". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved December 18, 2012.

....

contrast with

He shot mostly in two first-grade classrooms near the entrance of the school, killing fourteen in one room and six in the other. "Sandy Hook shooting: What happened?". CNN. Retrieved January 8, 2013.

70.194.64.168 (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to read "In a first-grade classroom, Lauren Rousseau, a substitute teacher, was shot in the face and killed. "Most of the students in her class were killed; a six-year-old girl was the sole survivor" instead to give what I thought the intended meaning of the message was. If someone wants to either object to my edit or to suggest an improvement, than they can do so. If there is no comment in the next several days and no one else has decide this question has been answered, then I shall edit the request to be answered. (Should there be no comments in the next few days, then I will let the bot archive this and consider it closed.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have updated my previous comment with text in parentheses due to the realization of certain information, specifically the line "Remember to change the |answered= parameter to "yes" — {{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} — when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input." --Super Goku V (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar fix please

Page cannot be edited. But this sentence is wrong: "Police ... began evacuating the survivors room-by-room." It should be "room by room" (with spaces). Hyphens are only used to form an adjective, e.g. "a room-by-room evacuation". Consider "they hate dogs" vs. "dog-hating people". 86.174.188.81 (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- AzureCitizen (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Coroner Confirms NO Assault weapon used...

This article needs to be edited to show that the AR-15 style Assault Rifle was NOT actually used in the shooting. The Medical Examiner has determined that all victims were actually shot with Handguns and NOT the AR-15. In the discussion area, there have been Multiple links. This NEEDS to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagsc7 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Got a reliable source for that claim? Shearonink (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

None of those links bear out. If you have a link to a reliable news source which indicates the Medical Examiner is now saying they were shot with a handgun rather than with a long rifle, post them. Otherwise, the article is ALREADY correct. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this will help. In this video from December 15, 2012, Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, the Chief Medical Examiner of Connecticut, is asked about the wounds. At 1:13 he says "All the ones that I know of at this point were caused by the long weapon." He then declines to comment on the caliber of the weapon, saying that it is a police matter. It is frustrating that people keep dragging up the NBC video which says that only handguns were used, because it is out of date and contradicted by multiple other sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The wording in the article was tweaked. Carver did not name the type of weapon and declined to comment when asked to do so. He restricted his comments to saying that the wounds were caused by a "long weapon". The information that a Bushmaster was found inside the school and used for the shooting came from the police [33], not the coroner. Adam Lanza killed himself with the 10mm Glock.[34] The gun used to kill Nancy Lanza remains unclear; some early reports said that it was the Marlin rifle, but the police have not confirmed this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

<unhelpful comment removed> WWGB (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

<removed my comment to the unhelpful comment removed above> Zedshort (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If there is sourcing, then I'd say that the the coroner being evasive on this topic is notable. I can't imagine any legit reason for him avoiding putting out this information. North8000 (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The coroner was being questioned by the media the day after the shootings when all the results were preliminary. It's unlikely that bullets recovered from the bodies had been matched to any barrels yet as that requires sending the recovered projectiles and weapons to a criminal forensics lab for regimented testing. Carver already knew at this point, however, that the injuries and wounds were caused by a rifle, and he knew what the police had found inside the school (two handguns and the XM15). Hence, he knew in his mind subjectively and with a high degree of certainty that the kids in the school were killed by the Bushmaster, but experts in his position are trained not to answer the question that way, as it can get you in trouble later in court if you've overstepped what you know and what you think you know. This is why he was being evasive with the reporters who were pressing him to identify the weapon that was used; he knows the wounds were caused by a long weapon and he knows that the police found the rifle, but he couldn't say for sure that the wounds were caused by that particular rifle yet, without having done the science first. Re-watch the video with the volume turned up so that you can hear both the reporters questions and his responses in this context, and the reason for him avoiding putting out the information that way becomes clear. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a coroner with a lifetime of experience is reluctant to identify the caliber of the bullet is notable. The fact that he sounds like he's never done this before is extremely notable. USchick (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Got a reliable secondary source for that? Otherwise it's WP:OR. Abductive (reasoning) 22:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

[http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/what-happened-to-lanzas-4-handguns/] [35] USchick (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, your first source is certainly not considered a Reliable Source by Wiki standards. The second source you list is subscription-only, so that kills that on arrival - it also appears to be more or less the reader's forum for the story. Wiki requires solid, secondary sources for info for articles. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree on the 1st source. However, having a paywall is not an issue as far as the reliability of the source is concerned. No comment as to the appropriateness or not of this particular edit or source. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Material of prurient interest removed

I have removed material from this article that I believe contributes nothing in the way of insight and is more of prurient interest.

Prurient: : marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire

While WP requires the material added to the article should be from a reliable source as a necessary condition, but that is not a sufficient condition. The inclusion of material that appeals to our baser instincts should not be added and if added should be removed. It is interesting to know that some reliable source provided the original information but it does not follow that it must be used and if not of genuine use in enlightening or too far off topic it should not be included. We do not need to know that some victim was shot in the face, nor do we need to know that a particular child ran from the school covered in blood, nor do we need to know what part of the body Lanza shot himself. Those details have no genuine value and I have removed them as they contribute nothing to the article. I have the impression that there are more than a few people editing such articles as this, who have an rather unwholesome interest in providing such gory and useless material and I urge you to delete it whenever you find it just as I will. Zedshort (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, each of those items might be debated. For instance, the location of shots generally shows the emotional state of the shooter, with face/head shots indicating hatred, and shots to the heart indicating love. Abductive (reasoning) 02:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not the place of WP to sting together facts to come to conclusions about the emotional state of the shooter, etc. Such attempts would lead to endless attempts from everyone with a vague theory and is really considered Original Research. Zedshort (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR. Not suitable. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me; I was saying that the information is pertinent, to some people at least. What Wikipedia articles are supposed to do is report the consensus of the sources. If most sources mention a particular detail, it must be important. I for one don't even bother asking why such details are interesting, I just accept that they are of interest to professional reporters, and include them in articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Zedshort, I suspect the issue is really that you find such detail unpleasant and distasteful, but as User:Ianmacm said when reverting your deletions, Wikipedia isn't censored. It's unfortunate that you did not mention that reversion here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Leaving material out is not censorship and removing material that provides nothing of value but to appeal to the morbid interest that was worked into the article, also is not censorship. Zedshort (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing reference to a head shot is waaay too sensitive. All major media (NYT, CBS, CNN etc) refer to mother and son dying from head shots. Factual and warranted for inclusion. WWGB (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Putting such material in the article could be seen as showing a morbid interest in suffering and death and gross insensitivity. Again, simply because it is factual does not mean it should be included, regardless of what the detail is. We don't need to know who manufactured the ammunition. Zedshort (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Now you're grasping at other straws. Listen to us. Wikipedia is NOT censored. We are not going to remove something because you don't like it. If you don't like it, don't read Wikipedia. I guarantee you that lots of other readers who came to this article liked the fact that that detail was in there. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Prurient is one way of putting it and there's also overly graphic or needlessly descriptive. Once a particular detail has been mentioned, then the addition of that detail (unless obviously warranted) over and over again is just bad style that mucks up the article, IMHO. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

we don't need to mention that he shot himself in the head that might be obvious to the reader when mentioned that he committed suicide! Fox2k11 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There's multiple ways to commit suicide. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That may be but it is of little significance. Zedshort (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, and saying it once is enough. We don't need to keep conjuring up the image. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, Wikipedia is not censored and it is hard to see why this is prurient. There is similar "prurience" in Assassination of John F. Kennedy, R. Budd Dwyer and numerous other articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The gruesome details of a persons wounds and suffering are not of value to the article. Such details provide no insight, nor does it put the subject into perspective. I see the reporting of such details as something that belongs to a rag that is attempting to garner readers by including racy material that causes the gut to stir and does nothing for the task of informing. In addition, I think the feelings of the families and even friends of the victims should be considered. Again, simply because some reliable source made the mistake of reporting the details originally it does not follow that it should be taken up and repeated here. We can be better than they are. Zedshort (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We aren't here to be better than they are. Actually, we're here to say exactly what they say. If they report it, and it has use for a reader (it does in this case), then we leave it. You also apparently aren't hearing the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. Just because it's "gruesome", "racy", causes your "gut to stir" doesn't mean it's not informative. I for one find it interesting, and very informative, to be able to look at the article and see what happened. He shot himself in the head. I can make my own personal conclusions about that (it was a deliberate, purposeful suicide meant to be quick, as opposed to a shot in the neck or elsewhere). Ditto on the other claims you're talking about. They have encyclopedic value, and should stay. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This is classic WP:NOTCENSORED territory. I would support removing the fact that he shot himself in the head from the WP:LEAD as this is a summary, but in the description of how Adam Lanza died it is relevant and reliably sourced (CNN etc).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If how he shot himself is relevant, please tell us exactly how that is so. Zedshort (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's relevant because it meets GNG. It's well sourced in reliable sources. Also, it's relevant because it relates to the subject of the article, and readers may have a wish to know this information. If you have a valid policy reason for wanting it removed, then please put that forth now. Otherwise, please stop grasping at every straw you can find. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes people try to kill themselves with a gun and fail. The sourcing is clear on this issue. Lanza shot himself in the front of the head with the 10mm pistol and the bullet was recovered from a wall. This is relevant and factual, and was reported by mainstream media sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Retain the information. This is factual, well-sourced information that a reasonable reader may want to know. There does not seem to be any reason, apart from squeamishness, to attempt to suppress it, and that's not a good enough reason to suppress. That's really what WP:NOTCENSORED is all about. TJRC (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

At the top of the Edit Page of the article is a warning about such articles involving Biographies of Living Persons and states: "This policy also applies to the recently deceased out of concern for any living relatives and other persons closely connected to them. Contentious or questionable material should be removed from both the article and its talk page." Material providing the morbid details of the suffering and death and the trauma of the living has no place in an encyclopedic article. This is not a newspaper that simply gathers snipits of articles from many sources. And once again, not inserting material or removing material does not constitute censorship of an article. The material should be necessary and provide insight into the subject not just be kinda interesting.

• Remove Zedshort (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What text, exactly, do you believe fails this issue? To describe violent acts, we do need to be clinically deattached from the event and I agree we need to avoid any language that glorifies (either direction) the events, but I'm not seeing anything that does so. For example, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head - that's about as clinical as you can get in describing how he killed himself. We don't say "Lanza shoot himself in the head, blood splattering everywhere" or something more gory. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed other material that I thought appealed to only fascination with morbidity or appealed to hate, such as the descritpion of a child that "ran from the school, covered in blood" and another that described a particular teacher as having been shot in the face. I've no doubt there are people who gain pleasure in reading such things or simply do not have the common sense to see that it provides no insight into the subject to the point that is appears out of place. Simply because such things are reported in reliable sources does not make that material appropriate here. As someone posted above "Lanza shot himself in the front of the head with the 10mm pistol and the bullet was recovered from a wall. This is relevant and factual, and was reported by mainstream media sources." Really, very interesting! Do we need to know the bullet was imbedded in the wall? If so, perhaps we also need the blood spatter on the wall described here if it could be found in a reliable source. This is not a crime scene forensics investigation and should not become one. Zedshort (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Er, it is a crime scene, and forensics are being done and that is prudent to the topic. We don't have to give the full details, but we can explain what events transpired. Now, I will say that the "covered in blood" phrase above is a bit unnecessary, but in the case of the teacher shot in the face, that's not a glorified detail - that's what happened and indicates the disregard Lanza had for the victims. I agree it can be very easy to slip into a glorified writing style if one is not careful, but I think editors all around have avoided major problems. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you feel it is OK to reinsert the detail of a particular teacher being shot in the face would you then give the details of how many rounds were fired into each child and where those rounds struck? If not why not, and if not, should not that same logic be applied in the case of the teacher? We do not need to know that Lanza shot himself in the head with a 10mm handgun nor that that bullet was found imbedded in the wall as someone suggested as pertinent to this article. I strongly disagree about the inclusion of such detail. Any attempt to show here in this article that the placement of shots shows the mindset of the perpetrator is trying to conduct Original Research which is not appropriate. Perhaps at some date, someone will bring the investigation to a conclusion as to the shooters mental/emotional state and provide us with a conclusion but it is not our job to conduct, nor to attempt to gather such data in an attempt to "assist" the reader to reach such conclusions. Zedshort (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a balance that we're trying to seek. The teacher was shot in the face, period, that's undeniable. Several students were shot multiple times with bullets. Lanza killed himself by shooting himself in the head. Now, I can see how that can be taken to glorify Lanza's mental state as a crazed killer, but that's also how to accurately describe the scene. If we took the descriptions to a level where we would completing remove any possible detail that could be considered "promoting" the idea of Lanza's intentions, the section would be completely neutered and be rather useless factually. ("He killed X people and then killed himself" would pretty much be the extent). We have to accept that necessary details of the events are going to infer some issues, but they are in line with describing the event in a neutral manner. Again, I point to the "covered in blood" statement as one that I would agree with removal because it aimed to gain the sympathy of the reader to paint Lanza as totally evil (in an extreme view). But that's likely the only major thing that is part of that. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• This information, including details, should be retained. It was cited. Wikipedia is not censored. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, none of these details are of "prurient interest", since they do not evoke sexual interest. I think what was meant was "morbid interest". It is similar but not quite the same thing.--Auric talk 01:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All of the material that Zedshort wants to remove as morbid/prurient was reported in the mainstream media, which considered the material to be factual and relevant for an understanding of the case. The mainstream media is very cautious in these matters. If you want to see people reduced to a heap of strawberry jam after bombings and road accidents (which is morbid and prurient) there are plenty of shock sites offering that sort of thing. Please don't confuse mainstream media coverage with this type of offensive material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Prurient interest generally refers to sexual interest due to its popular use, but morbid interest probably is better. Simply because it is factual and reported is not sufficient reason for it to be included in the article. It should have a direct bearing on the subject to a degree that is provides insight into the subject. The blood splatter, the screams of the dying are factual but not appropriate for this article. The fact that a particular teacher was shot in the face and a child ran from the school covered in blood are factual but not sufficient reason to include it here. The mainstream media is most definitely not cautious in these matters as is apparent by their increasing lean toward tabloid journalism. The failure to include morbid details in this article by an individual is a case of self-censorship and that is appropriate; if we collectively come to the conclusion that the details are not appropriate and leave out or remove details that too is appropriate form of self-censorship; both of those cases of censorship are appropriate. What we cannot tolerated is the case of the article being deleted or so much material deleted to such an extent that it is of no real use to inform. Since this article is open to the public for editing it is unlikely to be censored with a heavy hand of one individual but collectively it is appropriate to decide that particular factual, morbid details should be excluded. There is nothing wrong with saying that a teacher was shot and killed but I see no use in adding what part of the body she was shot. If you believe that every detail is appropriate then consider including in the article "the 10mm round passed through Lanza's head and was found imbedded in a wall" which are facts. Put that in the article and see how it reads. No doubt there are people out there that would like to paddle their fingers in the bloody entrails of the dead, but I for one don't. Zedshort (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think any detail that is cited in a credible news source or report about this case is appropriate to include in the article, including the details that you cited above and the ones you want removed. An encyclopedia is intended to provide information. We don't remove details because they make you squeamish. I oppose removal of this data. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If you believe every mote of "data" is vitally important, then you should seriously consider inserting the following "the 10mm round passed through Lanza's head and was found imbedded in a wall" and reinsert the material I removed about the child running from the school "covered in blood" and also the detail about the teacher being "shot in the face." In addition to that you should consider keeping to the subject and avoid anything that comes close to an ad hominem attack as in: "We don't remove details because they make you squeamish." Believe me, I am tough enough but there is a difference between toughness and callousness. I am certainly tough enough to argue my points with people who seem incapable of hearing any argument but their own but, though at the same time I am not callous enough to ignore material and let pass material in this article that belongs to the sewer. Zedshort (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please gain consensus for removing any text that is otherwise within policy before doing so again. You are bordering on edit warring since you've been reverted multiple times before. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Zedshort - at an absolute minimum, you would have to agree that degree of prurience, or morbid interest, is a judgement call. Some might agree with you on that judgement. Many here obviously don't. You know that your position won't be the only one. It looks to me like you're on a bit of an extreme here. That doesn't make you wrong. It doesn't mean the others are wrong. It does mean though that your view is not going to prevail here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not a judgment call. It is also a product of a degree of maturity of mind and I am getting the impression that I often have here on Wikipedia, that I am dealing with a crew who are just a tad too young, not fully developed mentally and/or emotionally to be able to see the entire picture, i.e. unable to put things in perspective. To be frank with you, they smack of the Onion's made up character: The Autistic Reporter. There is a very small crew of people willing to respond to these posts and it often leans to those with "unusual" interests. The bias if any should cleave to the removal of material that does not have a direct bearing on the subject, otherwise the article will expand beyond usefulness. Simply being a factual is not a sufficient reason to put in an article nor to keep it in. I've no doubt there is somewhere, some person who would think the screams of agony of the dying are factual and kind of interesting. It does not follow that it should be included. Zedshort (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

One last thing. I found the concluding sentence of HiLO48's respond to be very insightful: "That doesn't make you wrong. It doesn't mean the others are wrong. It does mean though that your view is not going to prevail here."

Please note the the absolute terms in which it was expressed by the last sentence. It strikes me as a bit closeminded. Zedshort (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"A tad too young"? ROTFLMAO. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you and I'm past 40, with more than 20 years under my belt as a journalist. Like it or not, people disagree with you here and with your point of view. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zedshort! I'm also not "a tad too young". While your argument does have merit, decisions are made on Wikipedia based on consensus. While it's unfortunate that others disagree with your point of view, you're not going to convert other editors by making negative comments about them. Even though others disagree with you on this issue, your work on Wikipedia is important. Unless anyone has a new viewpoint on this issue, can we please conclude this discussion and find other ways to improve the encyclopedia? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by conclude this discussion? Are you suggesting a 3 to 2 or a 4 to 3 or a 5 to 4 decision would provide a "consensus" to decide what is to be kept and what removed? I have asked if anyone would put back into the article material that shows morbid interest but they have not answered. Do you think it is appropriate that we should include the fact that a teacher "was shot in the face" or that a child "ran covered in blood from the school" or that Lanza shot himself "with a 10mm round and it was found lodged in a wall." I removed the first two. Someone else suggests the latter to be kind of interesting. If they really believe such garbage is necessary to the article then let them reenter it and I will remove it once again, regardless of the silly "consensus". In addition to that I have read up on the comments of on editor and I am getting the impression of that person as having an agenda w.r.t. guns and shootings in the US and will try to inject material to make it as morbid a possible. For what reason I can't imagine. Perhaps he has a deep seated hatred of the US. It would not be unusual to find such persons here. Zedshort (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Listen to this then: If you don't redact your threat to go against consensus, you may be blocked from editing. Consensus is not silly. It's how Wikipedia works. If you don't like it, leave now. Otherwise, redact your threat to thwart consensus and stop now per WP:NOTCENSORED. We are NOT going to remove something because you feel it's a little bit morbid. We are an encyclopedia, not a kids storybook. It's pertinent to the story, so it'll stay. Also, your last few sentences could be taken as personal attacks, I'd suggest you redact those too. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I meant that since I don't see any new points being brought up in this particular discussion, we should decide what's best for the article and move on to other things. Otherwise, I'm concerned that the conversation will continue to devolve from how to improve the article to something much less civil. Thank you. GoingBatty (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Retain This is the kind of detail that Wikipedia provides because of its not being censured. Yes, it is morbid (not prurient) in a way, and that should not be emphasized; but these details should be provided, not erased or sanitized. htom (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Now it seems we are not supposed to use the "s" word! Zedshort wants to replace "suicide" with the euphemism "took his life".[36] Too silly ... WWGB (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Dorner apparently committed suicide with a shot to the head.[37]. So did Wade Page. Let's stop the silly attempts to take the censor's pencil to mainstream news coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Retain, but simplify the lede portion. I come down firmly on the side of retaining the factual information that Lanza committed suicide by using a handgun to shoot himself in the head; it's a fact, and it's not prurient. It definitely belongs in the detailed article text. However, I think it would be appropriate to adjust the sentence in the first paragraph of the lede to either "he committed suicide" or "he committed suicide by shooting himself", and removing the "in the head" part. Not because of concerns of morbidity or prurience, but simply because the rest of the lede is very tight and regimented on the key points, and the fact that he shot himself through the head is an overly detailed point for a lede section that has been deliberately crafted (by most of us editing here) to not get into the finer details. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• In my view you've come at this issue all wrong, Zedshort. By using the term "prurient interests" you've evoked First Amendment language. Specifically you've used a term of art that is employed as the legal basis of an important exception to the First Amendment. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't a legal threat and is really just an incautious use of words, but I think that coming at this from the angle that your edits represent an exception to the censorship rules is the main reason you're getting such a negative reception here. As I'm sure you've noticed, there's a strong sentiment that Wikipedia is not censored. Your central point if I understand you well is that the coverage isn't due and that it is unencyclopedic within the meaning intended by WP:5P. If so, that's a fine and respectable argument that I think everyone should recognize. But unfortunately it's also one that lies entirely within the realm of editorial discretion. In other words there is no brightline test for whether coverage of these details are due or whether their inclusion renders the article unencyclopedic. General editorial consensus is the order of the day on these issues and the only comfort I can offer you is WP:CCC. -Thibbs (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Retain the information. Obviously. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible Defamation of Character- No court case has been heard.

inquest = court case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquest

1) I know people are in a state of frenzy but to say Adam Lanza is the one responsible is a bit premature. No Ruling except in the public media has said Adam Lanza is responsible. So I feel we should wait until the court rules he was guilty as we should in all law cases even if it seems obvious. We can always change the page later

2) Why is President Obama in this page??

Popular Press: Lanza was described as a bright but painfully awkward student. Lanza subsequently was home-schooled by his mother, and earned a GED. Adam Lanza: Skinny outcast who became a mass killer. Lanza, who friends and officials said suffered from Asperger’s syndrome or a personality disorder, had a tortured mind. Lanza avoided public attention and had few, if any, friends, though he was a member of the high-school tech club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinky2013 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Um "court case"? Since Lanza's dead, and there's zero evidence of any other person involved (outside of fringe theories), we're not going to have a court case. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The dead cannot be defamed (except in Quebec). Also, criminal punishment usually stops at death. I doubt there'll be a posthumous trial any time soon. Not sure what is wrong with Obama being mentioned here.--Auric talk 20:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

um why is obama in this?? If the OP would had read the proper section then he would had known that obama gave a Televised speech on the day of the shooting so it's correct that he is in this article! And a posthumous trial would be ludicrous because the only Sentence that could be spoken out would be the Death Sentence and since he is death already that would just be a giant waste of Tax Dollars like already mentioned there is Zero evidence that he isn't the right one! --Fox2k11 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some sealed court documents and the investigation is ongoing. Perhaps more importantly, investigators have not made any public comment on a motive. Beyond the obvious fact that Adam Lanza flipped his mind, we still do not really know why he did it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

and I have my doubts that they find his motive he took that to the grave I'm afraid... --Fox2k11 (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And it should be noted the police have confirmed he was the killer, no ifs-ands-buts - that part of the case is "solved." He was seen alive at the scene just before he killed himself by law enforcement, there are multiple surviving witnesses who confirmed he was the killer, he had the murder weapon, etc., etc., etc. That part of this tragedy is a "done deal" and it is extremely silly to try to say otherwise. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

latest un-named LEOs statement to CBS News on motive denied by Vance

The latest stuff to hit the news media this morning about the shooter's motive concerning the Norwegian mass-murderer has been denied as mere speculation:

Police dismiss report

A spokesman for the Connecticut State Police dismissed the CBS report, calling it speculation.

"It's inaccurate ... I talked with CBS and told them that," Lt. Paul Vance told CNN. "We are dealing with a deceased shooter and trying to rebuild history."

Vance, however, did not dismiss the notion that investigators may have looked at the Norway shooting.

"We'll look at everything," Vance said. "One thing leads to another."

Authorities have been largely tight-lipped about their investigation.

A final report is due this summer.

I don't think this stuff should be added? It's just more of the same. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It was reverted in this edit because it is currently speculation from an unnamed source. As with the video games angle, investigators have not made any public link.[38]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• The theory of a video game style "high score" is not new. The Dunblane school massacre occurred in March 1996 and the Port Arthur massacre in April 1996. This was widely cited as the motive for the massacre in Tasmania.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling fix please

Page cannot be edited. The word "publicly" is misspelled on the page as "pubicly" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiks (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

what the heck is this?

Reference 100 is some Template:Cite_weblast%3DGoodwin&action=edit&redlink=1 template???? HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, there was a | missing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

PBS documentary

Re this edit: The photos of Adam Lanza in this article are new, the claims about Lanza having sensory integration disorder and Asperger syndrome are not. Locals told the media and investigators these things in the first few days after the shooting. Unless they are confirmed by a medical professional or a public comment from the investigators, they are not reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The news media jumps on anything they remotely consider a "lead" to "be first" and get ratings. Even CBS news this morning stubbornly went ahead with the unnamed sources "leak" they had, noting that the official investigation heads had already told them that was just speculation. The days of solid editors/producers in most network television seem to be a thing of the past. If everyone will be patient until the official report comes out it will save red-faced embarrassment later.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the concerns is that sensory integration disorder is not a widely recognized medical diagnosis. It is also unclear whether a doctor or official said this, or whether it is merely a repeat of what local people said that they had heard. This also applies to the AS diagnosis. The article should not say that Adam Lanza received a diagnosis of X, Y or Z if it is simply repeating what other people heard. The media should understand the legal definition of hearsay in this situation, but the rush to get a scoop may cause the distinction between "this is true" and "I heard that this is true" to become blurred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree here. Though it is true that the information would have to be carefully phrased, as long as it is reliably sourced there should be no problem with including it, and since the Hartford Courant can be considered a reliable secondary source (in my eyes at least), and in its recent investigation into the Lanza family clearly states that Lanza was

diagnosed with a condition that made it difficult for him to manage and respond to sights, touch and smell

and that

[h]is mother would respond, touching off a 10-year educational shuffle with moves in and out of schools and programs that addressed his sensory integration disorder and another diagnosis that would come by middle school: Asperger's syndrome.

I am of the opinion that the information should be added. And to think it is a necessity to wait for a medical professional or someone involved in the investigation to come foreward and confirm he suffered from either condition, even though it has been reported repeatedly, seems somewhat off to me. If we'd do that for every bit of information regarding his life the section about him would be really short. Furthermore, while likely it is by no means 100% certain that an official report will be released, or that the findings of the police investigation will be made public. Had we waited for a police report about the mass shootings in, say, Red Lake and Binghamton, we would've waited in vain, because there was none, or at least none that I am aware of. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC))

• Reliable sources are reporting what the upcoming PBS documentary is saying. They did a proper investigation. PBS isn't just some gossip magazine that makes things up at random. Dream Focus 01:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: has any doctor or official linked to the investigation said that Adam Lanza had AS or SID? Probably not, as Lt. Paul Vance has made clear that he will not speculate about Lanza or comment until the final report is published later this year. The correct wording in the article should be that the AS/SID diagnoses are what locals told the media, this is nothing new and was known within days of the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

They haven't aired the documentary yet, so no way to know who they talked to or how they found out what. Dream Focus 04:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This article provides the answer. Quote: "During FRONTLINE’s and The Hartford Courant‘s investigation into the Newtown tragedy, one potentially important clue came in an email from a family member. According to the message, Lanza as a young boy had been diagnosed with sensory integration disorder (SID)... In the case of Adam Lanza, his SID was followed by a diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome, according to the family member." As suspected, the AS/SID diagnoses are based on something that the media was told by an acquaintance of Lanza, rather than the ongoing investigation. The e-mail has become lost in translation by the media, and has been portrayed as "Lanza received a diagnosis of AS/SID" rather than "we were told that Lanza received a diagnosis of AS/SID from a family member."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

And why is the fact, that the information comes from a relative of Lanza making it unusable? In many occasions witness accounts are the only source of information available, and they are used by historians and researchers all over the world to piece together events of days long past, and we here on Wikipedia have to trust them that they have checked, if the witness can be believed, or not. In this case it certainly seems to be the case that PBS and The Hartford Courant are of the opinion that their source for Lanza's mental condition is genuine, and that the information is true. So, what makes you believe it is not? What if said family member was Adam Lanza's brother, or his father? Certainly they would be trustworthy, wouldn't they? You see, it is not the duty of Wikipedians to check the reliability of primary sources, because it would be a bottomless hole and everything about everything could be cast into doubt, if it were otherwise. Yes, the media often makes mistakes, often because they release stories before double-checking the information, but in the case of the PBS and HC report the journalists had two months to get their facts straight, so we can expect that this is a little bit more than just a sloppy bit of journalism. So if we'd write something like: "According to a member of his family, Lanza was diagnosed with Asperger's and sensory integration disorder." there should be no problem with including the information in the article.

Regarding the Lanza-Breivik connection: it doesn't sound totally implausible, since Lanza would've certainly followed reporting about high-profile mass murderers, just like others have done before him, and at least the Hartford Courant made clear that "[t]he sources emphasized that an interest in Breivik is just one theory", which is not in contradiction with State Police Lt. Paul Vance's statement that "Lanza wanted to outdo Norway gunman Anders Breivik [is] 'mere speculation.'" As someone who has studied many such killings I am pretty sure that his desire to "outperform" Breivik was not the reason for the shooting in the first place (it would be just silly to think so, and in complete disregard of the human psyche), and he would've probably committed it, no matter if there was a Breivik, or not (after all, there are enough other mass shooters to serve as a guide, and the urge to kill people was obviously already in him), but it may have influenced him in choosing Sandy Hook Elementary as his target. Of course, this is mere speculation, and in all probability it will never become anything different, even if police uncovered tons of evidence that would support it, but still it does sound plausible. That the senstionalist media tries to make more out of every bit of somewhat interesting information than there actually is, is another thing, but in all probbility there ist still a grain of truth in it. (Thusz (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC))

The diagnosis of SID was tagged for relevance in this edit and was removed. At best, the SID diagnosis seems to have borderline relevance to the shooting at the moment, and medical experts have also cautioned against drawing any conclusions about Asperger syndrome as the motive. The best part of the PBS/Hartford Courant documentary is the previously unseen photos of Lanza. In terms of a motive, the media is no further forward than it was in the first few days after the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are what we go by on Wikipedia, and they all mention him having sensory integration disorder. No one has suggested Asperger has anything to do with the killing, every reliable source saying that's unrelated. Don't confuse two unrelated things here. Dream Focus 14:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dream Focus, multiple RS sources are reporting this and it's WP:RS. It's not for us to orginally research here whether Sensory Integration Disorder is "widely recognized" in the medical community - we don't do original research here. It's what WP:RS is claiming. This is all over the news, not blogs but PBS, CNN, FOX, all the standard major news outlets. And while Apergers or Sensory Integration Disorder doesn't in and of itself make someone violent, we don't know what formal firearms training at the range combined with violent video games can do to a person but something went dreadfully wrong and the problem was most certainly mental. Normal people don't kill children by the dozens. I recommend against trying to suppress WP:RS. That's now what we're here for. Just the WP:RS facts.- Justanonymous (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As Dream Focus said, stating that he had Asperger's and SID is not the same as saying that Lanza killed all those people, because he had Asperger's and SID. That are two totally different things. And if he had mental problems it may not be directly relevant in the context of the shooting, but it is pretty relevant in the context of his person and personality, which is the key to unlocking the reason behind the crime. And if there are any relevancy-issues about this information, the same could be said about the entire rest of the perpetrator-section. Or is it any more relavant that Nancy Lanza didn't have to work thanks to her husband's alimony payments? Or that she was a gun enthusiast? Or that Lanza attended St. Rose of Lima Catholic School? Or that he was born on April 22, 1992? (Thusz (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC))

This is an article about the shooting, not a biography of Adam Lanza. The media has thrown SID into the melting pot without providing any explanation of why it is relevant to the shooting, which is why WWGB tagged it for relevance in this edit. Maybe Adam Lanza fell over and hurt his knee or had an ear infection as a child, but without relevance to the shooting it does not have to be in the article as it has WP:TOPIC issues and could mislead the reader. I have reverted to WWGB's version for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The perpetrator gets a reasonable description as is typical in these types of articles - and no we should not glorify people who do things like this. We have to be factual and should not remove relevant items. I'm sure some people on here would like to just say that an AR15, grotesque weapon of war, woke up one morning, drove itself to school, and shot 26 people in cold blood - bad gun. We should not remove the weapons used and we should not remove facts that are relevant about the perpetrator. There are human factors here and it's categorically inappropriate to suppress or block those from getting into the Wikii due to some political agenda. I was against adding Aspergers on Dec 15th because everything was still in the fog of war but the picture emegerging now is very clear and getting some very wide RS coverage. Aspergers and SIDs didn't make him do this but I doubt the medical prescription includes formally training people with these disabilities with firearms at ranges and dumping them in basements with violent video games and pictures of real life Norwegian Killers to idolize. What did we think was going to happen? There are lessons here for the medical community - keep violent video games away from people who have these kinds of mental disabilities and for heaven's sake discourage their parents from taking them to the range! Sadly, this perpetrator likely needed a lot of care that he wasn't getting. People can draw their own conclusions. It's a horrific crime. Please read the WP:RS policy. It's not really up to us to parse unless there is a violation of objectivity, weight, or other due. YOu're making multiple disjointed claims ianmacm, shouldn't be a biography, SIDS is not "widely accepted," Why don't you post the specific set of violations of the wikipedia policies that provide rationale for not including, ianmacm? -Justanonymous (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on, the fact that this article is about the shooting is absolutely no reason to exclude any information in the biographical section about Adam Lanza. Or do you suggest we must start an article exclusively dedicated to him, before we can add any information regarding his person that has not directly been put in context to the shooting by others? Then again, why is there any biographical section at all? Pretty much all of the information in there seems at best superficially related to the shooting, including his birth date. So why is that all right, but not that he had Asperger's? And just because a minor illness or injury in his early childhood is irrelevant, does not mean that a significant mental problem that apparently has affected his life for many years, is too. I hope you realise that you have created a straw man here. (Thusz (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC))

If a close family member said that Adam Lanza received a diagnosis of SID, it is probably true. Like WWGB, I would question its relevance to the shooting as investigators have not made any public comment on the motive. As for the whole video games/mental health angle/Breivik angle, this is media chatter and could easily turn out to be wrong. Being a humble Wikipedian, I cannot question reliable sources, but can recognize media chatter when I see it. The mainstream media is becoming frustrated at the lack of an official explanation for the shooting, and is filling in the gaps with chatter, which is a familiar tactic after major tragedies.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly reasonable to include - as long as we ID who said it (making it clear it isn't from officials and ergo may not have direct bearing on the case), and that we don't make anything implicit that it caused the shooting. As it was put before, it did give that impression. I've seen moved it to be where he other mental disorders are discussed, such that the final line of that para, where medical professions are cited to calm the mental disorder angle involvement in the shooting, would also apply to this statement, and also took out one statement that implied this could be a factor in the shooting. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What investigators say about Lanza's motive is completely irrelevant in the context of his Asperger's and SID diagnosis. The perpetrator-section is there to provide information about the perpetrator, who is relevant, simply because he is the person who committed the crime this article is about. And certainly any major illness that affected his life is a significant part of it. Regarding the "media chatter", if the information about Lanza's mental illness were just that, chatter without any real basis in reality, do you think PBS/HC would have picked it up and repeated it again, after two months? (Thusz (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC))

• I'd like to point out that people will come here looking for this information, and with the massive amount of coverage in reliable sources, it should be mentioned. Dream Focus 16:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lt. Paul Vance is leading the investigation, not the media. Even if Lanza had a range of mental or physical health issues, it would not provide a motive for the shooting on that particular day. As discussed previously, it is possible that a clear cut motive will never be found, as Adam Lanza may have taken it to the grave with him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

First, Vance and the other investigators are not the only sources that can be considered reliable in this case. Any major newspaper or TV station must be accepted as a reliable source, too. It eludes me why you are constantly referring to "the investigators", as if they were the only people who could provide any truthful information about Lanza and the shooting. Second, please stop trying to create a connection between the discussion about Lanza's mental state and the motive behind the shooting. Talking about "A was diagnosed with B" is not the same as talkibng about "A was diagnosed with B and therefore did C". Why is this so hard to understand? We have RS reporting Lanza had Asperger's and SID, so there is absolutely no reason to not include it in the respective section. Lanza's mental state is relevant per se, not because it has anything to do with his motivation for anything. (Thusz (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC))

Agree with Thusz, Lt Vance is a primary source and WP:PRIMARY and the policy states that Reliable Secondary sources are preferred. Also, the whole appeal to authority and some "Lieutenant," only goes so far. The police are some of the least truthful of sources during an investigation - they are explicitly uthorized to LIE if it furthers their investigation. It's going to be a while before they turn in their report and flocking to a Lieutenant is lazy reporting. So no, WP:RS is there for a purpose. I wonder how the whole Watergate coverage would've gone here, likely we'd have a bunch of people on here saying that a WP:RS source wasn't reliable because it came from some shadowy figure known simply as "deep throat," and since the President, an official, said there was nothing to see - reporters reporting anything to the contrary should not be mentioned here? NO! Get over it. It's WP:RS, it meets notability, it's relevant, it's weighed properly and the whole appeal to some authority who is authorized to lie is just distasteful to a lot of us.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

“ Lanza's brother told law enforcement that Adam was believed to have a personality disorder and was "somewhat autistic".[100] An anonymous law enforcement official[101] and friends of Nancy Lanza[102] reported that Adam had been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome.[103][104][105] According to the Hartford Courant and Frontline, Lanza was diagnosed with sensory integration disorder when he was about 6.[10] ”

We mention what other people said about his mental health, so no reason not to mention this bit also, in one form or another. Dream Focus 16:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this in the New York Times back in December [39] and the newspaper concluded that it was right to tell readers that Lanza may have had AS, even if it was not the motive. As for the SID diagnosis, I still believe that this is wandering off into WP:TOPIC territory unless investigators make some link with the shooting. That is my 2c, we may have to disagree on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is never going to be a direct causal link and certainly not by the police. Nobody is going to say that he shot people because he has Aspergers or because he had SID. It's on topic and relevant because it describes the body of the mental illness he had. Obviously he completely lost it. It's WP:RS, it's relevant, it's noteworthy regardless of your personal analysis which is not per policy here - we don't do original research here. -Justanonymous (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

One aspect to keep in mind - until we figure out (we haven't) if we should have a separate page for Lanza (my suggestion is still "no" at this point w/ what we know), this page is serving as his bio. Thus, even if the relationship to the shooting is tenancious or even off-topic but a normal facet that 1) meets RS/(BLP-ish) type sourcing requirements and 2) would normally be included in a bio article about a person, that should be included here. We just have to make sure that in writing about material that could be taken as a tie/cause for the shooting, that we don't create any implication about that. We've done a good job so far in writing as neutrally as possible about Lanza's mental health and disconnecting it as a factor in the shooting, but reporting on it since this has been a major factor in reliable (not sensational) news reports. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

the Mental health history of someone who killed 20 first graders and 6 teachers is as relevant if not more than the type of weapon he used. If it comes from WP:RS sources, we should include and as the sources and knowledge get better, we should update. Just like we've been doing. At first we thought he shot with handguns and then we learned he shot with AR15, we revised as information came out. We should go with WP:RS and mental health is extremely relevant here.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against including the mental health issues - I support that inclusion per my argument. We just can't say, as WPian editors, that his mental health was the cause for the shooting, at least without strongly reliable sources (read: the investigators) making that statement for us. We can say what he was known to have but in a disjointed manner to talk about Lanza as a person and not as the perp in a massive shooting incident. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies Masem, I wasn't clear and I agree - we will likely never be able to attribute cause to Aspergers or SID. His illness had probably gone to some form of undiagnosed psychosis (which nobody has stated in RS so we can't use) but it takes a very serious break to do something like this. Overall, Aspergers and SID are part of his mental health profile. have been mentioned in RS and that is entirely relevant that we include as part of his overall profile.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but unfairly noted

Ladies and gentlemen of the court, I bring to your attention this statement:

"The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, and a proposal for new legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic weapons and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition"

This statement is, verbatim, a polar opposite to the argument that the new gun legislation infringes on the Second Amendment, and in the theory of argumentation, embracing such a belief is called bias. When it is portrayed without a counter argument, it becomes a universal truth about it. Therefore, I recommend removing it or by adding this phrase:

"Critics warn that they may unfairly be at risk of being victims of prejudicial behavior in terms of the Federal Government adopting new, untested policies concerning enforcement of new laws (New York Safe Act), and groundbreaking medical research (DSM-5) in the field of mental health."

The new paragraph being represented as:

"The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, and a proposal for new legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic weapons and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition. Critics warn that they may unfairly be at risk of being victims of prejudicial behavior in terms of the Federal Government adopting new, untested policies concerning enforcement of new laws (New York Safe Act), and groundbreaking medical research (DSM-5) in the field of mental health."

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.104.241 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unclear - who are the "they unfairly at risk"? Not obvious in this paragraph, which should contain whoever the "they" refers to.Parkwells (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Delete category of "spree killing"

If you read this article, you see that the term is controversial and that Lanza better satisfies criteria of "rampage" or "mass murder" - all deaths committed within short period of time, in small geographic range. It wasn't as if he had been driving around the state, killing people at multiple locations over a period of days. His mother was the only person he killed outside the school, and he killed himself before his identity was even known - more characteristic of mass murder than spree killing.Parkwells (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Rampage" is a single location/event. A "Spree" spans locations and contains more than one discrete event. In this case, we see two discrete events, so it's a spree consisting of one murder and one rampage. Rklawton (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering all the above, there were only 3 First-grade classes

...and Ms. Soto's class picture shows 15 students.
These reports mention 16.
"19 children you protected" Jillian Soto:

There were 3 first-grade classes
Kaitlyn Roig's class was spared. All but one of Mrs. Rousseau's class perished. Where did the extra students come from?

70.194.134.152 (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Request for edit - February 24, 2013

Fifth paragraph under Shootings

She ran from the school, and was the first child to escape the building.

I propose expanding on that with

Newtown Middle School resource officer Leonard Penna found the student in Rousseau's class who survived standing alone. He grabbed the uninjured girl by the arm and ran with her out to a triage area set up in the parking lot.

Sixth paragraph under Shootings

Six surviving children from Soto's class crawled out of the cupboards after the shooting and fled the school. They and a school bus driver took refuge at a nearby home. The cited article only says "...he is unsure how the students escaped the school...".

I propose replacing that sentence with

One group of 4 girls and 2 boys from Ms. Soto's class fled the school. They, along with a school bus driver, were brought in to a nearby home. Police rescued 7 students still hiding in Ms. Soto's classroom.

Also Sixth paragraph under Shootings

I propose expanding on this sentence:
As reported by his parents, a six-year-old boy in Soto's class fled with a group of his classmates, and the children escaped through the door when Lanza shot their teacher.

Let's include the following reports and write something like this:

As reported by his parents, their six-year-old son from Ms. Soto's class helped a group escape by holding the door when Lanza shot their teacher, including a girl named Emma, and another boy. A woman picked them up in her van and took them to police station.

Additional Information

Meanwhile, another mother drove directly to the firehouse to search for her son immediately upon getting phonecalls and knocks on her door. She saw 5 other students of Ms. Soto's at the firehouse, and learned that her son and 4 more of Ms. Soto's students had been taken to Newtown police station by "two moms".
It turns out that CT Rep. John H. Frey's sister Tricia Gogliettino picked up "5 1st graders".

70.194.134.152 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

In reply to the above requests, there is too much detail already and adding more would be undue weight. WP:UNDUE USchick (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So the article couldn't use any of it? 208.54.90.141 (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Notes

References