Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Talk

Is the article all done then?

173.121.90.172 (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that's in your judgement. You can help improve the article, but remember there is no deadline. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

70.194.134.152 points out some obvious improvements. Anyone else want to chime in? 2001:4800:780E:510:EA9:3A93:FF04:8DE3 (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

These are verifiable, reliable sources listed here. 70.194.128.68 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

About the number of students. Unless there's a credible source bringing attention to the discrepancy, I'm afraid it's WP:SYNTH. This is just one of many discrepancies. I would support a section in the article addressing the discrepancies. There are many reliable sources to support it and I have listed them before, but will be happy to do it again if there is interest. USchick (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Media

The media has gone rampant with the misinformatino that an AR-15 rifle was used in the shootings, when on December 15 many sources indicated that he only used 4 pistols which were recovered in the school. Source: http://www.today.com/video/today/50208495#50208495 -- start about 25 seconds in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.90.137 (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's old (and incorrect) news. Please see Question Four (Q4) in the FAQ at the top of this page for more information. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A 30 round magazine was recovered with the rifle.

From context, perhaps this sentence could read that the 30-round magazine was recovered attached to the rifle. More clear might be: The rifle was recovered with one 30-round magazine attached. The way the article is now, it appears as if over twenty people were killed with a single 30-round magazine, but other sentences imply that he removed some magazines from the rifle before all of the rounds were expended. I may fix this sentence in a few days, but really, these sentences should be gathered together a bit better in my opinion. Fotoguzzi (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The best sourcing on the magazines is here. Lanza was carrying several magazines and reloaded frequently, which is mentioned in the Shooting section. This source gives the number of shots fired as around 150, in contrast to the 50-100 in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Better Photo

Can someone add this clearer photo http://www.chillnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/adam-lanza-photo-new.jpg of Lanza to the article? The photo that is currently up is somewhat grainy. I'm not sure how to add pictures or if this photo passes Wikipedia standards so can someone help me with this? 24.193.117.119 (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not impossible, but someone might complain about WP:NFCC#3 if both pictures were used. The current photo is the one most widely used immediately after the shooting in December, while the linked photo was one that was used in the PBS documentary in February.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

plus the Picture might be copyrighted and Fairuse may not apply here because it's not from a media-outlet but I Agree it's a better picture then the other one! --Fox2k11 (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I considered being WP:BOLD and adding this but did not want to set off reverts. The copyright holder on this image is unclear. Before changing the image there should be a consensus. What do other users think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I considered also WP:BOLD but not if the copyright is in question once the copyright has been cleared this can be cropped and replace the current version I Guess --Fox2k11 (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Lanza "had a seven foot spreadsheet" detailing past mass killings

This is originally cited to an anonymous source in the New York Daily News.[1] It fits in with previous off the record briefings that police are considering the theory that Adam Lanza was trying to outdo previous killings and run up a video game-style "high score". The problem is that this is not sourced on the record and Lt. Paul Vance, who is leading the investigation, has declined to comment and warned against speculation about a motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That is not a problem at all, we don't go by what some "police investigator" says. We don't live in a police state and the mere suggestion at thinking that way goes contrary to most Americans at least. He's a WP:PRIMARY, we go by WP:Secondary sources that are RS. The media is starting to do their job and getting the story. It's WP:RS and we should add to the story. Remember the police are authorized to lie in pursuit of their case. We need to start building the motive section and it does seem that it will be a section by the time we're done. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It is probably true that police are considering this theory, but the official report may not be published for some time. Violent video games are being lined up as a convenient whipping boy by some politicians. Let's hope that Lanza did not compile the spreadsheet from List of rampage killers, which would be a handy reference source in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

But we don't care about "official reports" really - or rather, we don't like official documents because they are primary documents. We prefer WP:RS Secondary sources and those are coming out. We have RS sources talking about the spreadsheet and it's contents and about motive. We'll publish that in an NPOV fashion. Sadly, we were dealing with a very sick individual. To me at least, Video games are not to blame here anymore than guns are to blame here. One thing is clear, we should not train mentally ill people in firearm tactics through violent video games and we should not take insane people to the shooting range and teach them how to shoot. And yes, politicians are exploiting this tragic event to pass gun control laws and I'm sure another group will line up to say, "see I told you so, it's those bloody video games." It's largely irrelevant to us. We publish WP:RS sources and let the politicians debase themselves as they wish. The motive is emerging as very clear. This guy was completely nuts and he never should've been allowed near guns or video games and probably he should've been committed a long time ago. That is the true failure here, a failure treat this individual properly (obviously firearms training and violent video games in a dark room for years with access to the internet and violent killer histories is not the correct protocol!) We paid a very heavy price for our mistakes. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In a case like this where critical facts and figures are only privy to a few people (the investigators), we do rely on them as primary sources to give us the correct details and assume that supposed facts that suddenly appear from others are likely to be questionable and should be avoided until the primary source affirms it. Or to put it another way, while there may be third-party sources that look like secondary sources because they claim to be asserting what a primary source said, but give no clue to the identify or reliability of this source, they really aren't reliable sources in this particular instance. Particularly on points that press a specific unsourced POV (here, the implication that Lanza was actively seeking out a mass killing spree, which has yet to be validated). --MASEM (t) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That's contary to the policy Masem. Lt. Vance is WP:Primary and he's not reliable (he's a cop - no disrespect to police, it's just the nature of their job, they just can't be and aren't forthright with all the facts). The records are sealed from the court. There are hundreds of RS citing the spreadsheet matter now regarding the spreadsheet by very reputable RS. I guess we would've kept Bob Woodward's Watergate article out because his source was protected going only the name Deep Throat?-Justanonymous (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If WP were around at the time of the Watergate scandal, we would not likely be treating Woodward's as a RS at the onset, but only after the matters started proving true by primary sources. In this case, while you're claiming hundreds of sources, I believe they're all copying from the one anon source that you have linked (that's how modern press works), and as such is simply repeating hearsay for lack of any other details. And you are misreading our policy on RS. Primary sources can be reliable - nothing about being primary excludes them from usage. In certain situations, of course, primary sources can be biased or promotional or the like, and hence, for concepts like notability, we don't consider primary sources. But for pure factual information, particularly by an officer of the law, there is no reason to doubt his statements as truthful unless you can prove otherwise. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm not misreading anything. I've used primary sources but very carefully like sworn testimony, court rulines, etc. Police statements are a far cry from sworn testimony and rank amond some of the worst kind of unreliable primaries. That said, this is WP:RS and it's not for you or for me to claim that it is heresay (a legal term not a term used by journalists - who use different words like "sources", "whistleblowers" etc - let's use the language of the profession not of a court). A reputable journalist did his job, convinced his management and got his story printed - it's WP:RS, per the policy. It's also very material and merits inclusion without obstruction. We're in no rush but at the same time, we shouldn't block for other reasons, people will begin to think that we have an agenda to suppress here.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The only ppl that have authority (both legal and knowledge-wise) are the investigators, since Lanza's dead. The anonymous source about the spreadsheet may be with the authorities, but we have no knowledge of that. Ergo, we have to consider any story that rests its weight on that as suspicious since it is a weighted stated against Lanza. (And while one may argue BLP does not apply to dead people, this is still close enough to his death that despite being the culprit, we cannot go slandering his name). Just because the source is normally an RS does not make everything they publish an RS; it just means that we know they normally have good editorial standards that we don't have to refute the reputation of the work. But we can and do consider articles on case-by-case as to their appropriateness, and this is a case we should not be including this information unless the authorities on the case state this. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As WP:V says: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The origin of the information in question is an article published in the New York Daily News, so the first thing we should assess is the reliability of said newspaper. If the NYDN can be considered reliable then I think it is not our duty to check if the information is true, or if its source is genuine, because we must assume that the newspaper staff already did so. If the police officer was present at the meeting where the info was presented, (and the journalist certainly thinks he was) he is not a secondary source anymore, since he has witnessed first hand the presentation of the investigators' findings (and I suppose we can safely assume that the attendees of that presentation weren't deliberately lied to). So, as long as no one involved in the investigation flat out denies that any of that information is true, I'd say it can be included, as long as it is phrased carefully enough.

After all, the contested information in this case is merely Lanza's spreadsheet. That spreadsheet either exists, or it does not, and we have (probably reliable) secondary sources reporting its existence, so what makes anybody believe this is a hoax? The speculation about his possible intention to outdo other mass murderers may be something different, but even then, it has been reported more than once in the last couple of months, so in all probability there is something to it, and maybe we should include it simply because the media is repeating it again and again. So, a sentence like "According to ... Lanza may have attempted to ..." should be unproblematic. Should it turn out to be wrong we can change it into something like "Despite frequent reports that Lanza tried to ... investigators stated that this was not true, but ..."

Regarding Watergate, Woodward may not have been a reliable source, but the newspapers reporting about the scandal were, and since it was a major story it would've been covered by Wikipedia no matter what. Had it turned out to be a hoax, or had it remained unconfirmed by those involved, a different title for the article may have been chosen, but an article would've been created anyway.

Finally a little side note, maybe we shouldn't forget that police also has to rely heavily on second and third-party sources, since Lanza and his mother are dead. So they will have to puzzle together much of what was going on in Lanza's mind and his home from statements that often start with "Nancy Lanza told me that ...", or "I've heard that ..." and in the end nobody will be able to say, if the picture they come up with is anywhere close to the truth. If we'd go by the reliabilty standards people want to apply here anything could be questioned and Wikipedia articles would become a lot shorter overall. Just take as an example the article about the Syrian civil war. The whole affair is a propaganda nightmare and the only thing we know with some certainty is who is fighting whom, but that didn't stop the article from becoming quite expansive. (Thusz (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

I see no reason why we can't wait for the official report. Unless, of course, the rumors themselves become notable. I don't think that's the case, yet. Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

And I see no reason to wait for the official report, when- or if ever it will be released. After all, NYDN is citing a source that has been at a meeting, where the investigators presented their findings. Don't you think the journalist demanded some evidence to make sure the source can be trusted? What is it that makes you doubt its reliability? What makes you believe that police officer or the reporter may have lied or told something that may not be true? (Thusz (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

Agree with Thusz, we are not here to create policy. We have a WP:RS source. This is significant and material and should be added with the proper caveats. The police are not the only sources here and we should not expect them to feed us. Very bad precedent and not the way things are done in the country where this occurred. Lt Vance from a very early date said they had gathered some good evidence, it is beyond me why they hadn't released it yet (except for politics). No, we have WP:RS, it's definitely meets Notability it's Objective, we should add. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

By saying "it's significant and material" you are already stating the POV nature of this supposed evidence (the implication being that because he had a huge spreadsheet of past mass murderers, he was seeking to do one just as large as those), and that's good reason to not include it until we have affirmation from the primary sources - the investigators. It's similar to the previous discussions about including the mental health aspects; initially it would seem inclusion was pointing to blaming common mental health problems, and thus was excluded until it was shown that the investigators are considering those factors in their study but don't believe them to be the reason for the shooting.

To a point Thusz made, just because the investigators didn't comment on the existence of the spreadsheet is not affirmation that it exists; they may be sworn to confidentiality until the investigation is complete. So no, that's not affirmation. Yes, with the NYDN, I'm reasonably certain their information is correct, but from a WPian editor viewpoint, including it now without near 100% certainity would be putting undue weight on that point when there's no other justification yet to include it. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but if we merely state that Lanza did have a huge spreadsheet of mass murderers it would not implicate that he committed his crime to outdo them all, nor does any statement about him having Asperger's automatically implicate that it was the reason for the shooting. If that is what you are interpreting into such a statement, then it's just that, your interpretation, even though it is not supported by the presented facts. And your POV regarding RS seems to be a little off. We do have RS saying Lanza has created said spreadsheet and we have no information contesting it, so we must assume it is true, no matter if any investigators have confirmed it, or not. Only when RS report that the investigators have denied its existence can we here on Wikipedia say, he has not created it. It is the duty of us Wikipedians to assess the reliability of a source, but not what the source is saying, except if there is evidence casting the information into doubt. But in this case there is nothing that could make us believe anything to the contrary of what NYDN has written. Now, if NYDN would refer to somebody who had wiped the room's floor five minutes after the meeting had ended, I would say ok, it's not trustworthy, and shame on the newspaper for reporting it, but it ain't so. (Thusz (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

What????? We all have to ascertain "Notability". Your claim is that I am POV pushing because I find the work Notable? That's ludicrous and I expect better from an experienced editor. We have never done this before where wikipedia editors seek to validate a WP:RS source???!!! When did that start? Show me the policy please Masem. Your contention on weight it not consistent, weren't you the guy who wanted the dna test included a couple of hours after some journalist made the claim? and without you verifying with near 100% certainty of a primary source? why the double standard? You don't have an agenda do you? -Justanonymous (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the investigators said they were doing DNA testing to try to determine any mental issues though didn't expected it to necessary yield results came from the investigators. There's no issue with that.

Here's the problem with the 7-foot spreadsheet: so what? Did he compile it himself? Did he get it from the internet (like say, from Wikipedia?) What did he do with it? Simple possession of a list is not a criminal act, and while the implication is there that he was planning a mass murder, we cannot assert that fact yet - only the official conclusion from the investigators can postulate that (and that's the only conclusion we can work from). Hence why it is, at this stage, on the borders of rumor mongering to keep the story in the news and why we should wait until we have clarification of what that evidence means. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's be serious and let's not start having to build the castle all the way from the foundation - if the investigators found a spreadsheet that they could find laying around the internet just anywhere it would likely be a contributing piece of information but not significant enough to merit the kind of attention it is getting - they did say PHD thesis level so don't give us too much credit here ;-) If Lanza created this then he was very dedicated crazy guy but it could also point to an outside influence - a group of people out there planning to outdo each other in the real world or it could indicate a group of people that might have driven this guy over the edge or encouraged him to do this. I'm certainly not advocating the addition of conjecture but it does seem a bit irresponsible for someone in any law enforcement capacity to leak this to a reporter when the ramifications can be extremely serious....unless the leak is on purpose! The police could be looking for someone and that someone might be at the veritable paper shredder right now destroying their online identies and taking a defibrilator to his hard drives. This is crucial insight into the mind of a very dedicated crazy guy or it could be a thread to some crazy cult of sleeper glory killers. That is very likely why the courts have kept everything sealed. The investigation is ongoing and the police suspect that there might be criminals still uncaught. That's the justanonymous analysis that has no place in the article but the WP:RS source is valid and it meets notability. I hope that answers your so what?-Justanonymous (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So, basically, speculation? Again, we have no firm identity on the source, beyond "anonymous". This is not to say the NYDN is not a tabloid and go rushing off to publish unsubstantiated rumors, but the fact it was an anonymous source speaking outside official investigator channels, and that the information is of potential POV nature means we shouldn't include it until better clarity is found for it. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, not speculation, rationale for notability. I merely shared a line of thinking and I'm certainly not advocating putting any conjecture - I'm just proving how significant this could be. It's not normal for people to have wall charts of historical mass murders and it's especially notable when a mass killer and avid gamer has his own home-made poster of kills. Journalists have won pulitzers and gone to jail to protect their sources. It's an integrity thing and it should in no way diminish the fact that the newspaper is a Reliable Source. Why do you have an issue with Reliable Sources all of a sudden Masem? Am I having an exchange with the same Masem who was adding stuff earlier? Stuff that turned out to be wrong like Nancy Lanza working at the school. That was ok to add but now this is not? What happened? If it turns out to be an elaborate hoax we remove it. It's one itty bitty little entry.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

could is speculation. You're showing a bias already by your statement alone for pushing for inclusion. I'm trying to look at this at this way: we have no idea why the crime was committed, only the how. Anything that suggests the "why" can only come from the investigation team. An anonymous source that heard it at a police briefly telling it to the NYDN (which has a reputation of being somewhat sensationist even if they are an RS) just screams highly questionable. If the source was an anonymous person on the team telling the NYDN the same, I'd be less hesitant to include, but we're three steps removed (Between the investigators and the NYDN) here. The fact that NYDN makes the statement "Lanza planned it for years" when nothing of the sort has been said by the investigators throws question into their neutrality of coverage. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This goes against policy. You're going well beyond the policy for your rationales. and you're claiming POV where there is none. You have no policy basis for your position other than you don't want to add it which itself implies POV - sorry. It think we can stop and let others add their viewpoints. But without some kind of policy position, your arguments are beyond weak. Thusz makes a great argument on how to approach this. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was no "crazy cult of sleeper glory killers" simply because there aren't too many people interested in the subject and Lanza apparently was a recluse with no friends or much contact to the outside world, and from what we know, the spreadsheet included only information about the number of people killed and the weapons used in each mass murder, which can be easily compiled from List of rampage killers.

@Masem: The fact that the source was not named in the article does not make it unreliable, since its name apparently was known to the journalist who wrote the article. If NYDN can be considered a reliable source, there is no reason to assume that they have neglected their journalistic duty to check the police officers credibility. The burden of proof lies with anyone who thinks otherwise. And how it would make the story any more believable, if it had included the name of the officer I do not know. It seems pretty clear how they got their information.

Again I have to ask you how a statement like "According to reports a spreadsheet was recovered by police in the Lanza home listing about 500 mass murders, including information about number of people killed and weapons used" would implicate anything about the motive for the shooting. It is either a fact, or not, and any connection between Lanza's motive and such a statement forms only in your head, but it certainly is not in the text. And regarding Lanza planning the shooting for many years, I think it is also in the NYDN article that a photo was found, showing Lanza armed with several weapons and pointing a gun to his head. That photo was said to have been two years old, so they draw the conclusion, probbly correctly, that Lanza had already considered committing a mass shooting at that time. Also, you don't create such an extensive spreadsheet in a couple of weeks. So the conclusion that the thought of mass murder was in his mind for quite some time is pretty obvious. (Thusz (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

I looked at your profile Masem, you're addicted to video games. That answers a lot and why you resist so forcefully the inclusion of this WP:RS source from being included. Sorry man, that type of obstruction is not professional and has no place on the wiki. You're probably doing a tactical reload right now. It's categorically unfair for you to object to inclusion of a WP:RS source based on your very personal reasons. It's WP:RS. It merits inclusion. Just step away from this now,it'll be ok. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, let's refrain from commenting on editors and instead comment on content and proposed edits. If there is an edit to the article that someone wants to propose, please set it forth so that everyone can re-orient their efforts on whether or not they believe the material warrants inclusion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Uh, what? What does that have to do with anything? You're attacking the editor, which can be a violation of civility.

As to the points above, I point out that WP:RS policy does say that we consider articles, even from RS, on a case-by-case basis per WP:NEWSORG. In this case, we have information that is three-times removed that includes an anonymous person that claims to have been at a briefing event (has anyone else mentioned this event?) relating a possible fact that is being included in an article that is written in a highly sensationalism way to make it sound like Lanza was at work for "years". That screams all sorts of bad sourcing for a sensitive issue that is not coming directly from the investigation team. I am not claiming that the existence of the spreadsheet is patently false, but the means by saying this existed is highly questionable and fails our reliable sourcing policy at the present time. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologize Masem I just didn't realize why you were so illogical when in the past you were reasonable and I tried honestly to articulate the rationale and the policy. Other sensible editors just added the comment on the article itself. Please don't revert it. I think the consensus is clear here, we add the very logical WP:RS source. Please don't revert the article. I won't engage with you on video game entries on here again, sorry.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at what was added. I am going to rewrite it because this is a better approach to saying that the info the NYPD news got was leaked before the investigators could tell victims families per Lt. Vance. That's more fundamental to the investigation and now we can at least say "As part of this leaked information included the claims that a giant spreadsheet..." --MASEM (t) 20:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Your additions look fine enough for me. Though I am not really sure, why it makes that much of a difference, if NBC reports these findings, instead of NYDN. Yes, it had some additional info, but the original news came from NYDN nonetheless. Anyway, if it stays the way it is, I don't see any need for further discussion. (Thusz (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

NBC's article discusses the police reaction to this leak. That's different. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but you want to tell us that you think that the New York Daily News is not a reliable source, their journalists are not doing their job properly, or are at least failing to make sure their sources are credible, don't you? Well, in the respective Wikipedia article there does not seem to be anything that indicates the NYDN is an overly sensationalist newspaper with a lack of journalistic rigor, but I'm not too familiar with it, so I am not able to ascertain its reliabilty. Anyway, several newspapers and news stations have picked up the story, including the Detroit Free Press, the Hartford Courant, Fox News, NBC, CBS, and Salon, so at least a couple of other notable news outlets of the not-too-unreliable kind apparently came to the conclusion that the source is trustworthy enough. So, Masem, may you elaborate, why we should go by your judgement?

And can you explain to me, why it is notable that the information was leaked before the victim's families were notified? What has that to do with anything? (Thusz (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

No, I'm not saying that the NYDN is not reliable, but that in the case of this particular article the way the information it provides is very sensationalism. It is written to evoke an emotional and hateful response. I'm not trying to make Lanza look like a saint, but it's one thing to report on the news, and the other to villianize a person (even a dead one) beyond what is readily known. That said, when I looked at the sources used and what they relied on, I found that Lt. Vance and others are saying "this information shouldn't be out there, it was leaked". Now, I mentioned earlier that a non-statement by the police is a tenacious thing to prove something true, but with the written quotes by Vance, it's clear that they (the CT police) are spinning to try to correct this leak, and that's being covered by numerous sources as well. As long as we tie the spreadsheet factor along where that info came from (the meeting last week), who leaked it (an anonymous law enforcement official), to whom (Mike Lupina at NYDN), and the police's reaction to it, it compromises a neutral statement on this facet of the investigation. This includes the findings of the spreadsheet, but does not elevate that factor to villainizing Lanza more than what the investigation otherwise has said. And of course, because its an anon source to the NYDN, we add "purportedly" to thus clear WP in case this actually proofs wrong. The POV issue I had with just talking about the spreadsheet and the report just coming from the NYDN are resolved with my rewrite. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove second sentence under "Shooting" due to false citation.

The following sentence says that the mother had four gunshot wounds to her head: "Investigators later found her [Nancy Lanza's] body, clad in pajamas, in her bed with four gunshot wounds to her head." The source cited, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/16/governor-gunman-shot-self-first-responders-closed/?page=all#pagebreak, mentions no particular number of times that she was shot in the head, only multiple. I move to either amend this sentence to say she was shot twice in the head as reported in the following link: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3632863.ece, or to remove it altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinHoak (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not too hard to find sources confirming Lanza killed his mother with four shots to the head, so deleting the sentence is in my eyes not only the wrong thing to do, but also the laziest way to deal with the problem, since a ten second google-search is enough to prove the truth behind the statement.

• Killer’s Mother Was Shot 4 Times, Official Says, The New York Times (December 18, 2012)
• How Sandy Hook killer shot his devoted mother four times in the face, Daily Mail (December 15, 2012)
• Authorities believe he killed his mother as she slept in her bed. She was shot four times in the head..., CNN (December 21, 2012)
• On Friday morning, Lanza shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, four times in the head, authorities said., Fox News (December 16, 2012)
• Mrs. Lanza (...) was the first of 27 people killed in the Newtown massacre Friday — shot by her son four times in the head ..., The Washington Times (December 17, 2012)

(Thusz (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC))

According to the search warrant [2] p.6, "The white female sustained an apparent gunshot wound to her forehead." This is a primary source and can't be used as a reference. However, the inconsistency in reporting needs to be addressed in the article. At 5:29 p.m. on Dec 14, the white female inside the house had not been positively identified. USchick (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Officials released some documents today -

Note that "unnamed sources" should be ignored IMHO. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/28/warrants-to-be-released-in-newtown-investigation/?test=latestnews - there are other news stories on this event but some are sort of hard to read through, thought this one was more point-by-point. Still absolutely nothing known/released officially about motive or what is on the smashed hard drives. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a good deal of coverage, eg here in the New York Times. Most importantly, the sources state clearly that the Bushmaster rifle was the main weapon used at the school. I doubt if we have heard the last of FAQ Q4, though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, apparently police was able to reconstruct one of the two hard drives. As it says here:

The spreadsheet was still in one of the computers, whose damaged hard drive was reconstructed by technicians.

Nothing on the motive yet, though the recovered journals they are speaking of may hold some clues. But even if the investigators should come up with a reason behind the shooting, people should not expect too much. I am pretty sure there was not one clear cut motive, but a wide variety of things that drove him to commit it, and even Lanza himself may not've been fully aware of everything that led him to do such a thing. In many, maybe even most cases a rampage killing is the end point of a long path that can be traced back years, or decades. It's the result of many intertwining factors such as personality, parents, peers etc., so to nail it down to one or two outstanding events in Lanza's life may be impossible. (Thusz (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC))

Unnamed sources, though, Thusz - I am only referring to official released information. Now that stuff may all be accurate but it has not been stated officially and these "investigators" have already been shown to supposedly leak stuff that didn't pan out. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Lanza and the NRA certificate

This article (http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Cache-of-weapons-found-in-Newtown-gunman-s-home-4390470.php), about documents released today (3/28/2013), notes that "the NRA said Lanza and his mother were not members," but it also says that, among documents found in the Lanza home, was "an NRA certificate that belonged to Adam Lanza."

What would this NRA certificate be? Maybe a certificate he earned from completing a gun safety course? Chisme (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The NRA is the US' largest trainer for gun safety and gun proficiency and we know Lanza's mother took him to the range. She might have purchased a basic gun safety course and the kid got a certificate. That would be what a responsible parent would do upon introducing their older kid to firearms. It seems ludicrous to me that of all the materials that were released today that the media would focus on such a basic piece of data and then not provide the courtesy of even identifying the document other than NRA - gun politics at play. Bottom line, we don't know what it is so we can't put it in the Wiki but it'll probably be a gun safety or proficiency course completion certificate. And no, you don't have to be an NRA member to take an NRA class or get a certificate of completion for an NRA certified course.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The NRA went so far today as to say that the Lanzas were not NRA members. So that really narrows it down to these likely being training certificates awarded by an NRA certified course upon completion of some basic safety courses but that's still conjecture let's see if the reporters can finally do their job and actually factually and completely report on the findings vs just releasing incomplete and potentially incendiary half-truths.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is yet another inconsistency that should be mentioned in the article. USchick (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In fairness to reporters, they merely stated what was on the search warrants released by the court. The police, describing the contents of a duffle bag, listed "Adam Lanza National Rifle Association Certificate" (see here). It was on the official release. It was the police who should have been more forthcoming about what the document really is. Chisme (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Also according to the search warrants, the shotgun was in plain view inside the car, not in the trunk. BIG discrepancy, especially when the guy in the video, was getting it from the trunk. USchick (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancies like that point to sloppy police work in a very confusing situation. I'm sure there are plenty of other discrepancies in the findings. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And that needs to be reflected in the article [3] [4] [5] USchick (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've opened up a new section below for input on how to handle notable discrepancies. Feel free to contribute your thinking.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

School Enrollment

According to the article, the number of students enrolled in the school on Nov 30 was 456. If you go to the source, [6] now it says 1,724. The document is dated 12/4/2012 USchick (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Under "ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL" it clearly says: Sandy Hook - 456. The 1,724 you are referring to is the total of Hawley, Sandy Hook, Middle Gate and Head O' Meadow (prob. all schools I suppose) combined. What I find more confusing is that the table on page two gives us 521 as the number of students enrolled in Sandy Hook with a "check 65" below. I don't know what that means, but 521 - 65 = 456, so there you go. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for clarifying. In that case, CNN claims there were approximately 700 students inside the school. [7] USchick (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

New Discrepancies Section?

An editor in another thread commented that it's notable to include notable discrepancies between the established media reports and the police investigation findings?

• Should these discrepancies be in a separate section?
• Incorporated into the main body along with the MSM reports?
• Replace MSM reports

Just opening this thread for discussion.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with a separate section. USchick (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Against a separate section - I'm not saying that there were not discrepancies, but IMO what happened is not unique to the Sandy Hook incident or the reporting of any "major event" as it happens. Unfortunately in our "if it bleeds, it leads" society, the press is hot to be the first to make an announcement even if its not based on the soundest of sources or even facts. Case in point, during elections (Presidential or otherwise) its not unusual for a race to be incorrectly called for one candidate based on "initial reports". Also, during the North Hollywood Bank Robbery in 1997, there were conflicting reports about what was happening and this was as I watched the events transpiring live via a helicopter mounted camera. * I do think that the initial mis-report about Lanza's brother being declared the shooter by mistake should be noted, but almost everything else can be attributed to over zealous reporting. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• The full search warrant is on Scribd here. It says that Adam Lanza was found dead wearing a bullet proof vest, which was subsequently denied. It confirms that Nancy Lanza was the registered owner of the black Honda Civic in which Adam Lanza drove to the school, contrary to some claims in the blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"Second deadliest shooting"

"The incident is the second deadliest school shooting in American history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It is the second deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the 1927 Bath School bombings in Michigan"

-- What about columbine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.132.124 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Columbine High School massacre left 13 people dead excluding the perpetrators. See also List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#List_of_notable_U.S._school_attacks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes in lede - from "second deadliest school shooting" to "second deadliest shooting"

The lede has been changed from
"The incident is the second deadliest school shooting in American history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre."
to
"The incident is the second deadliest shooting in American history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre."
I have reverted the change once already, with the explanation that the 2 cited sources stated that Newtown was the second worst school shooting, but that has been changed back with the edit summary of "(correct but also second deadliest shooting massacre of any kind in US history, not just school)". I think it is necessary to keep the previous phrase of 'school shooting' in that sentence because 1)That is what the sources specifically state and 2)It isn't the 2nd worst shooting in US history, not even close...if we're going to just look at events known as massacres, then there's the Colfax massacre, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the Greenwood Massacre and so on. If we include rampage killers/school massacres then Sandy Hook is simply #3, behind Virginia Tech and Bath School. I think "second deadliest school shooting" is the most appropriate phrase and is also supported by the cited references but want to get additional input from the editorial community on the matter. Shearonink (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The lede has subsequently been changed from:

"The incident is the second deadliest shooting in American history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre." to

"The incident is the second deadliest mass shooting by a single person in American history,"

CNN source (Ref#12) states:

The massacre in Newtown is the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, behind the 2007 Virginia Tech mass shooting that left 32 dead.

NBC News (Ref #13) states:

The killing of 26 people, including 20 children, at a Connecticut elementary school Friday morning is the second deadliest school shooting in the United States, behind only the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.

Are we making a leap that does not appear to be supported by the cited sources? Shearonink (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In this edit on March 6, 2013, someone compared the shooting to the Wounded Knee Massacre, which was reverted as "not an apt comparison". The defining features of the Sandy Hook massacre are that a) it was carried out by a single person, and b) all of the deaths were caused by a firearm. By these standards, it is the second worst incident in US history, behind the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if the statement is technically true, that is not what the cited sources state. Wikipedia internally references such things on its talk pages, but the sources themselves do not reference the issue of multiple shooters/single shooters/in general society/19th Century/20th Century/during wartime/on the western frontier/whatever...they only mention that Sandy Hook is the second worst school shooting. If the editorial consensus is that this statement should stand as it now is then references have to be found that verify the 'second deadliest mass shooting' statement. Shearonink (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The Sandy Hook massacre is the second worst single person shooting incident in US history, school shooting or otherwise. The "high score" (which according to investigators, Adam Lanza may have been trying to achieve), is:

1. Virginia Tech massacre, 32. 2. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 27. 3. Luby's massacre, 23. 4. San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, 21.

The inclusion of the Bath School disaster is a red herring, as none of the deaths was caused directly by a firearm. Andrew Kehoe used a rifle to detonate dynamite to kill himself and others, but this was not a shooting incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The distinction between single shooter/perpetrator and multiple shooters/perpetrators or massacre/bombing/shooting has not been something that the sources have discussed, so far as I am aware (even though Wikipedians might have discussed this aspect of the subject). The Bath School Disaster holds the sad distinction of being the single worst mass murder/killing taking place at a school in US history, regardless of the weaponry used. If Bath was added to some type of US domestic terrorism/bombing single perpetrator WP listing, it would probably also stand alone (since Ok City had two murderers), but, a statement of that type has not been made in any source that I know of. If Wikipedia is going to make the distinction within the article about "worst single person shooting incident in US history" then shouldn't that statement have to be verifiable within the cited references? Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a few comparisons available. 1) worst school killings. Bath matches this one. 2) Worst rampage shooting (regardless of location). VT matches this one. If you want to be more specific and say "school shooting", VT still matches, although columbine is probably more notable in people's minds due to Michael moore etc. There is no requirement that it be a single person, as both rampage and school shootings regularly include lone or multiple gunmen. Including or not including that criteria doesn't change the result of which event is a good comparison.

Wounded knee however is completely off base, as there is not a similar type of event by any measure. It was a war action, done by uniformed soldiers (albeit with a good claim of being an illegal action and a war crime). If you are going to include that comparison, you might as well include the entire WWII holocaust or ruwanda, as it has just as much relation to newtown as wounded knee does. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe instead of ranking it, we just use 'one of the deadliest mass shootings (or homicides) in the US' or something along those lines. Quantifying or ranking it is going to be diffiult, even interpretive. Technically, it was a multiple homicide, regardless of the manner of death (shooting versus bombing). Aneah|talk _to ^me 21:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reactions: cannot sue due to previous law

I've just removed for the 2nd time this passage...

Because of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2005, the maker of the weapon used in the shootings cannot be sued for negligence, as occurred after the 2002 Beltway sniper shootings.

The article it references makes the point that the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting cannot sue gun manufacturers because of a law that protects them. This is also true of the Aurora, CO shooting and any others that have occurred since the law's passage.

The question I pose to the group at large is, "So what? How is this factoid WP:DUE?" --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The "So what?" is that most folks who read the article would want to know, "Why not?". We live in a litigious society. This law is unique in the American legal system. Whether you agree with the law or not, it needs to be understood that this is the law.

I note that the paragraph in question was present for ten days (March 9 to March 19) before this particular editor deleted it, so other editors did not object during that interval. --Zeamays (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

As you said, whether someone agrees with the law or not, they need to understand that this is the law, as those who disagree with the laws are still bound to observe them. However, that doesn't seem like a "reason" per se why this fact (or observation, to be more accurate) needs to be in this article. The article is about the shooting itself, and to some proximate degree the reactions to it; it seems speculative to point out that the victims can't sue, and there is no material in the article about victims suing to begin with. Maybe we should just leave this out, and bring it back if it becomes relevant if/when lawsuits start happening? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This is better suited to Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as it has WP:TOPIC issues in this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The section of the article where this was placed is "Reactions" and this mention is relevant to that section. The article from the New Haven Register I cited for reference expressly states that people in Sandy Hook wanted to sue. Therefore it is relevant. Maybe you would like to nominate a different section in which to place this piece? --Zeamays (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, the topic of the other article cited above, Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, is about reactions by the outside world, not reactions by the parents or the school board, who were the people who were surprised that they cannot sue. --Zeamays (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

hmm I'm tryin to get this straight there is a law that hinders people to sue company's for "negligence" because of the Mis-use of their products by a third party??? Really there has to be a LAW for that? that explains a lot about why America is called "sue happy" do you sue the Car Company for "negligence" 'cuz of a wrong-way driver??? I don't get it... Fox2k11 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fox2k11, to understand this debate please read the article about the law itself. We're discussing mentioning the law in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article, not the merits of the law or of American lawsuits. --Zeamays (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Since there has been no rebuttal after a lengthy interval, I will replace the information, but not under the subheading of Reactions: Gun control, which may be what caused objection. --Zeamays (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Replace it where? It doesn't belong in this article. Like IanMac recommends, maybe in the Reaction_to_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting, but not here.

By the way, the passage of any amount of time without comment does not indicate a default consensus, condonement, or rebuttal of any issue being discussed. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 5 April 2013

lanza did not use a bushmaster assault style rifle in the killing of any of the victims. This information is verified by police. lanza had left it behind, and the police later recovered the rifle in his mother's car, inside the trunk, outside the school. There is even video showing police recovering the rifle from the trunk. There were 4 hand guns recovered from inside the school.

AlamoT (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

See FAQ Q4 at the top of the talk page. Only the diehards in the blogs are now recycling this very old news.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

WOW! this still pops up?!? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Investigation, On-site and Off-site sections

I've just added these sections. They have been added for clarity sake and to help organize future edits. I think that since the school is no longer an active crime scene (though not open yet as far as I am aware), the On-site portion of the investigation is over, but the Off-site investigation will likely go on for months possibly years. I did move some of the information around, but once I noticed the pattern to the information, it seemed like a straightforward contribution to the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 April 2013

Please change the info about a Bushmaster being used, it has been proven that he did not use an assult rifle. Prof.Dair (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, no. See FAQ Q4.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And for the umpteeth + 1 time, I agree with IanMacm and support the stance.

To Prof. and EVERYONE ELSE, as much as I wish that this event had never happened along with any other aspect of it, including what kind of firearms were used, none of us can change it and there's not much we can to even deflect or minimize the effect of the FACTS. In much the same way that Henry Deringer's invention of a small pistol that bears his name (and somewhat generically now) was used to assassinate President Lincoln, the Bushmaster rifle will inextricably be linked to the Sandy Hook shooting. Please just learn to live with it. Ian, lets get back to the conversation we were having with that "brick wall"... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Video games

This has been discussed before but the New York Daily News [8] article on March 18 is somewhat sensationalist and gives excessive weight to the views of politicians who want a crackdown on video games. It has to be repeated that investigators have made no public link with video games and have declined to comment on a motive. Mentioning video games at this stage could be seen as attempting to pre-empt the investigation in a way that has WP:V issues. There is nothing unusual about 20-year-olds playing Call of Duty, but most of them do not massacre schoolchildren.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Do note that I set up a video game section on the Reactions page. I completely agree on this page the link is tenacious, but there has been moving in the video game area as a result of the shootings so it is proper to cover it there. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It was reliably sourced within a few days of the shooting that Adam Lanza had a large collection of video games, many of them (unsurprisingly) of the first-person shooter variety. This type of game is controversial and not to everyone's tastes, but attempting to blame them for mass shooting incidents is reminiscent of blaming Hollywood films, eg List of alleged Natural Born Killers copycat crimes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

it's not about blame. It's a fact and it's being sourced reliably by RS sources. I fully acknowledge that playing first person shooter video games don't make you a mass murderer any more than owning a firearm does. However, in this context we really don't know the impact of violent video games on the mentally ill. Certainly formal firearms training is likely not a good protocol to for homicidally Ill people but perhaps neither should first person shooter games. This is relevant, well sourced and I hope others agree and that it finds it's way back into the article in an NPOV fashion.congressmen are calling for hearings after the whole 7x4 foot scoresheet thing. It's relevant here although you two have a bias against. Justanonymous (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Until the investigators say "we blame video games", or even affirm that (hypothetical) he used video games to hone his skills, it's not appropriate. (I know that there were comparisons with the spreadsheet and video games, but that was a weak link). But again, I do stress that in the arena of video games, there has been political movement - regardless of how unfunded the concerns were - to do something about violent video games. As such, it is appropriate as a Reaction, and thus information can go there. But yea, right now on this page, it's an extremely tenacious link. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Violent video games, which even mentions that he has $1000s of violent video games. Again, the statements by politicans can go there, but shouldn't be on the case itself until its affirmed as a root cause by the investigators. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If the official investigation concludes that Lanza's state of mind was influenced by video games, then fine, it can go in the article. At the moment it looks too much like routine "let's find something to blame" speculation, as there is no clear sourcing for a link. All we know is that Lanza owned plenty of video games, which is not unusual for someone his age.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not the standard for RS. They found guns and guns were reported but they found violent video games and that doesn't get included. Senators are having hearings on violent video games in direct reaction to Sandy Hook but you two block? Very unreasonable. This is the headline from NYDaily News "News' report on Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza's video-game-style slaughter score sheet inspires calls in D.C. to stiffen regulation of violent games" and we have two Senators Grassley and Rockefeller. If this doesn't go in the investigation it most certainly goes in the Reactions section. We have Senators taking action. It merits inclusion. Revert me if you will on the record and then we can get some attention to this very important aspect which has been blocked to this day.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, and that's why I'm pointing you to the Reactions page (not section). I'm actually considering pulling the gun control section from this page and putting on the Reactions page, though hesitant as there's a firm connection between guns and the shooting. But possessing video games is not a crime. The fact that he had video games like this has spurred action, so its perfectly fine at the Reactions page, just not part of the incident/investigation page. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out again that it does not really matter what the investigators say, nor does it matter if video games had anything to do with the massacre, or not. The only thing that matters for us is, if there is a serious amount of discussion in reliable sources about the subject, so that we can come to the conclusion that it passes WP:FRINGE. Connections between violent video games and mass shootings are regularily drawn by the media, by politicians and also by experts studying them, so it wouldn't be something terribly out of the norm to add a note about Lanza's media consumption.

Again, to make this clear, if we had a month long discussion in the media and by politicians, if Lanza had been abducted by aliens we would have to include it in the relevant article or section, for no other reason than being a major part of the story. No matter how nonsensical they may appear sometimes, we must not ignore such discussions, simply because we think they are stupid – and that we don't do it you can see in the equally ridiculous discussions about climate change or evolution. We here on Wikipedia do not judge, we simply chronicle these events, and be it just to give future generations something to laugh about. (Thusz (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC))

There's no question that video games have been discussed politically and in a negative light due to Lanza's shootings and the initial findings. But, the point is that these are reactions to the shooting, and yet proven or claimed as a cause for it. It is perfect as a Reaction to the shootings, but as we have a separate page that details Reactions, it is appropriate there. (If there was only one page relating to the shooting with one Reaction section, I would not be opposing its inclusion under that.) This is different from the spreadsheet/leak issue which was part of the ongoing investigation. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• We've discussed and included the DNA thing as well as a purported link to mental illness while trying to not tick off the pysch community along with anyone with an actual mental deficiency. But mentioning the video game "theory", and it is just a theory and not even a reaction because its far from new, in any more than a tacit or innocuous way seems to be pushing it. Yes, we should chronicle the events and aftermath, but we all lack the perspective for likely years to know whats important or not. Thugz has it right, we might get laughed at in the future, but that's the risk we take.

• For the record, the entertainment industry has been under scrutiny about its "violent content" and its affect on the population since the Kennedy Assassination. So what suddenly make Lanza's atrocity notable in this sense escapes me. We just seem to keep trying to connect too many dots together hoping for a particular outcome.

• Violent video games ± mental illness ± firearm ownership ± bad parenting ≠ violet behavior

• While we're at it, Porn ± violent behavior ± being "Male" ≠ rape. Getting off the soap box now... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only should the role of violent video games be considerd, but also the influences of satanism. A former classmate of Lanza's stated that he was a devil worshipper and that he ran a satanic website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gicantor93 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

comment

This article and talk page gives far more credence to conspiracy theory lunatics than they deserve. Especially 'unanswered questions'. They ought to be told point blank that they are no different than Holocaust Deniers, no different than Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Nuts. These comments about the gun used--denying it was a Bushmaster AR 15--still persist. Let's be blunt--call them lunatics and crackpots.StevenTorrey (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Instead of name calling, could you please give examples of sentences from the article that should be improved or removed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

School shooter motivation

Psychologists know the motivation of school shooters. They call them pseudocommandos. Their mania is created by bullying. Years of bullying, shunning and humiliation drive many youth to suicide. A small number take vengeance on a representative class. Google pseudocommando for a full explanation. Slogun2 (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Slogun, the conjecture is appreciated, but given that Lanza is dead, anything relating to a motive is and will always be speculation. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tagging of shooting section as out of date

The tagging is not explained. What is wrong here? It is reminiscent of this spoof version:

--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The tag was added on March 28 with this edit which had an edit summary of "Shooting: added out of date warning, a lot of information was released today that needs to be incorporated like length of shooting now at <5mins and other findings. Remove when section updated.". In my opinion section has been sufficiently updated since that time. The tag itself is now stale/outdated so I have removed it. Shearonink (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have an issue....

I have an issue that you have only shown a photo of the killer, how about showing photos of the innocent victims and not of the killer - there is too much glorifying killers instead of celebrating the lives of the innocent, maybe if we stopped talking about the killer and showing the photo of the killer less of this would happen as most of them do it for notoriety. 121.73.151.118 (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a WP:NOTCENSORED issue here. The photograph of Lanza appeared widely in media coverage in December 2012. All of the children who died are mentioned by name in the article. This has previously been the subject of debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2013

Please change the summary box on the right to include the names of the victims, not the perpetrator.

Xotartfacexo (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This request cannot be met per WP:NOTCENSORED.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Improve Wording

I don't know how to better word the opening, but this is confusing:

"The incident is the second deadliest shooting in American history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It is the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the 1927 Bath School bombings in Michigan."

The meaning is "The only shooting with more dead was the Virginia Tech massacre. The only deadlier mass-murder at an elementary school was the Bath School bombings."

At first, I read it as if the second sentence was saying that it was the second-deadliest shooting, same as the first sentence but more specific. That would be contradictory. Gatonom Nyan 05:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This incident is both a mass-murder and a shooting. The Virginia Tech massacre was not a murder, but was the deadliest shooting in American history. The 1927 Bath School bombings was not a shooting, but was the deadliest mass murder at an elementary school in American history. This incident is the second deadliest in both catagories in American history. I hope that clears it up for you. All that said, the only purpose I see for the paragraph is to say: "What you are about to read about is really really really baaaaaad!". Perhaps we should remove it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is FAQ Q2 at the top of the talk page. When the article was created, some people insisted on mentioning the 1927 Bath School bombings in the lead, even though it is not directly comparable to a shooting incident. The current wording seems clear enough, as the Sandy Hook incident was a shooting, and the Michigan incident a bombing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: "The Virginia Tech massacre was not a murder, but was the deadliest shooting in American history."

How wasn't the "The Virginia Tech massacre" murder? I notice, by the way, that the Wikipedia article about it calls it a murder. Should that article be changed then? Why?TheScotch (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Why aren't we calling this terrorism? If terrorism is "the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion" according to Wikipedia's own definition, this is clearly terrorism. Adam Lanza planned this act systematically. He clearly had an agenda. It seems to me the only reason not to call this terrorism is that Lanza clearly isn't Muslim. But to do that is entirely non-objective. In fact, we know much less about the motive behind the Boston Marathon bombing, yet that is being labeled "terrorism." Double standard anyone? Ibnsina786 (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We go by what sources call the incident. Very few, if any, called Sandy Hook an act of terrorism, while the word has been thrown about readily with the marathon bombings. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Canta-12 vs Saiga - RS ct.gov

Hi. Page of ct.gov says Canta-12 not "Saiga-12".

4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

I think this can be some top-secret weapon for special forces. Why "Saiga-12" is written in the article? `a5b (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This was previously discussed at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_6#Problem_with_weapon_name_Canta-12. The court documents released on March 28, 2013 got the spelling right.[9]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there copy of this list on any '.gov' site or any other official site of court or police? `a5b (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It is here on Page 14, listed as Exhibit #505 in the December 14 search warrant. This shotgun was found in the black Honda Civic in which Lanza drove to the school, and was not used in the school shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"CANTA" is the way someone who did not understand the Cyrillic alphabet would attempt to pronounce/read SAIGA Gaijin42 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The unanswered questions concerning Sandy Hook

Wikipedia has attempted to cover the subject in a professional manner. In this case there are far more questions than there are answers. Those answers should have long been available and they still are not. At this point I believe the only reliable answers we are going to get would take a grand jury and I do not see that coming probably for the same reasons we do not have the answers. Let this be a site to list all the unanswered questions which should really be answered under oath before a grand jury.

1. Where are the videos known to be in existance?

2. Where are the supposedly hundreds of photographs supposedly taken?

3. Why did all the original report state that two hand guns were used, one a 9mm (.357cal.) and a 40 cal. semi automatics and a Colt type semi automatic rifle was found on the back seat of his mother's white sedan pictured in the parking lot? The "official" story being told today is supposed perpetrator arrived in a black sedan pictured in the non-mainstream media including the licience plate number as belonging to another identified person, a known sexual predator and a shot gun is also pictured in a after dark seen being unloaded in the opened trunk of the vehicle.

4. Why do we not have the name of the adult wounded?

5. Who were the two persons dressed similarly apprehended outside the school and video recorded including the apprehension of one and both in handcuffs?

6. Why were two girls listed as dead and one shows up with Obama on television and the other is now recognized as not a student at Sandy Hook?

7. Is not the supposed Conn. State's Coroner capable telling the public the caliber used when the difference between a .223 cal. .55 gain rifle bullet, originally a varmint bullet before being adopted by the military to "inflict casualties no kill the enemeys" vs. hand gun ammunition usually weighting 2.5 to almost 4.0 times that weight designed to kill, not wound and many time the area direct impacted type of wound? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.50.51 (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of articles out there that answer and debunk a lot of these questions. Try looking them up. User:Benbuff91 20:59 30 May 2013

Wikipedia articles are based on what has appeared in reliable sources. These questions cannot be addressed here unless they can be sourced to the reliable media, not blogs etc. The question about the handguns is addressed in FAQ Q4 at the top of the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate way to handle this is to address it in the article and say that from the beginning, there was a lot of discrepancy in the official reports, witnesses were instructed not to talk to the media, evidence was sealed, etc. USchick (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Since only mainstream media is accepted as a reliable source, how about we take video showing Robbie Parker the father of one of the supposedly slain children and the most publicized person in this event, smiling a day after and appearing to change to a sad crying stance just before he gets on camera, and then posing smiling with obama for a photo op and then setting up a donations page on facebook the day after the shootings? Is any of that natural? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.44.158 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There is an article about this here. Implying that Sandy Hook families have lied to promote a hoax has clear WP:BLP issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say conspiracy theorist's Cherry picking at it's best I have no other explain why people still think Sandy Hook or Aurora was a hoax and those "Victims" are living out of country now... Fox2k11 (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

8. Toxicology/drug test report status/results ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.188.230 (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The toxicology report has not been released yet, which has caused a good deal of comment in the blogs.[10] This would show if Adam Lanza was taking any prescription or non-prescription medication. This information may have to wait until the final police report is published, and is something to watch out for.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

9. Why is there no list of those killed and injured? If one looks at similar shootings (such as Columbine) there is a full list of those killed and injured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.246.223 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a list of casualties in the current version of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2013

I would like to add this recently published report to the References section. 15 renowned experts gave their opinions on Post-Sandy Hook School Security... http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/Channel/School-Safety/News/2013/04/20/Security-Experts-Schools-Should-Conduct-Risk-Assessments-Consider-Hiring-SROs.aspx

It would read "Post-Sandy Hook School Security: What the Experts Are Saying. Campus Safety Magazine" Umbrella8880 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not done, this seems to have WP:EL issues as it is not directly related to the Sandy Hook shooting itself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2013

99.43.12.217 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Under the heading REACTIONS, subheading GUN CONTROL, the first sentence of the last paragraph currently reads: On April 17, 2013, the bill that would have seen the restrictions on gun control failed to pass legislation after failing six votes short when four Republicans and Democrats blocked all the proposals stating that "expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools."

It should read: On April 17, 2013, the bill that would have seen the restrictions on gun control failed to pass legislation after falling six votes short when four 4 Democrats and 41 Republicans in the Senate blocked all the proposals stating that "expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools."

Reference: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/senate/1/97

Partly done: I did modify that sentence to clarify things - I corrected the spelling error you found, but removed all mention of the party of the senators voting against. Your suggested edit crosses the WP:NPOV line for me as it emphasizes those voting against without mentioning the bipartisan support (small though it was) voting for. Those who want to see who voted how can look in the reference link. I also clarified who made the statement referenced in that line (it was the NRA, not the Senate). Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 16:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate article for Adam Lanza?

Is there enough information to warrant having a seperate article about the shooter himself? I think there ought to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.231.242 (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not beyond his involvement in this event (eg it would repeat much of the core details here) and not enough by investigates to speculation on his motives. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

Where it says- It is the most deadly school shooting in any public school in the United States, that is incorrect because Virginia Tech is a Public University (and thus a Public School). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The term public school/state school generally refers to primary and secondary schools. The sentence in question was removed because it is unclear and largely redundant in view of the previous two sentences.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Dedicated playground

"On June 15, 2013, a playground at Long Lots Elementary School, Westport, Connecticut was dedicated to Dylan Hockley."

Where would this fit in the article? Soffredo (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Why no list of victims?

Where is the list of the victims of this shooting? I expected to find one here, given the other events (e.g. Fort Hood shooting). I saw https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vp5rR2R2Rjg claiming there were no victims; I thought I'd come here to find a list to show, "Here are the people who died: It's not a hoax." But there's no list! I understand that they were minors, but I don't see how publishing a list of the victims is a problem. -- Newagelink (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Edit: The NY times article cited mentions six adults: Surely at least _they_ should be listed! -- Newagelink (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you did not scroll beyond the table of contents, otherwise you would've stumbled over the casualties-list on the right side of the Shooting-section. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC))

Referencing Nancy Lanza's vocation as well as Peter's

Nancy Lanza was a broker, dealer and agent at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney;if not mentioning her company directly, it would be appropriate at least to give her vocation, given that her ex-husband's vocation is cited. 96.42.32.55 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Dannel

Listing Nancy Lanza's vocation as well as Peter's

Nancy Elaine Lanza was a dealer, agent and broker with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney; it would be appropriate to list her vocation as well as Peter Lanza's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.32.55 (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Find a reliable source that says that, and add it in. Otherwise it makes it sound like she just leached off the success of her ex-husband. Dream Focus 23:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

She's listed in FindTheBest, LinkedIn, BrightScope and The Fiscal Times. At the least, there seems to be as much evidence supporting her vocation as there is supporting Peter's.

Just found a Smith Barney document which lists Nancy Lanza as an employee. http://fa.smithbarney.com/facilityfiles/sb080327152240_4ca0f84d-423d-e4e0-403d734f148b3dd1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.62.103 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Adam Lanza edited Wikipedia

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.

---

"Mass Murders Captivated Online User Believed To Be Adam Lanza".

"Between August 2009 and February 2010, the same user name linked to Lanza made revisions to 12 Wikipedia entries about massacres across the world during the same 2009 to 2010 time frame as the gun website and gaming chat-room posts. One entry meticulously specifies the weapons Kip Kinkel used at the age of 15 to kill his parents before going on a shooting spree at his Oregon high school, where two were killed and 25 were wounded in May 1998."

What Wikipedia userid did Adam Lanza use? Is there a policy about Wikipedia edits made by mass murderers? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Both Wikipedia and the Hartford Courant declined to give the username involved. It is not too difficult to find from the information given in the Courant's story, but I am not going to give it here and would ask others not to give it in case it leads to WP:PRIVACY issues. The user contributions between 2009 and 2010 are not extensive; there are seven in 2009 and five in 2010.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It is WP:Notable if a person such as Adam Lanza was an WP Editor. But, we can figure out his userid from the articles' history by data mining and cross indexing but that would be Original Research. Until we, edtiors, get a third-party source listing his user id then only the fact that he was an edtior of mass murderer articles is verifiable. Also, since he is dead, privicay concerns are diminished. Geraldshields11 (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

References

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.

Ok, now it is a content issue

Because someone tried to add it and was reverted. I'd like to make a few points here:

• Neither the paper that broke this "story" nor anyone else has any solid proof that it was him, it is pure speculation
• The reporter was also inaccurate in explaining why Wikipedia won't confirm or deny if it was him. Wikipedia has no idea whatsoever if it was him or not. We don't know the real names of a single one of our users unless they tell us themselves, and the edits are too old for checkuser, which could only tell us where the user was they made the edits, not who they were.
• So, this was piss-poor speculative journalism that unfortunately was picked up by other news services. This is a reflection of the ever-worsening quality of supposedly professional journalism in the United States

• Knowing all that, I feel it is lending undue weight to purely speculative material to have anything regarding this in the article. They aren't "looking into it" any further because there is nothing else to look into. We can't ask Lanza or his mother if he ever edited WP because they're dead. WP doesn't know if it was him or not. It's unlikely the cops, who presumably have his computer, are going to waste their time investigating whether he made a dozen edits to Wikipedia three years before committing this atrocity. So, there was a unsubstantiated suspicion that he might have maybe made a few edits three years ago. Big deal. That reporter should be ashamed of themselves for even publishing this, and for pretending to protect the user by not giving their name while dropping enough clues to make it extremely easy (took me about 15 seconds) to determine what the alleged username was. Let's not reward this shoddy journalism by adding their speculations to one of the most high-profile websites in the world. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the Courant article, Lanza's Wikipedia username was discovered by "authorities" and "investigators" ie. the police who presumable have access to Lanza's computers and/or other information that we (at Wikipedia) don't have access to. The authorities subsequently gave Lanza's Wikipedia username to the Courant reporter, who then checked out the edits as described in the article. The Courant reporter didn't outright publish Lanza's Wikipedia username, but they did research and told us the types of edits Lanza was making. This is way beyond "pure speculation" and it's not "shoddy journalism". We have information sourced to "investigating authorities" as described in a reliable secondary source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting, but I'd like to chime in and say that Green Cardamom makes some good points. Very little is known about the perpetrator and much of the investigation is being conducted using his digital footprint because he had so little actual social contact with anyone other than his mother. Most of his activities leading up to the killings occurred in the basement room and some of these activities were virtual because he had internet access. I don't see this as any different from any other kind of criminal investigation. A reliable source has reported that investigators are examining his "whereabouts" and possible interests preceding the crime. To make an analogy, if the Hartford Courant reported that investigators were investigating whether or not he attempted to check out books on mass killings from the library, wouldn't this be appropriate to include? Since investigators have not come out and said that they are convinced the edits were in fact made by Lanza, it is fine with me to leave this news item out. It could be a pointless lead and making mention of it lends undue weight to the issue. However, if investigators end up feeling strongly that these edits were made by him it must be included. In addition if the general public comes to believe that Lanza made edits on Wikipedia, readers will expect to see some mention of this issue here---even if it is only to say that the matter was investigated inconclusively. Jellypear (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Regarding Lanza's Wikipedia edits.. After reading the Courant article more closely, it appears that "Investigators are now looking into whether the same person did the Wikipedia editing." So while investigators have certainly attributed his name to certain gun message boards, and gaming chat rooms, they have not yet directly named Wikipedia, but are investigating it based on the Courant's own investigations. So in the case of Wikipedia we probably should wait for confirmation from authorities, but we could still mention "gun message boards" and "gaming chat rooms". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the Courant article are there any other unique sources of this piece of information? Furthermore, how is adding this information adhering to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's apparently an exclusive so no other source unique, but we don't have a bias against exclusive stories so long as they meet the test of reliability. Notability for inclusion is a valid question. Compare with other similar events, such as Columbine, the "Preliminary activities" section, there is precedent for including this type of information. Jellypear made a case for it above which I agree with. With enough sourcing we can even create standalone articles for criminals such as Anders Behring Breivik, but it is too early for that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

While I understand Jellypear's points, this User makes the most salient point of all, "Very little is known about the perpetrator and much of the investigation is being conducted using his digital footprint because he had so little actual social contact with anyone other than his mother." Given that Lanza and his mother are both dead, it's doubtful that much in the way of truly pertinent or uncontroversial information will come from the investigation. Again, its a developing story and I would recommend deferring to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent reversion/missing edit summary

Don't know what happened, but the reversion deleted my edit summary & I don't want to edit the article to make the edit summary "stick" so here is the longer version:

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 107#Allegation that Adam Lanza edited Wikipedia & previous discussion on this article's talk page, consensus presently seems to be against the information concerning Lanza's alleged editing of Wikipedia being included within this article.

Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless this is proved one way or the other (and it may never be) it fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:V.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See my comments in the two sections directly above this one, but TLDR version: agree entirely. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What the investigators did is to look for the perpetrator's digital footprint, which is now standard practice after incidents of this kind. People often use the same nickname on more than one site, and investigators have conjectured that one particular nickname was linked to Adam Lanza in 2009-10. The media has overstated the evidence, and although it is not impossible that Lanza edited Wikipedia, it remains unproven. A slew of Wikipedia usernames were suggested as sockpuppets of Luka Magnotta, but none of these were proved either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. But not mentioning that reliable sources reported this as being part of the investigation might be a significant omission for this page. There are always dead end leads in any investigation and any accurate history of the investigation will include the most noteworthy and/or promising of them. We don't know if this is a dead end or not. Clearly if more definitive information is reported, then the topic must be addressed in the article. However, even if there is only a public perception that this "a fact" of the case it becomes worthy of mention. Jellypear (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: A timeline would be informative.

Eugen_Hamerle posted this comment on 16 July 2013 (view all feedback).

A timeline would be informative.

Any thoughts?

Techdude3331 (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Can someone find the information for one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdude3331 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A more specific request would be nice too. The Shooting section gives almost a minute by minute account of the actual events. The rest of the article describes what has happened since. Is this person requesting a timeline in a different format, maybe a graphically linear one or ?? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A timeline would have issues with WP:PROSE. This is a technique often used in journalists' news reports, but not ideal for an event on a single day. WP:TIMELINE is suitable mostly for events over a significant period of time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook shooting category, why?

I noticed that someone has created a Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting category and its almost entirely populated by redirect pages for each (but not all) of the victims. Is there some legitimate purpose to this or is someone trying to pull an "end run" around WP:NOTMEMORIAL? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, not a category in the truest sense of the term. Most of the victims fail WP:GNG, so they do not need to be mentioned in a category as a redirect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So is there an easier way to fix this than nominating each redirect for speedy deletion? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated the Category for deletion. Any Admins want to assist or make a judgement? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done, its gone... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Investigation

I think it should be pointed out that the text, "According to the New York Times, two law enforcement officials who were initially involved in the investigation said they believed that Adam Lanza had spent most of his time in the basement of the home, primarily playing a warfare video game, Call of Duty." is a non sequitur [11](That is based off the opinion, that is not backed by study, that video games cause violent acts) and should be changed to something along the lines of, "According to the New York Times, law enforcement officials commented that Adam Lanza would spend most of his time in his basement doing solitary activities. Some of which include playing video games." That last sentence could be removed as it really is not necessary to the article. -- Snupher (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, seems like a reasonable edit. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

edit

In the Perpetrator section it says Adam died in "Newton", Connecticut. Doopliss von grapple 2.0 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out the error. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2013

There is no proof that this happened or that Adam Lanza was involved. NO Proof.192.172.14.69 (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what has appeared in reliable sources. What constitutes proof in the blogs is very different. See also WP:FRINGE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 August 2013

Since its reference is blacklisted and its assertion is outdated, please replace "Within 15 hours of the incident, 100,000 Americans signed a petition at the Obama administration's We the People petitioning website in support of a renewed national debate on gun control." with "Nearly 200,000 people signed a petition at the Obama administration's We the People petitioning website in support of stricter gun control legislation." 174.66.197.19 (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Fox2k11 (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2013

Previous change still isn't right:

"Nearly 200,000 People signed a petition at the Obama administration's We the People petitioning website in support of stricter gun control legislation."

should be

Nearly 200,000 people signed a petition at the Obama administration's We the People petitioning website in support of stricter gun control legislation.

i.e. no quotation marks, and "People" shouldn't be capitalized. 174.66.197.19 (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The quotation marks were removed. The We the People website uses a capital letter for people. The original version of the petition with 197,073 votes is at [12].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It was the first 'people' that shouldn't have been capitalized - I've corrected that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Magazine capacity relevance?

Why is it relevant to constantly mention the AR had a 30 round magazine? Why were the magazine capacities for the other firearms not mentioned? I think the reason is political. Other wise all the firearms would have their capacities mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.118.151 (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant, because one of the consequences of the shooting was proposed new legislation on magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition (this was rejected in April 2013).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Both the Glock and Sig have standard capacity magazines that are higher than 10. So why is that not mentioned. I think this is a bias against AR style rifles with standard capacity magazines. To be balanced you must either mention the capacity of all firearms or not mention the capacity at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.108.120 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

Section 2 seems to contradict itself - the last part of the second paragraph says the morning announcements were interrupted, while the first part of the fourth paragraph says morning announcements were either interrupted and someone turned on the intercom. There also seems to be some confusion over whether Hochsprung and the other teachers were in a staff meeting or doing announcements when they first heard the shots. Ordinarily this wouldn't be a big deal, but since this is an important article, the first one to come up on a bing or google search, I think it is important we get our facts straight about the timeline and what exactly happened. There was alot of misinformation that came out in the early reporting of this story, but by this point there should be some official source giving a correct and detailed report of what happened when.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are referring to and its (unfortunately) a speculative statement and an un-sourced one at that. I rechecked the inline citations and see that the material is not supported so I'm removing the statement.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Edit request on 7 October 2013

Please add new information to the 'Reactions' section. Newtown, MA residents voted in October 2013 to demolish Sandy Hook Elementary and construct a new building at the same site. The demolition will be funded by $50 million in state money.

Source: http://www.wbur.org/npr/229797855/the-votes-are-in-sandy-hook-elementary-will-be-torn-down

Anevaude (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks very much. I've added it to the paragraph about the proposal in the Impact on the community section. --Stfg (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Newtown voters approve rebuilding of Sandy Hook Elementary

Here are some references that you can use for this article:

• http://abcnews.go.com/US/newtown-connecticut-votes-rebuild-sandy-hook-elementary/story?id=20486788
• http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Newtown-voters-approve-49M-for-new-Sandy-Hook-4872742.php
• http://newtownbee.com/news/news/2013/10/05/sandy-hook-school-referendum-passes-wide-margin/166895

I wondered when the vote would come up. Thank you for the follow up. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Shouldn't this have been resolved by now?

"There were initially conflicting reports on whether Nancy Lanza had worked as a volunteer at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.[126]" It raises the question, but doesn't actually say if it's true or not. (sorry forgot to sign 67.80.83.53 (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.83.53 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. This source says "News reports Friday suggested that Nancy Lanza had worked at the elementary school, but at a news conference Saturday, the school superintendent said there was no evidence that she had ever worked at the school as a full-time or substitute teacher, or in any other capacity." This dates from 15 December 2012, so it does not clear up the matter entirely.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013

two consecutive "and"s in "shooting" section 71.203.37.159 (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Gaijin42 (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The following coordinate fixes are needed for

Sandy Hook Elementary School

—188.24.70.1 (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No coordinates suggested. This was discussed previously at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_2#Coordinate_error, the coordinates given look OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Should an entry about the recent video game simulating the massacre and its reaction be added at the end?

There are a number of news articles about it...here's one from fox with screenshots. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/11/20/video-game-based-on-sandy-hook-massacre-draws-cries-outrage/

24.136.94.214 (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the "Video games" section. I wondered at first whether it was notable enough, but it brought back memories of JFK: Reloaded, a 2004 video game simulation of the assassination of President Kennedy, which also led to strong criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Reason for the demolition and reconstruction of Sandy Hook Elementary isn't stated.

It doesn't seem likely that a few bullet holes and some streaks of blood would be anything that some grout, some plaster, some detergent and a few mops couldn't deal with for much less cost than tearing down the whole school and building another one in its place. Who were the members of this "task force" and what were their reasons for treating a small problem with a very expensive remedy, when a much cheaper remedy would almost certainly have sufficed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.197.29 (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In October 2013, 88% of Newtown residents voted for the school to be demolished and rebuilt. Erica Lafferty, the daughter of murdered Sandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Hochsprung, said "It should be knocked down. There should be some type of long-lasting memorial. I don't want people to walk into the building and say, 'Oh well, that's where Erica's mom got gunned down.' That's not OK."[13] This was the view that prevailed. After the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre in 1984, the building was demolished and never rebuilt.[14]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of shooting

I think the timeline should be updated to match that of the "States Attorney Official" report. In the "Official" report it states that shooting started at 9:35 and the police on the scene heard the last gunshot at 9:40 a.m. this is page 9-10 of the official report http://www.scribd.com/doc/187052598/Official-Sandy-Hook-Report — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentstrfkr337 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The article has been updated to make clear that the final report believes that the shooting spanned five minutes, not the fifteen originally reported. The final report also makes clear that police were at the school around five minutes after the first 911 call, contrary to early reports that the first response had taken around twenty minutes.[15]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of documents from the case as a source

The documents from the case are WP:PRIMARY source material and need to be handled with care. For example, the RM 10 section says that the wire frame glasses that were found near Lanza's body were "consistent with child size glasses. There was no deceased child in close proximity to the shooter's body." This raises more questions than it answers, because it appears to suggest that the glasses were not Lanza's, but does not say whose they were. Similarly, a large amount of detail about the trajectory of the shot Lanza used to kill himself is not really necessary. Most media reports say that he killed himself with a shot to the head from the Glock, and that is enough for practical purposes. The key details of the case have appeared in the media and are in the final report summary. The documents go into much more detail, but should be used only for incontrovertible statements of fact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done, I'd say that this is a good way to bookend the section and add some closure to the article. Any chance we can get an Admin to make it fully protected for a year or two? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

An article for Adam Lanza?

There's a wealth of information about him that came out recently and considering that James Eagan Holmes and Seung the Virgina Tech shooter have pages, shouldn't Adam Lanza have one? CaptainPrimo (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed previously, and the consensus at the time was not to have a separate article for Adam Lanza. Personally, I'm not convinced that much has come out in the final report that is important and goes beyond what the article currently says, so there is a risk of WP:CONTENTFORKING. A separate article would have to be considerably longer and more detailed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Ianmacm. Most of the sources I've seen have covered Lanza's actions specifically at Sandy Hook/Newtown (including the 'final report'), not a lot of detail about his life beyond that day. Someone else might be interested in writing an article up and seeing if the community consensus has changed, but not me...I'm tired of death. Shearonink (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

An article on Lanza, who as a student otherwise has had no significant impact on the world and thus leaving little to talk about beyond this crime, would by necessity have to repeat many of the details here to be a complete bio article. And that's really not helpful (ianmacm's content forking issue). Unlike, say, the Boston Marathon bombers, one who is still alive and in criminal proceedings, there's nothing more we can say beyond Lanza's life outside this event. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

absolutely not. No article for that person. He was very ill and I wish he'd received the help he needed. This person didn't do anything that would merit an article here. We should also in no way celebrate or elevate people that do these things.-Justanonymous (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Justanonymous: we do not create or withhold articles on people because they are worthy or unworthy of celebration. We do so because they are or are not notable. VQuakr (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Right now, we have six short paragraphs at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Perpetrator. What additional, verifiable, encyclopedic material is missing that would be added if we had a dedicated article? VQuakr (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm well educated in the ways of Wikipedia, thank you, no need to be uncivil towards me. The person is not notable. Consensus has been reached on this before, it's in the archives. Feel free to read it yourself. If facts have changed, then we can revisit. If nothing has changed except that the anniversary is coming up, then we should stop wasting valuable editor time and focus on the real work......ie maybe an article for a presidential citizens medal recipient??? Much more notable in this humble editor's mind by all logic. Justanonymous (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

AGAINST - Agreed, for all of the reasons stated. I concur with Just, Masem, et. al. and their opinions, there are far better articles worthy of our attention. Furthermore, the existence of similarly themed or focused articles should never be sole justification for another article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Adam Lanza and prescription medication

Since there have been several requests for the article to say whether Adam Lanza was taking prescription medication at the time of the shooting, this is what the final report has to say on the issue: "Efforts were made within the limits of privacy laws to gather information on medical consultations and/or treatments the shooter was involved with over the course of his years in Newtown. In doing so, investigators found no evidence to suggest the shooter had taken any medication that would affect his behavior or by any means to explain his actions on December 14, 2012." The report also says that he was recommended medication in 2006 but did not take it. None of this gives a simple yes or no answer to whether Lanza was taking medication at the time of the shooting, but the article should include a summary of this information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's shady that the report said "investigators found no evidence to suggest the shooter had taken any medication that would affect his behavior or by any means to explain his actions" instead of "Adam was not on any medication." That says to me that he was on psychiatric medication. 64.20.12.142 (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Shootings

The weapons listed in the box to the left side should have commas after them, otherwise its difficult to identify the types and number of weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd4069 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, br was used to put the guns on separate lines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Time of event start

We're trying to settle the event start given the latest information. First 9:11 was called at 9:35:39 per the official report. The shooting started shortly after the 9:30 staff meeting. Doors were locked at 9:30. So between 9:30 and 9:35 is the best I can find. Can we pore through the official attorney's official record and get the best time possible? Hatzing, thank you for your patience, let's get the best most recent information possible. -Justanonymous (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I found on page 9 of the official report from November 25th 2013, state "shortly after 9:30".-Justanonymous (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the first 911 call was received at 9:35am, but other sources say that the shooting began several minutes earlier. It makes sense that the 911 calls were not instantaneous.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

SIG Sauer P226 was not used in the school shooting

This edit is correct. Adam Lanza carried a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 into the school but did not fire it.[16] The only guns fired inside the school were the Bushmaster (which killed all of the victims) and the 10mm Glock, which he used to kill himself. The SIG Sauer P226 should not be in the infobox because this is misleading, although it should be mentioned in the text of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Saiga-12 was taken to the school in the car but was not fired either. My view is that neither the SIG nor the Saiga should be in the infobox. Thoughts from other editors?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree - The Infobox should be limited to most salient info and not include extraneous detail, its a summary. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Help:Infobox says Infoboxes "quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format". The guns used to actually commit the murders & the suicide are the important points here, not extraneous weapons somewhat-indirectly associated with the acts. Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Dates

Per WP:STRONGNAT and WP:DATERET, the system used to delineate the dates should be rendered as (month name) (date), (year), for instance as December 14, 2012 instead of 14 December 2012. I reverted a dating change and was unable to render the Edit Summary for an explanation. Shearonink (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

agree. I think someone from Europe might have changed it. That's standard for them but not for where the event took place.-Justanonymous (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Influences on Lanza

Re this edit. The only previous shooting which the final report considered to be a particular fascination for Adam Lanza was the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. It does not say that he was inspired by the 2011 Norway attacks of Anders Behring Breivik, despite law enforcement officials claiming this to the media in February 2013. It mentions that Lanza had a 2008 newspaper cutting about the Northern Illinois University shooting, which does not support the the claim of a strong fascination. It mentions the 2006 Amish school shooting only once, noting that he had a copy of the 2007 book Amish Grace: How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013 documents

The newly released documents are on the ct.gov website here. The site asks people not to download them unless they really need them. I downloaded the 720 MB version, and it is both enormous and not all that useful. The mainstream media coverage contains all of the important points.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that downloading the document for review is unnecessary. We seem to have included or cover all of the salient points in the existing article going by what the Mainstream is reporting. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The two shots from the Glock

Re this edit Lanza fired the Glock twice and two shell casings were recovered. One shot killed him, but the reason for the other is unknown. It is possible (and obviously WP:OR) that he was having difficulty with the gun and fired a test shot to see if it was working before putting it to his head. The final report says that the Glock found next to Lanza's body "appeared to be jammed".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

inaccurate interpretation of the source material?

They've even outlined it.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1580947.1389823660!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/newtown16n-11-web.jpg

He had "homosexual fantasies"

--Slenderdan (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

See above. This is based on the history of an instant messaging discussion involving three people. There is no transcript given, so we do not know what "Smiggles" (described somewhat carefully as "presumably the shooter") actually said here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll attempt to phrase it that way then. --Slenderdan (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality, and radio show phone in

The wording in the New York Daily News story about homosexuality is taken from one of the documents released in December 2013. It says an instant messaging account history between December 2010 and February 2011 focuses on "gaming, homosexual fantasies, and day to day activities." As for the claim that Lanza appeared on a radio phone in show, this has excited the media, but is based on one person saying that the voice is definitely him, and another who thinks that it is him. This is reminiscent of the claim that Lanza edited Wikipedia, which was widely reported as a fact in parts of the media, even though Wikipedia did not confirm this because there was insufficient evidence. If this is in the article, it should stop short of saying that it is definitely Lanza in the phone in recording, and give the assessment from the source accurately.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The opening words of the New York Daily News story are "Adam Lanza has spoken from the grave." The remainder of the text in the story never quite lives up to the billing, because it remains plausible but unconfirmed that the voice in the recording is Lanza. Other sources, such as CNN, tone down the certainty, saying "CNN cannot confirm that the recorded voice is Lanza's, but if it is his, it could provide previously unknown insight into the mind of the 20-year-old." If PRISM (surveillance program) is anything to go by, the time and date of this call would have been logged somewhere by the U.S. government. Since the time and date of the call is known, it should be possible to verify whether a phone number in Connecticut was responsible (presumably it was made from there, as Lanza stayed at home when his mother went on vacations). Saying that it definitely is Lanza based on the view of two of his classmates is not ideal, as voices over the phone are not always easy to recognize. Sometimes people who I know have called me and I could not recognize their voices over the phone. The full recording of the Travis discussion (approximately seven minutes long) is on YouTube here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Lanza,, or all the Lanzas for that matter..

Why is there no detailed page for Adam Lanza??? Like for example the Columnbine High School shooters Dylan Klebold ,and Eric Harris. or Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez....... Is wikipedia an independent organization or is it doing what its told? ... Or are there no real Lanzas therefore no real history to write about. I find it hard to believe that no one has dug into this familys history or lack thereof id love an honest answer on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.159.177 (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The consensus of several past past discussions (eg Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_7#An_article_for_Adam_Lanza.3F) is that a separate article for Adam Lanza is unnecessary. Everything that really matters is in this article and should not be made into a WP:CONTENTFORK just for the sake of it. Also, it is interesting to see that the "it never really happened" theory still has some credence in the blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Should "Why is there no separate article for Adam Lanza?" be added to the FAQ above? GoingBatty (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that, this question does seem to be a perennial FAQ... Shearonink (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Because of WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"Too long" template

While I agree that a list of the names of all of the victims is not 100% necessary (this has been debated before), I don't agree that the article is too long or should be split, per WP:CONTENTFORK. The length of articles is governed by WP:SIZERULE, and at around 40 kB there is no immediate need to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the "Too long" template is not needful. Considering the statistic that this article is in Wikipedia's top 1000 articles by page visits, not sure why the tag was placed on the article with no explanation on this talk page. We don't know if the article breaks up on mobile devices or if the editor who placed the tag thinks that it should be condensed for readability or if perhaps there are sections or information that are redundant etc. Shearonink (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up parts of the article

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

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

What happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, the article should follow what third-party sources use, in order to assure NPOV. John, reliable sources seem to agree with your assessment on the event and which of the two terms better describes it, however we should follow what they describe it as. Exceptions can be made when reliable sources do not establish a consensus on the description of the event, where we would then enter into discussions about its title. Even if the media's title seems irrational, the nature of such descriptions would then be discussed in the article itself. For example, the shootings and killings at the 1972 Munich Olympics are termed as the "Munich massacre", because sources describe it as such.[17][18][19][20] - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Section isnt clear

In the article it states

".....and believe that it was Lanza shooting himself in the lower rear portion of his head with the Glock 20SF" and

"The Glock was found apparently jammed near the shooter"

If the weapon was jammed, it doesnt make sense that he used it to kill himself. Is this a factual error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.78.25.119 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation error at bottom

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

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

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

Does it serve for the article?

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

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

Image request: School demolition

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

The demolition was completed in late December 2013.[21]. A photograph would have to be non-copyrighted and suitable for Commons. Any help here is welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible Medication/Antidepressant Link

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to know if anyone can obtain the sources of the actual toxicology report, and any medication Adam Lanza may have been on prior to the shootings. Specifically, had he recently stopped taking a particular medication or recently changed his prescription? Azoundria (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Any article content relating to this would need to be based on published secondary reliable sources. We don't source articles from medical reports. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As compelling or informed as the opinions might be, its still just speculation and has no place in this article. If the final report had revealed anything in this regard, it would already be in the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before, eg here. The final report did not provide a firm answer on the question of prescription medication, but said "Efforts were made within the limits of privacy laws to gather information on medical consultations and/or treatments the shooter was involved with over the course of his years in Newtown. In doing so, investigators found no evidence to suggest the shooter had taken any medication that would affect his behavior or by any means to explain his actions on December 14, 2012" (page 5). The autopsy report says that "No drugs were found in the shooter's system" (page 31). The report also says that Lanza was offered medication in 2006 but did not take it (page 39). Comments by friends would not be a reliable source, as the users above have pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Shooter was wearing "boots"

In regards to citation 53 on this article. Sally Cox reported the shooter wearing "boots". I am in possession of evidence provided by the State Police department of Connecticut. This evidence shows clearly that the shooter was not wearing boots. Instead he was wearing black shoes. In what manner should the article be edited to reflect this evidence? Doubtlessly, there are other aspects of this article which do not match crime scene evidence, this being one example. Miloserdia (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean the "actual evidence" or you can point us to a source that supports your claim? Since its issuance, we've been updating/changing information based on the final report issued by the police. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It is possible that this is in the full set of documents released by the Connecticut State Police in December 2013. Since these are huge PDF files, it would be helpful to have an exact reference to the file and page number involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is the footwear of the shooter relevant to an an encyclopedia article? This seems like trivia that should be removed, regardless of what the footwear was. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

agreed, that level of detail is not relevant. I think he was wearing some kind of "tactical" outfit but beyond that I don't think the attire conversation is relevant. I would think that things like body armor, bulletproof helmet (both of which I don't think he was wearing) would be relevant but not whether he had Nikes vs Timberlands. We all assume he was clothed and wearing shoes. If there is an error though it should be fixed by removing the error but I don't think it's relevant for the article to go deeper down that level of detail. My 2 pennies -Justanonymous (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Doh! I defer to Gaijin and Just... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Section isnt clear

In the article it states

".....and believe that it was Lanza shooting himself in the lower rear portion of his head with the Glock 20SF" and

"The Glock was found apparently jammed near the shooter"

If the weapon was jammed, it doesnt make sense that he used it to kill himself. Is this a factual error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.78.25.119 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the sources for this, but there are many ways this could be accurate. There are many types of "Jam" or malfunction (Failure to load, failure to eject) etc. These types of jams are common when a gun is not held level, or when the recoil is not controlled correctly (Limp_wristing), or if the gun cannot cycle correctly due to being pressed against something. All 3 of these types of causes are likely/plausible for someone holding a gun with one hand, pointing it at themselves, pressed against their head, etc. The drop after he shot could also cause various malfunctions. This is much more likely the reporter using imprecise terminologyGaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And found the sourcing. This is straight out of the police report (p 21 http://www.ct.gov/csao/lib/csao/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf) so its pretty solid. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_7#The_two_shots_from_the_Glock.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Lanza interviews

He appears to be making a media run, lots of comments from the father.

• http://www.today.com/news/adam-lanzas-father-wishes-he-could-go-back-time-prevent-2D79346468?GT=43001
• http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/17/140317fa_fact_solomon?currentPage=all

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This has picked up a good deal of media coverage [22] and the full article is here. Some of this should probably go into the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeat

Second paragraph of the perpetrator's article has a sentence repeated.

Fixed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Casualty Total

With the removal of the table of victims, apparently the casualty total has also been removed. I just read the article from top to bottom and I only see mentioned in passing that one girl survived. I was unable to find out how many people died.208.127.245.193 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep or remove list of victims...a discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is Glaringly incomplete without a list of victims, at the very least there should be a prominent link to such a list. The list of victims is one of the main things people are looking for when they come to this article.John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 13:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

OK everyone... Over there on the right is the victims list as it previously appeared in the article. I wanted to post the table here so fellow editors can see what it looked like. I liked this table, I thought it presented sourced material about the dead in a factual manner without going into too many details, I just don't understand how to give it (in this state), a "Show/Hide" button.
I tried to find some WikiProject or think of some superduper editor who could help me do this and couldn't find a Wiki page or think of anyone so it's going here. Surely one of the 304 editors who have this article on their watchlist could lend a hand...please? Shearonink (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Casualties
Killed Perpetrator's mother Nancy Lanza (shot at home)
School personnel Rachel D'Avino, teacher's aide Dawn Hochsprung, principal Anne Marie Murphy, teacher's aide Lauren Rousseau, teacher Mary Sherlach, school psychologist Victoria Leigh Soto, teacher
First grade students Charlotte Bacon Daniel Barden Olivia Engel Josephine Gay Dylan Hockley Madeleine Hsu Catherine Hubbard Chase Kowalski Jesse Lewis Ana Marquez-Greene James Mattioli Grace McDonnell Emilie Parker Jack Pinto Noah Pozner Caroline Previdi Jessica Rekos Avielle Richman Benjamin Wheeler Allison Wyatt
Perpetrator Adam Lanza (suicide)
Wounded Natalie Hammond, lead teacher One unnamed adult

When I initially posted the table, I was editing by section and didn't realize the table would impinge on the other posts' space. I've added some spacing to the bottom of this particular discussion for visual clarity. Shearonink (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2014

Since I cannot edit this page for some reason I would like to tell someone who can that the Photo of Adam Lanza on this page with the blue background is labeled incorrectly. It says that is a yearbook photo which is NOT true. This photo is the photo from his Driver's License. It's a DMV photograph. So can someone please change that because its driving me nuts!

Kaynbread (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence from a reliable source that this is a DMV photo? I note that an anon IP recently changed the description to the image file, [23] claiming the same thing - but again without providing evidence - which I've reverted as unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I've removed the word "yearbook" and now it simply says "Lanza's photo". You'll have to come up with a RS if you want it to say "DMV". — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Folks, if you click the photo and check its attributes, it clearly says that its a yearbook photo. Unless we get the uploader of the image to change this, we have no credible reason to doubt this. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Adam Lanza and Kaynbred

Why should we not include stuff about Adam Lanza possibly using "Kaynbred" to edit Wikipedia and post on gun-related online forums if it's well sourced? [24] If there's a good answer, I think it should be added to the FAQ. Jinkinson talk to me 05:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Suspected, but not borne out (either way), and a trivial note to the larger situation. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There are several online accounts which may have been used by Lanza, but the key word is "may". Due to the length of time ago that this is said to have happened (2009-10) Wikipedia had no IP address records which would have helped to verify this claim, something the Hartford Courant and other media sources lost in translation when writing the story. The evidence that Lanza was Kaynbred, Smiggles etc is largely circumstantial and based on writing style and interests rather than hard evidence. See also here and here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of which, does it seem weird to anyone that the account posting in the section directly above me has the username "Kaynbread", i.e. the same as the supposed Adam Lanza account except with one letter added? Jinkinson talk to me 13:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Its someone with knowledge of the incident making an account specifically to comment on this page Special:Contributions/Kaynbread Jonpatterns (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Lanza's influences

Re this edit: Since it was not vandalism, it should not have been reverted with no indication of what the problem was. During the investigation, law enforcement officials told the media a whole load of things that were not backed up by the final report. This was previously discussed at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_7#Influences_on_Lanza. The ABC News citation does not mention the 2011 Norway attacks at all, and the final report considered that only the Columbine High School massacre was a particular fascination for Lanza. The ABC News cite says that he had a "large amount of materials relating to Columbine shootings and documents on mass murders". The Amish and Illinois shootings are mentioned elsewhere in the article, but are given only a passing mention in the final report, and do not support the claim of a strong fascination.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Prior to the final report being issued, just about anything that the police said officially or unofficially to the press was speculation because they had not fully investigated it. Since we have the final report, we should be deferring to it as our common reference. Ian's edit is correct. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note on this revert. I didn't realize Hunger Games was a video game! So sick. If the cops found it maybe they repressed it because they didn't want bad press for a big selling author living in their town. Anyway, I did have the conspiracy theory link and wonder if a conspiracy theory section relevant here; some such incidents have them, others don't. Not a major wikipedia editing area for me, just a morning when I was disgusted and wanted to get some of this info in here somewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Suzanne Collins lives in Sandy Hook was considered to be an amazing coincidence in the blogs in December 2012,www.infowars.com/newtown-murders-astonishing-hunger-games-coincidence-and-killers-mother-now-a-doomsday-prepper/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} but it was never a factor in the investigation or mentioned in the final report. In the past, The Catcher in the Rye and A Clockwork Orange (film) have also been linked to events which they probably did not cause. The Suzanne Collins link is mentioned in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories where it is more on topic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that link! I guess most big incidents end up with such articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Photo request, new school design

Please forgive me for not understanding the WP copyright policies better, but is there a way to use an image of the artist rendering of the new Sandy Hook School that is permitted within WP guidelines and such? I've added paragraphs about the two recent announcements and the image pertains to one of them. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you link to this? On a different note, there are already a few too many images in the article and not all are 100% necessary. A copyright free photograph of the new school could and should be taken when it is built, but the proposed plans are not completely necessary per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we could use some image pruning, my thought is that the new school image could replace another. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Flowers for the victims from people of Newtown" and "Minute of silence observed in the White House on December 21, 2012" could go because they basically repeat the same theme as the other two images in the Reactions section. There is also undesirable MOS:SANDWICH caused by these images having left and right placement. The plans for the new school are probably copyrighted in some way and are unlikely to be suitable for a Creative Commons license.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess we wait until the new school is built and replace something then. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun control section

I made an edit to remove the political debate related commentary from this section, and two Users have been reverting it. This is the simplified version I am in favor of that removes remarks from any politicians and commentary by the NRA. The article is about the shooting and the section about gun control related activities that came about as a result. We have plenty of factual information in the article about guns and gun legislation already, can't we keep the gun debate out of this article? Your thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If reliable sources discuss gun control issues in relation to the subject of the article, then so should we, regardless of efforts by the gun lobby to avoid people making the obvious connections between availability of firearms and mass murder carried out using firearms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There was significant gun control debate directly linked to this incident, it should be covered here, but we should not be making the broader arguments pro/con that are not linked by reliable sources/notable voices. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm copying my comment that I just left on your page, since it sums up my view on this topic. I do also want to add that you didn't initiate this with an edit, you initiate it with a revert of my edit. You then decided to remove an entire chunk of the subsection in direct response to someone else reverting your revert. Further, while I disagree with Andy's assessment I do agree with Gaijina, and I feel the article as it stands now meets his/her criteria.

From the OP's user page:

The entire section is about commentary. It's the subsection under "Reactions" covering "Gun control". The push for more gun control (and resultant push against it) was perhaps the most prominent national reaction to Sandy Hook. The section opens with a direct quote from the President explaining his intentions, the body of the section contains quotes and reactions from various politicians and groups on both sides of the debate, and the closing covers the defeat of the only Bill that saw a vote at the national level, and quotes from both sides of the aisle, including the President. That's not just neutral, that's good writing, I think. The only part I took out was a single word that treated Obama's words as fact (and since he was criticizing Republicans and the NRA, that's clearly not neutral), and adding the NRA, since in the quote he specifically directs his criticism at both Republicans and the NRA.

I'm note sure what you're classifying as rhetoric, but your suggestion to keep politics out of a section specifically covering a political issue confuses me. If anything this section should cover legislative reaction to Sandy Hook (ie, new gun control laws in Colorado, New York, Maryland and Connecticut) in far more detail. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Coverage here should be limited to things that reliable and notable commentators have directly linked to Sandy Hook, preferably by the authors/supporters of the law saying that was their inspiration, and not just a talking head saying that these laws were passed after Newtown (causation vs correlation). Colorado's laws are much more closely linked with the 2012 Aurora shooting. NY Safe Act does have linkage though. Not sure about the others. (Although a generic statement saying that the event generally galvanized gun control efforts is obviously supportable)Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the main arguments by one side have been omitted. Asserting that it was about gun control advocates trying to capitalize on the situation rather than about people reacting to it. 21:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - are you talking about the 'gun control' subsection of the 'reactions' section in this article? I just reread it and it seems pretty neutral to me, and I don't see any talking points, nor do I feel there really should be. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lanza Entered Soto's room first

Evidence suggests that Lanza entered Soto's room, before entering Lauren Rousseau's room. The two jungle-taped magazines were found in Soto's room, and they were the two mags that were in the rifle when he shot through the glass entrance. It only makes sense that he entered her classroom first, before moving on to Rousseau's room. Consider revising to support this? Hatzing (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We need authoritative sources (like the police) to make this claim, we dare not make it ourselves. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Because that would be WP:OR... Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur, clear WP:OR, also even if it was reported reliably, I would say the level of detail about which rooms he entered first and who got shot first is probably too close to trivia, unless there were some significant notable/rs discussion about why that order was important. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There are persistent problems with the sequence of events in the shooting, due to confusion and panic at the time. The sourcing has never established the sequence of events clearly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Free-floating citations from previous discussions