Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

They're commonly called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines

Regarding these edits - [1] [2] - the use of the terms assault weapon and high-capacity magazine is common practice in these and other gun-related discussions. They're the terms used in hundreds of - probably thousands of - reliable print and broadcast news stories and they're the terms our readers are likely to search for on the subject. They're lead-worthy because the Sandy Hook shooting is notable for two things: the horrible tragedy itself... and the fact that it kicked off another national discussion about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and (universal background checks for that matter). Therefore, I am reverting the good-faith reversion of the good-faith addition of these common terms. I am open to tweaking the wording, as long as it's not re-worded to play up the politics. (The wording is WP:NPOV as is.) Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The terms "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" are vague. Specifically, the failed proposal by Dianne Feinstein wanted to "ban the sale and manufacture of 157 types of semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition."[3] Since the lead section is intended to be a summary rather than to go into detail, the addition of the vague terms "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" is not really necessary. This was previously discussed here and here. Other comments welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary I gave with my edit [4] - summarizing what I wrote above - says, "rv good faith edit per talk page; passes WP:MOSINTRO, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V" Which of these reasons are you disputing? Or if there's another reason you're giving for your argument, which is it?

Assuming for now that you might be referring to MOSINTRO, since you call assault weapon and high-capacity magazine "vague," MOSINTRO says that "over-specific descriptions" and "greater detail" should be "saved for the body of the article"; it also says, "The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader."

Assault weapon, assault weapons ban, high-capacity magazine, and high-capacity magazine ban are all words familiar to a normal reader - just like the words speed and speed limit are familiar. The body of the article is for details like the lead's current legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition. Actually, that fragment manages to be vague (certain types of semi-automatic firearms) and too-detailed (magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition) at the same time.

There are hundreds of WP:V, WP:RS that use these very words, repeatedly. The normal reader has been reading them, hearing them, and using them for 20 years now. If you like, I can list a dozen or two here, or I can bundle them up with the existing citation already supporting the existing sentence. That source says:

• Senator Dianne Feinstein announced plans at a news conference on Thursday to introduce a bill that would outlaw a large number of different assault weapons.
• Bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were among the proposals unveiled by President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. last week.

What was added passes WP:NPOV and improves the article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The terms "assault weapon" and high capacity magazine" are often seen as vague and POV loaded, which is why past consensus has been to avoid them. Is a kitchen knife an assault knife? Yes, if you stab someone with it. What is a high capacity magazine? 10, 20, 30, 40 rounds? You choose. Let's stick to what Dianne Feinstein actually proposed, which is much easier to source and understand.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a single reference to a WP policy, guideline, or essay in what you've just written. Nor do I see a link to a discussion showing that consensus has been reached in this article to avoid the words assault weapon or high-capacity magazine. I looked through all seven archives for this talk page; Terminolgy for the rifle is the closest discussion I found, so I am pinging those editors: Drmies, Monty845, and North8000. Assuming you can provide a link to this past discussion that led to a consensus that assault weapon and high-capacity magazine are vague and POV and forbidden from use in the article... WP:CCC: Consensus can change.

In a little over 12 hours, you've reverted my edits three (3) times [5][6][7] now, with no effort to incorporate my legitimate concerns, which are well within Wikipedia's norms. It is past time for Wikipedia articles to stop being written as if assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are not real - that's a job for biased sources. Lightbreather (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Both are like pornography. You know them when you see them. If the terms had real meaning, the law would just say "High capacity magazines and assault weapons are banned" and it would be a very short law. It isn't. The laws are defining these terms, and in often contradictory ways. Is high capacity 10? In new york it is 7 (but you can use a mag that lets you put in 10, you just can't load more than 7). etc. Since 99.99999% of everyone who has ever shot an ar15 or ak47 did so using a 30 round mag, isn't that the standard? etc. We can say that people call these things certain terms, or try to redefine the terms to meet certain standards, but we can't pretend that the terms are unambiguous, clear and not themselves expressing a POV. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The details about what qualifies as an assault weapon or a high-capacity magazine belong in separate articles about those topics. Just the like details of speed and speed limits are in those articles. For Wikipedia to keep trying to tell readers that there is no such thing as an assault weapon or a high-capacity magazine is ridiculous. We've been using these terms in discussions and in laws for at least 20 years now.

Further, in the lead of an article we could write: When Mr. Jones was pulled over for speeding, his car and cell phone were full of pornography. In the body of the article we could get into the details of what kind of speeding and pornography.

Time to move on! Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are real things to millions of people - just like speed limits and pornography. Just because enthusiasts use more technical language is no more reason to deny this truth than to deny speed limits and pornography because racers know more about cars or perverts know more about porn stars. Lightbreather (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the previous consensus on this matter, as well as Gaijin42's reasoning above. If you see this as Wikipedia trying to say that "there is no such thing as an assault weapon or a high-capacity magazine" then, with respect, I think you're missing the point; concise accuracy is better than vague wording, that's my take on it. I'm aware that there's some political nonsense about "assault weapons", but it's also a vague term that varies in usage depending on who is using the term. I don't see a benefit in making the article more vague just to force in a specific wording. - Aoidh (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion you provided a link to is about high-capacity magazines only. And at least three of the only four editors in that discussion are pro-gun editors. Three of them are now before ArbCom. And that discussion was three my bad, fifteen months ago (Jan. 2013, not Jan. 2014)). And this article is about a controversial subject. I will wait a little bit to see if some other editors comment, and then decide what to do next. Lightbreather (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone opening an ArbCom case does not speak badly about them, nor does it discount what they say (saying they're "before ArbCom" is a little misleading). Likewise, labeling someone a "pro-gun editor" does not mean you can discount their comment, just as a discussion three months ago isn't suddenly out-of-date and can be discounted. It would be more helpful if you addressed the content, instead of simply trying to discredit those that disagree with you, because that's all your response was, and that's not a convincing argument to get a consensus for your edit. - Aoidh (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I addressed the content above. I'm not trying to discredit any individual; I'm saying the consensus is weak. Repeat: I will wait a little bit to see if some other editors comment, and then decide what to do next. Lightbreather (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

We are at war with eastasia. We have always been at war with eastasia. Retroactive continuity Doublespeak You missed the core point . The response to Sandy Hook was an attempt to change the meaning of those words, by redefining them - you can't pretend it has a set meaning to describe the event, when the actual event you are talking about is changing the meaning. Is this an assault weapon? [8] Not according to the new NY law, or Obama's proposed law, but my guess is you think it passes the pornography test. In fact, the CT already had an AWB ban in place at the time of the shooting, and Lanza's gun didn't meet its definition. This isn't some random article just happening to be talking about assault weapons, where your argument would hold some weight as WP:COMMONNAME. This is changing the meaning of the terms themselves, and that's the way we should describe it. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Speeding doesn't have a set meaning. Pornography doesn't have a set meaning. And yet we still use those words. And I am disengaging from discussing this with you. I've heard your arguments before. Lightbreather (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that not everyone who will read this article is an American. The victims of the Sandy Hook shooting were killed with a semiautomatic firearm. An "assault weapon" is a legal and political jargon term invented in the United States, and may mean very little to a person who is not familiar with the ongoing debate over its use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about a mass shooting that happened in the U.S., where U.S. terms are used. The sources we cite are full of them. Not everyone who will read this article, whether they're a Yank or not, will know what a "semiautomatic firearm" is either. That's what Wikilinks are for. Lightbreather (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not a "pro gun" editor and very rarely edit anything having to do with firearms. But I agree that "assault weapon" is a vague and inappropriate term here. Connecticut had a law whose intention was to ban "assault weapons" as defined by that state's legislature. I understand that it was among the strictest such laws. I understand that the AR-15 clone in question was not classified an "assault weapon" under Connecticut law, and was sold legally in that state. Why, then, should we use that term "assault weapon" in a Wikipedia article about these murders if the firearm didn't qualify legally? I don't think that we should use vague, imprecise terminology just because sources lacking expertise in firearms frequently make such mistakes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Connecticut state police officially described the firearm as a "Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine". They did not use the phrase "assault weapon" and qualified the magazine description by making it clear that it had a 30 round capacity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources that use assault weapon and/or high-capacity magazine (or variations of)

Some of the sources in this article...

1. "http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Access-to-weapons-made-tragedy-possible-4392681.php"
2. "http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/us/politics/senator-unveils-bill-to-limit-semiautomatic-arms.html"
3. "http://www.ctpost.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4222299.php"
4. "http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226"
5. "http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html"
6. "http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/18/connecticut-school-shooting-survivor/1778431/"
7. "http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/politics/bloomberg-urges-obama-to-take-action-on-gun-control.html"
8. "http://www.upi.com/blog/2012/12/21/Obama-responds-to-gun-violence-petition/1021356100902/"
9. "http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/politics/obama-to-give-congress-plan-on-gun-control-within-weeks.html"
10. "http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/obama-to-announce-gun-control-proposals-shortly/"
11. "http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-sets-up-gun-violence-task-force/"
12. "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/obama-gun-violence-task-force_n_2331238.html"
13. "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2311477.html"
14. "http://web.archive.org/web/20121217051257/http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Lieberman-Democrats-want-ban-on-assault-weapons-4122265.php"
15. "http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-20949405#TWEET509719"
16. "http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/us/as-us-weighs-new-rules-sales-of-guns-and-ammunition-surge.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130112&_r=0"
17. "http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/put-armed-police-officers-in-every-school-nra-head-says/2012/12/21/9ac7d4ae-4b8b-11e2-9a42-d1ce6d0ed278_story.html"
18. "http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/us/nra-calls-for-armed-guards-at-schools.html"
19. "http://web.archive.org/web/20130117113354/http://www.latimes.com/news/la-nra-calls-for-armed-police-officer-in-every-school-20121221,0,6328031.story"
20. "http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-remarks-on-new-gun-control-proposals-jan-16-2013-transcript/2013/01/16/528e7758-5ffc-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html"
21. "http://www.pressherald.com/news/state-gun-sales-weapons-permit-requests-rising-_2013-02-16.html"
22. "http://www.cbsnews.com/news/background-checks-voted-down-senate-gun-bill-in-peril/"
23. "http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/18/obama-condemns-senate-gun-reform"
24. "http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-news-blog/2012/dec/17/newtown-shootings-funerals-victims-live"
25. "http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/nyregion/connecticut-lawmakers-pass-gun-limits.html"
26. "http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/04/us/connecticut-gun-law-overhaul/"
27. "http://ctmirror.org/federal-judge-upholds-sandy-hook-gun-law/"

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Other various sources

20+ other representative various sources

2004 and earlier 2005 and later 1973 "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault+weapon 1988 "http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm" 1994 "http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/rational.htm" 1994 "http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/news/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban" 1996 "http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/assltf.htm" 1996 "http://www.cpmlegal.com/news-publications-16.html" 1997 "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380814/" 1998 "http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/lawsuits/firearms.html" 1999 "http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2" 2003 "http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm" 2003 "http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/30roundergl.htm" 2004 "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60579-2004Jul18.html" 2004 "http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0824/p09s02-coop.html" 2004 "http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=384&issue_id=92004" 2004 "http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/assault.weapons.ban/" 2000 "http://2ampd.net/Articles/Bolding/Laymans_Guide_to_High_Capacity_Magazines.htm" 2011 "http://jpfo.org/rabbi/five-reasons.htm" 2012 "http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-31/gun-control-colorado-theater-shooting/56621536/1" 2012 "http://abcnews.go.com/US/baltimore-police-chief-ban-high-capacity-firepower/story?id=18030163" 2013 "http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/" 2013 "http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=331" 2013 "http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings" 2013 "http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/the-high-capacity-magazine-myth/" 2014 "http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Supreme-Court-won-t-block-ban-on-guns-5312320.php" 2014 "http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/10/Repeal-Of-Colorado-s-High-Capacity-Magazine-Ban-Up-For-Vote" vendor "http://www.glockmeister.com/Tactical-Solutions-15-Round-High-Capacity-Magazine/productinfo/TSG22HF/" vendor "http://paraproshop.com/high-capacity-14-round-expert-magazine.html"

Above ("Other") not meant for inclusion in article, but to show just some of the various sources, political and apolitical, pro- and con-, commercial and governmental, that use assault weapon and high-capacity magazine in their stories, laws, essays, instructions, editorials, and advertisements. --Lightbreather (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Failure to address concerns in previous discussion give this article's lead a WP:WEIGHT problem, which skews its WP:NPOV. Lightbreather (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on consensus, not long lists of cites used to prove a point. It is possible to cherry pick cites to prove any given position, so it is unclear what the screed of cites is attempting to prove.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

First, as I wrote the "Other" sources I listed were not listed to include in the article. Second, and more importantly, cherrypicking in a nutshell says: When selecting information from a source, include contradictory and significant qualifying information from the same source.

At least 27 of this article's sources use the words assault weapon and high-capacity magazine, or close variations of those words. The article uses those words. The decision not to use them in the lead was biased, and the consensus is weak. You have shown no effort to incorporate my legitimate concerns about this. Lightbreather (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Nor have you shown much effort to understand why other editors have objected. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles, not journalism, and the argument that "x results in a Google search said y" is not strictly relevant. It has been pointed out several times that the terms "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" have been used to mean various things, which makes it much easier to stick to what Senator Dianne Feinstein actually proposed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have put a great deal of effort into understanding your objections. Why do you guys always focus on what Feinstein proposed? The massacre reignited a national debate that gets reignited after every mass shooting. And Feinstein's federal Assault Weapons Ban 2013 proposal was only one part of the debate. And it wasn't called the "Certain Types of Semiautomatic Firearms Ban," nor was there a proposed "Magazines Capable of Holding More Than 10 Rounds Ban." Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Since I've edited this article in the past, and was recently involved in a discussion about neutrality I'd like to add my two cents. I strongly oppose unqualified use of the terms "high capacity magazine" and "assault weapons" in this article. As has already been mentioned, these terms are political and do not represent a world view on the subject. Including them as descriptive terms, without clear explanations of their definitions and origins is akin to an article on the abortion debate using the terms "protecting life" or "protecting women's rights" rather than simply representing what each side is supporting/opposing. I think many of the edits made over the past 48 hours fail to maintain neutrality along these lines. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ian and IP 75, a great many Editors have worked to keep this article predominantly about the incident and events relating directly to it in an obvious and commonsense manner versus information that is hyped by the media or political pundits. An inordinate amount of effort has been put into keeping out of this article debate, controversy, and speculation regarding a variety of subjects ranging from "accusations that it was a hoax" to the "harmful effects of video games" to "mental health issues" and not the least of which "gun control" and the vague classification of firearms referred to as "assault weapons". WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX and its articles should not be used as WP:COATRACKs. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Whether information is "hyped" by the media or political pundits is your opinion. We are supposed to provide information from WP:V, WP:RS in a duly weighted manner. This information is significant enough that numerous verifiable, reliable sources shared it with their audiences. It is not our job to exclude some things because some editors think it is hype. Even if it were hype - and in my opinion, it is not - it still is WP:DUE because so many verifiable, reliable sources think that it's significant. Lightbreather (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The victims of the Sandy Hook shooting were killed with a semi-automatic rifle and thirty-round magazine, both of which were legal under Connecticut law at the time. The terms "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" should not be used to describe a gun in an encyclopedic context, as they are political jargon terms similar to "pro-choice" and "pro-life" in the abortion debate. The terms "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" have no generally agreed dictionary definition, and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. It is much easier to say what Dianne Feinstein proposed after the shooting, which was a ban on "the sale and manufacture of 157 types of semi-automatic weapons, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition",[9] which is clear and simple. This article is about the shooting incident, not the gun control debate, and the question of gun control is looked at in more detail in Federal Assault Weapons Ban.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hoax?

As this edit shows, some people are still saying that the shooting was a hoax and did not happen. In this case, the source is Veterans Today - The True Voice of the World's Clandestine Community. All of this has issues with WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE. As for why crime scene and autopsy photographs of the victims have not been published, the authorities in Connecticut have gone to great lengths to prevent this. The photographs would inevitably end up on the shock sites and being gawped at for all of the wrong reasons, and it would obviously be disrespectful and distressing for the victims' relatives. There are plenty of photographs of the Apollo astronauts on the Moon, but it has not prevented the tinfoil hatters from saying that they are fake. It is also wrong to say that there is no list of the names of the victims, as Connecticut State Police released a list immediately after the shooting in December 2012.[10]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

All that needs to be said is that the cited source is unreliable. Completely, totally, utterly unreliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Gun control subsection summarized to Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

I have further summarized the Gun control subsection of this article[11] and added a "main" template for the Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. (Actually, I added it twice, so I removed the duplicate.[12]) There was a little here that wasn't there, and I am in the middle of adding it there. There is a discussion on that article's talk page that has preserved what was here. Lightbreather (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Medication

He received treatment for his condition, but refused taking medication as an adolescent.

We are left to believe, that any pill is better than no pill. But what kind of medication had Lanza received in his childhood ? Were he in abstinence after a year-long medication - as millions of US-children ? It is hard to believe that a mother like Lanzas had not put him on psychotropic treatment before he was 10 in order to control him.

What the article says right now is a half truth and a half lie. It is certainly dangerous to stop a psychotropic treatment in a too sudden way. --86.221.80.44 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times, eg here in the archive. The final report did not confirm that Lanza was taking prescription medication at the time of the shooting, although he was recommended medication in 2006 but did not take it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Its an important issue. As the article is now, a mother to a difficult child will run to the pharmacy and force pills on her potential shooter. But what kind of medication did he refuse ? And what about his medical journal as a child ? It would be more honest to write: all information about Lanzas medical journal has been censured away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.80.44 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There is some more detail here and here. Lanza was prescribed Celexa (Citalopram) in 2006, but "However, Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza, objected to the program — particularly the use of medication to treat her son — and discontinued her son’s treatment after only four visits to the center." Various people in the blogs have tried to pin the blame for the shooting on prescription medication, but it appears that he was not taking any at the time of the shooting in December 2012. The toxicology report was released in October 2013, and confirmed that no drugs, prescription or illegal, were found in his system.[13]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Its interesting and highly significant that psychiatrists could talk hours with Lanza without concluding that his mother was behaving like a mad-woman. This could be mentioned in the article, but not by me since I do not write english. Here you have a mother who is washing her adult sons socks ten times a day, who arranges his food on his plate following his instructions, who admits a hundred crazy things in his behaviour - and have done it for years. And then… you prescribe an antidepressant to the son. --86.221.80.44 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hartford Courant reporters saying Adam Lanza edited Wikipedia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gmhOF2c9zw (Has this already been discussed?) It is said that he edited mass shooting articles. GangofOne (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this was discussed in Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_7 when it first appeared in July 2013. At the time, investigators were looking into a range of possibilities related to Adam Lanza's digital footprint. This was never confirmed, and it could not be, as Wikipedia did not have Checkuser records going this far back, and it was not mentioned in the final report. The consensus is not to add this to the article because it is too speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I read the stuff, seems reasonable to not add it because it's speculative. I note that March 17, 2014 _New Yorker_ article accepts it.GangofOne (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

FBI says ZERO "violent crime deaths" in Newtown 2012 (9-25-14)

The FBI released their report for Connecticut Crime in 2012.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/8tabledatadecpdf/table-8-state-cuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_connecticut_by_city_2012.xls#disablemobile

They list ZERO "violent crime deaths" for NEWTOWN in 2012!

I don't know what this means... O wait yes I do.  :-)

67.84.71.63 (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. This may have come from a thread on Godlike Productions.[14] The table does appear to show zero "Offenses Known to Law Enforcement" for "Murder and non negligent manslaughter" in Newtown in 2012. All good fun for the conspiracy theorists, but it does not alter the mass of reliable sourcing about the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Lots of issues with this page

1. Robbie Parker was seen laughing and then getting into character by hyperventilating before his televised interview, as if he was giving a performance that he had been told to.
2. Most unusually for mass shootings, only a few of the victims' names were published. Irregularities with photographs of one of the teachers and the children have been noticed, including one of the childrens' photos being found to be of a living child in another state.
3. The EMTs were prevented from entering the school and performing their triage duties. They were told that police were handling it.
4. Instead of the EMTs taking the victims to the hospital for life-saving measures and letting the doctors pronounce death, the police did it all themselves. No childrens' bodies were brought out. One living victim was seen chatting and being given car keys before being wheeled out.
5. The cameras outside the school did not catch Adam Lanza on video.
6. Five families central to the case were new to the area. They all bought houses on the same day, moved in around the same time, and subsequently moved out.
7. The chief medical examiner, despite having inspected the victims, did not seem to be familiar with their injuries or the weapons used when questioned on camera. He stated on camera that he hoped that the proceedings of the day didn't cause the town to "crash on its head" one day.
8. Several aid funds for the victims of the shootings were set up three days before the shootings occurred.
9. Aerial video shows a long line of people moving in a circular direction around the fire department, leaving one door, walking around the back, reentering, and then walking around back again. It gives the impression of many people being at the fire department, but doesn't seem to suit any logical purpose.
10. The police chief said that anyone from Newtown making statements that differed from the police account would be prosecuted.
11. There was no SSN for Adam Lanza, which is quite unusual. He did have a death record, but it was entered the day before he died.

Any serious writeup on the events of the Newtown shooting would address the multitide of facts incompatible with its thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.197.154 (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This has WP:REDFLAG issues. It looks like a rehash of various claims from the blogs and message boards designed to support the "it never happened" hypothesis. There is a separate article Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. Point 2 is wrong [15] and point 11 is addressed in Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/FAQ #8.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

This page only lists the media's version of events. Investigations into Sandy Hook by real journalists have revealed that nothing happened that day. This page should be deleted or at least allow all view points on the matter. 74.88.120.105 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If "real journalists" are blogs and forums, they would fail WP:SPS. It is remarkable that some people are still peddling the line that it never happened. There is a separate article Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Victim list

Why has the list of victims been removed? It would seem like that would be a very significant part of the article. I am sure many like me came here to check the name of one of the victims (in my case Victoria Leigh Soto, who luckly was linked at the top of the page, but hose looking for the names of the other victims would not be so fortunate.)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There have been several discussions about this in the talk page archive, eg here and here. One option is a drop down box for the names.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I tried to fix one up a while back and the coding was beyond me. Shearonink (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help!! Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's what we had started... Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/victimbox. I guess this can be deleted now. thanks for helping out. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Newton shows only 7 Violent Deaths in 2012, and 0 Violence related deaths. How could this be possible?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/8tabledatadecpdf/table-8-state-cuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_connecticut_by_city_2012.xls

Most of the references for this article are other new agencies. Not police or FBI reports. Not medical reports. There was an exercise done in the UK to prove the frailty of using only media sources as truth. In this scenario, they posted an article that was completely fake and started getting as many other media outlets to cross post on it until the original source was hidden and the "truth" of the article was from the fact of its existence on so many pages.

I am not of one opinion or another on the Sandy Hook school shooting (staged or real). But there is a glaring omission if the FBI doesn't list their deaths on the annual record. It wasn't some small incident that was accidentally overlooked that all their deaths somehow missed being logged.

Again, medical reports, death certificates, deaths being logged as actually being dead and counted in the annual survey. These always get logged. I think it should be mentioned and not because it's "conspiratorial" but because I believe it shows a frailty on having a Wiki article, backed as being undoubtedly true, when it has a gaping hole in the conclusion of the story.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.248.78 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is mentioned in a section above, and was noticed in September 2014. Occam's razor suggests that this one piece of evidence does not override all of the other evidence. It isn't really notable enough for a mention in the article in this form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it could certainly be that you have just discovered the ultimate proof that the Sandy Hook shooting was a giant conspiracy and that a federal agency was stupid enough to release it to the public. On the other hand, it could also be that the Sandy Hook victims were not included in the table, because the crime did not fall under the jurisdiction of Newtown police. As the FBI's data declaration says: "The data used in creating this table were from all city and town law enforcement agencies..." And if you bother to take a look at the Connecticut crime report, it specifically notes that the Newtown-table "Does NOT include 27 victims of Newtown mass shooting" which instead are listed on page 415 under "State Police Misc.", probably because state police was responsible for the investigation. Which explanation you want to believe is ultimately your own choice, but I really have to wonder what distinguishes Sandy Hook from the dozens of other mass shootings, mass murders, and rampage attacks in the USA in the last 100 years that it is so inconceivable that it could've been committed by a single deranged person. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC))

Autism

I do not understand that statement that "Because of concerns that published accounts of Lanza's autism could result in a backlash against others with the condition, autism advocates campaigned to clarify that autism is a brain-related developmental disorder and not a mental illness". Lanza suffered from autism, it surely makes no difference whether that is classified as a mental illness or a brain-related developmental disorder.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

After the shooting, people with autism were worried that they would be classified as mentally ill and/or prone to violence, both of which are wrong. Adam Lanza's overall mental condition is still the subject of debate, and the reason for his violent outburst may never be known.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Multiple outlets, including CNN, have reversed their statements that an AR-15 rifle was used in the attack. What was originally reported as an AR-15 in the trunk of Lanza's vehicle was later correctly reported as a shotgun.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports show zero murders/manslaughters for Newtown, Conn. in 2012.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/8tabledatadecpdf/table-8-state-cuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_connecticut_by_city_2012.xls

12.31.248.99 (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is already semi-protected. Incidentally, Lanza used a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a 10mm Glock 20SF handgun, and a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 handgun in the attack (multiple sources). A shotgun was found in the trunk of the car. The article makes no mention of an AR-15. Rklawton (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The blogs are still recycling the theory that a Bushmaster was not used in the school shooting, not much we can do about that. The shotgun was left in the car and not used at all during the school attack. In Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Newton_shows_only_7_Violent_Deaths_in_2012.2C_and_0_Violence_related_deaths._How_could_this_be_possible.3F, User:Lord Gøn gives an excellent answer to the question of why the deaths are not in the 2012 statistics.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Hum

Re this edit; there is a serious risk of WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG here. No mainstream media report has highlighted this as a possible cause of the shooting, nor did any of the official investigations. This source says that a local warned police about The Hum, but does not suggest that this was ever considered as a possible cause of the shooting. If someone had written to the police suggesting that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a possible factor in the shooting, it may have been noted somewhere in the police files, but it should not be given undue weight. This may be suitable for Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, because there is no evidence that the police ever took this seriously as a theory, or did anything beyond noting that they had been told about it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to identify the bad guy (the perpetrator)? Or would it be more helpful to keep the details secret?

As a 55-year-old contributor to Wikipedia who has been writing here for years, I think this subject needs refinement. And your flags, etc. are unhelpful. "This is not a forum...." is written on this page. What does that mean? That is like saying, "We are not sure how to talk about this."

You are not logged in. What does that mean? Is this the public library? Wikipedia has people like me, a relatively wealthy human, ON YOUR SIDE, who has contributed a lot to your cause.............

...And we get assaulted with these warnings?

It's getting old. I am thinking about logging off .. permanently. Then taking up arms with the people who are your competitors.

The pen is mightier than the sword, as everyone knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.141.229 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"This is not a forum" means that editors should stick to discussions about article improvement, and not to indulge in speculation or general conversation about the subject in the manner of an Internet forum.

"You are not logged in" means exactly that: you are not using an account, you are contributing via your IP address. Please log in if you wish to contribute using your account.

As for the heading, what exactly do you mean? Adam Lanza was the perpetrator, it's not a secret. I'm a 56-year-old long-time contributor: age has little to do with editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And for that matter, news media aside, its a matter of public record who the perpetrator was. Unlike similar and horrific incidents, there is not a separate article for Lanza as there is for example Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, or Seung-Hui Cho who was the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech shooting. And in my opinion, nor should there be one. I'm a long time editor and not as old as you two... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be utterly bizarre not to mention Adam Lanza by name. The consensus is not to have a separate article for him because it would be a WP:CONTENTFORK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

External references broken

I am a bit rusty from not editing much in years. But I find a some useless/broken citations in this article. Tom Haws (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Factbox: Identities of Connecticut shooting victims"
• "Connecticut shooting: Services for Katonah native Anne Marie Murphy set"

Checklinks reports that these links and several others are not working. This is not surprising, as there are over 200 citations in the article and news cites do go out of date and become dead links. Some work needed here, possibly with the Wayback Machine.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Victim List

I struggle to think why this article mentions "Lanza" 163 times (including the references section), but does not once list the victims. A section on this is required. There is an unhealthy fixation on the perpetrator here. Colt .55 (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The List of Casualties was in the article but in a collapsible form (look underneath subtitle of "Shooting"). I have adjusted the size of its title to be larger so hopefully that will make it easier to find. Shearonink (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Some users did not want a list of the victims. The collapsible table is a compromise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue of the Lanza house

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/sandy-hook-killer-home-demolition/index.html

As of last night, the city council has voted to raze the house. I'm not of sufficient privilege to edit the article, but if someone would like to modify the last paragraph to reflect this new information, that'd be great.

Thanks, Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.128.180.6 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The date is yet to be fixed, but this source says that the house is slated for demolition in spring 2015.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I was the one that added this, so thank you for the update. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

False Statement and Unrelated Reference

In the Final Report section, it states "The summary report included information about items found on Lanza's computer, including writings and personal beliefs.[124]"

However, the Final Report states "investigators found a computer hard drive that appeared to have been intentionally damaged. To date, because of the extensive damage, forensic experts have not yet been able to recover any information from that hard drive." (p. 25) The report goes on to list videos, images, and other files found on "digital media" belonging to the shooter, but does not mention any writings or personal beliefs of the shooter (p. 26).

Thus, the report clearly shows a preoccupation, but falls short of citing a motivation or manifesto. That is no small distinction. The sentence should be changed to something like "Several files were found on digital media belonging to Lanza pertaining to firearms and school shootings, but none revealed the shooter's beliefs or motivation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.79.24 (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Also, change the citation to refer to the report and not the unrelated news story. 71.168.79.24 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Investigators did find some material on a hard drive which they believed belonged to Adam Lanza.[16][17] but one was "purposefully damaged" and no data was recovered from it. This was in the files released in November 2013.[18] Investigators did not believe that any of the digital media found at the Lanza home offered a clear motive for the shooting, although they do shed some light on his interests and what he was thinking.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Lanza and the NRA certificate

Re this edit: It is correct that Nancy and Adam Lanza had NRA certificates, and this is mentioned in the article. However, the NRA denied that Adam and Nancy Lanza were members.[19] The certificates were for "when a person takes a course in gun safety or training by an NRA-certified instructor."[20]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

School nurse Sarah/Sally Cox

The distinction between Sarah and Sally Cox is one of the umpteen things that has been questioned by the conspiracy theorists.[21] Some pretty amazing stuff in that thread. I'm not sure if it is worth clarifying it in this article, but it is mentioned on Snopes.[22]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

DNA testing

Re this edit: the decision to carry out DNA testing was highly unusual and questioned as futile by some experts.[23][24]. There needs to be context here, and the media seemed to think that it was notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Seemed", past tense, or continues to seem, present tense? I think it is trivia, but have let it stand for now. If there is evidence that this is an enduring part of the story, perhaps we can actually write something interesting about it, referenced to current sources. "Additionally" is one of the words I look for in removing crap from articles and it seldom fails to flag up some random and inconsequential factoid. Has it so failed here? --John (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it is trivia, in view of the coverage that it received in reliable sources. It is one of the many blind alleys in the search for a motive in a case which perplexed investigators. Attempts to find a link between DNA and Lanza's behaviour were doomed to failure in the view of many experts, but the tests were nonetheless carried out. One expert, in the Telegraph article, memorably described the tests as "a complete bloody waste of time". Researchers at the University of Connecticut thought otherwise, and this is what set off the media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting story. Over two years later, are they still working on it, or did it indeed prove to be a complete waste of time? "Trivia" was maybe putting it too strongly, but I feel like this is at best a footnote in the story. --John (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This received a good deal of media coverage at the time [25][26] which is why it was added to the article. According to the CNN news story, "The geneticists were asked to join the investigation by the state medical examiner's office, spokeswoman Carolyn Pennington told CNN. She said there is no specific genetic marker the team is looking for, and that lab results and a complete analysis of the DNA "are not expected for several weeks ... probably the end of January [2013]." But were the results ever published? Not in the released documents, as far as I can see. Maybe it was too speculative, as most experts said right from the start.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian pretty much summed up my thoughts, John. I have looked for sources that published any result of the DNA test since it was mentioned, but have not found anything. If I had to speculate, I would say that the shock of the incident combined with no apparent motive had officials scrambling for answers and they at least needed to appear like they were doing everything they could. Its a factlet for now that may not ever have a resolution. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Online activities

Regarding this edit, which was reverted. It was reported that investigators thought that Adam Lanza had previously edited Wikipedia on certain topics. Previous discussions: Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_7#Adam_Lanza_edited_Wikipedia and following section ("Ok, now it is a content issue"); Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_107#Allegation_that_Adam_Lanza_edited_Wikipedia; and Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_8#Hartford_Courant_reporters_saying_Adam_Lanza_edited_Wikipedia. People made comments like "we probably should wait for confirmation from authorities", despite that other users mentioned that the Checkuser function, which allows certain users to view IP addresses for editors, only goes back a limited time, currently three months. Even for the NSA, one classified slide that Edward Snowden released said that "if we have the metadata, we can usually recover the content", which suggests that the NSA is not able to store most of the vast amount of information transmitted on the Internet every minute. This includes IP addresses for Wikipedia users from five years ago. So "wait for investigators to make a firm conclusion" is not a realistic standard for when, or whether to include this report in the article.

People in the second discussion, without quoting anyone directly, seem to be more of the opinion that the reason not to mention this is that they feel it would reflect negatively on Wikipedia. It's also possible that they suspect anyone who might feel strongly that it should be included, only feels that way because they wish for Wikipedia to be negatively portrayed. This is the way that Wikipedia currently works (due to lack of a process to prevent bias, leading to potential editors, such as many females, who dislike bias to avoid the project), but I just wanted there to be a record of this so it doesn't seem like everyone was trying to hide this. 2601:8:9780:1EE:7007:5751:9E25:C00D (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason to not include the info about Wikipedia - even if it was verified - is that it's navel-gazing. It appears in the official reports, but it wasn't commented on further as a major aspect of Lanza's motives. It wasn't the only online activity that he engaged in, just one of many. So including it would be just be for purposes of name dropping WP. And we are not able to use checkuser data to confirm and/or include mainspace information, that's a bright line we won't cross. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that most CheckUser records go back only a few months to avoid privacy implications associated with storing the data. This means that in 2012/13, it was never going to be possible to say that Adam Lanza (or an IP address likely to be associated with him) edited Wikipedia. The twelve edits concerned were made between August 2009 and February 2010. Some media reports failed to nuance this, and gave the impression that Lanza had edited Wikipedia. He may have done, but there was never enough evidence to prove it one way or the other. Bearing all of this in mind, there are WP:V issues in mentioning this. The consensus of past discussions is not to mention it because it overemphasizes speculative material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If Edward Snowden, instead of finding a journalist who would talk to him, had instead created a personal web page and used a Wikipedia user account to link to this site from the article for the NSA, and (instead of ignoring this) people actually paid attention to top-secret classified documents posted on this site, would the Wikimedia foundation have refused to cooperate with the inevitable investigation by not using checkuser on his account? As at least one, maybe two email services closed or modified their services as a result being legally required to comply with the investigation, Wikimedia foundation would undoubtedly have been forced to use checkuser in that situation.

The typical person might not know the checkuser functionality exists at all (despite that IP addresses are commonly recorded in other cases like for web forums, or that case of a politician's email account being hacked by someone using an anonymous web proxy). But even someone who knows it exists might not be aware of its limitations—the page about it on en.wikipedia.org doesn't mention this, only the Wikimedia page about it does. In the July 2013 discussion at village pump, someone said that the press was saying Wikimedia wouldn't cooperate due to privacy concerns, which indicates they were not aware of the 3-month limitation on checkuser. I wasn't aware of it either, though as some strenuously argued, even if checkuser data did go back that far, it would still have been "speculation" that it was, in fact, Adam Lanza who did the editing, and not his mum. To an outside party who assumes that Wikimedia does have IP information about old edits, it would certainly appear that not mentioning Adam Lanza's editing activity in the article is a "cover up" to remove the association of Wikipedia with criminal activity.

As specific evidence for what the current article describes as a 'fascination with mass shootings', his editing activity on Wikipedia on topics related to mass shootings does seem relevant. Mentioning it is appropriate. As an example of an addition to the article which might not be justified, he made a chart with mass shooters and the weapons they used, which isn't mentioned in the current article, but did see at least some discussion on the talk page. It's interesting that he brought the same weapons as James Holmes did in the Aurora shooting the same year: a rifle, a shotgun, and two handguns. Normally, this would be considered a coincidence.

Regarding verifiability, it's verifiable that authorities thought that they had found a Wikipedia account that he used, and told the newspaper or whatever. Whether they were correct cannot be completely verified, just like many other events that happened in the past are not verified, but are talked about on Wikipedia. In cases where there is a high degree of uncertainty about the true course of events (such as on this very article, which says that there is confusion about the order in which events at the school occurred), this is noted. 2601:8:9780:1EE:7007:5751:9E25:C00D (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It was also claimed that Adam Lanza had an online account called Smiggles [27] and again the media failed to make clear that the evidence that Lanza was Smiggles was circumstantial. Lanza is claimed to have been active in online forums around 2009-10, but by the time of the shooting investigation the trail had gone cold and investigators were relying on similarity in writing styles and themes rather than IP address evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• According to the article Telecommunications data retention, "The National Security Agency (NSA) commonly records Internet metadata for the whole planet for up to a year in its MARINA database, where it is used for pattern-of-life analysis. U.S. persons are not exempt because metadata are not considered data under US law (section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act)." The time scale involved in the alleged Lanza contributions to Wikipedia and other forums would rule out even the use of NSA records to prove which IP did what and when.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I suggested the same thing. The evidence that the mentioned account is his seems pretty convincing: [28]. If Wikipedia accepted blogs as a "reliable source", this would likely be sufficient to cite his interest in that forum, in relation to mass shootings and so on. As in many cases Wikipedia editors reject the use of blogs as sources though, by that standard only his Wikipedia account can be mentioned. However, it seems it might not be important based on this article, which says he stopped going to play Dance Dance Revolution in June 2012. 2601:8:9780:1EE:D0C2:D9F:FA4E:1A88 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The blogs are only repeating what the mainstream media said at the time. The claim that Adam Lanza edited Wikipedia first appeared in the Hartford Courant in June 2013 [29] and was picked up by many other news sources. The Courant article refers to "The poster believed to be Lanza" and "The poster suspected to be Lanza" which is correct, as there was never enough evidence to say that the poster was Lanza, only that circumstantial evidence suggested that it may have been him. The same problem occurs with the radio phone in claimed to be Lanza, which is mentioned in the article. Although the evidence points towards it being him, it stops short of being conclusive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The edit in question incorporates this degree of uncertainty. "and is believed to have edited Wikipedia articles related to mass shootings and other high-casualty events." However, the linked blog is not about his Wikipedia editing; rather, it appears to be the source of the claim that he had a user account on a particular forum, which was later repeated by media. This is a different story than the Hartford Courant one. Some news articles talk about a particular username mentioned in released documents; others maybe mention his user account, or the call-in video/audio, but the evidence that he was the person calling in is weak unless you examine the evidence presented on the blog. Lots of people have similar-sounding voices, and even similar views about society. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Adam Lanza "could feel no physical pain"

Re this edit: various sources have said that Adam Lanza could feel no physical pain, but they are all quoting the opinion of Richard Novia, the advisor for Newtown High School's technology club, who said "If that boy would've burned himself, he would not have known it or felt it physically." This is one person's opinion, and this leads to a problem with WP:DUE as it does not appear to be a formal medical diagnosis. The report issued by the Office of the Child Advocate in Connecticut in November 2014 [30] goes into detail about what medical professionals knew about Adam Lanza, and says in a nurse's note on page 62 that "he cannot process pain." This is the clearest sourcing on the matter, and it stops short of saying that he could not feel pain.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Bullet Proof Stuffed Animal

The current article reads, "Lanza fired at another child in the class several times, but he was protected by the stuffed animal he was holding." Not only is this ridiculous as both a 5.56x45mm from an AR-15 style weapon or a 10mm from the Glock 20 used would pass clean through a stuffed animal like it wasn't there, it's not even what the source listed says. The source given, [31] reads, "There's the boy who saw his teacher and two classmates shot. He said Lanza shot at him multiple times, but missed, instead hitting the stuffed animal in his hands."

I would make an appropriate edit myself, but I either cannot find the button or do not yet have permissions to.

JustCallMeJats (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed this from the article, because it is wrong as you say, and because it is not a major or notable detail of the shooting. There was a recent incident where a man's life was saved by an iPhone, but this is more substantial than a stuffed toy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. In response to the iPhone incident, not only is an iPhone much sturdier, it was birdshot out of a sawn-off barrel, neither of which are good for penetration. The article as it was was just silly.

JustCallMeJats (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the wording was flawed. The implication to me is that the perpetrator mistakenly shot the stuffed animal/toy instead of the person, not that the toy stopped the bullets in a somehow magical way. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Adam Lanza with teddy bear leaked 2015

Cute. A photo of Adam Lanza and his teddy got leaked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Lanza loves his teddy bear (talk • contribs) 04:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a white teddy bear in the Lanza's home, and there is a photo of it on top of the gun cabinet here. This was part of the documents released in November 2013, but I can't find any reference to photo of Lanza with the teddy bear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook"

There may have been some WP:COI here, as the film poster was uploaded by User:Peterdklein on Commons, and Peter Klein is listed as the film's writer on IMDb.[32] User:Dougmaguire, who added it to the article, is given thanks in the film.[33] Without discussing the film in detail in the article, it would have problems with relevance and could be seen as a plug for the film. It would be better to find a secondary reliable source which discusses the film. The film can be watched on YouTube here. It puts forward alternative theories about the shooting.[34] As far as I can see, it has not picked up much mainstream media coverage. It might be worth a mention in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Floorplan & timeline

I put together a drawing of the building floorplan while reading through the article and the (already linked) state's attorney report. The report provides the floorplan and identifies the teachers in Classrooms 8 (Rousseau) and 10 (Soto) [based on the description in the sequence in events, Classroom 12 is Roig's classroom]. Based on the accounts, it seems like the paragraph that starts with the sentence "School nurse Sarah (Sally) Cox, 60, hid under a desk in her office." could be moved to follow "After killing Hochsprung and Sherlach, ..." – i.e., it appears Lanza entered the main office (which adjoins the nurse's office) before proceeding east down the northern hallway to the classrooms, so I have rearranged the article accordingly. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the exact sequence of the shooting has been hard to pin down, and is unclear from the sourcing. Using wording like "it appears that" contains an element of guesswork. What the diagram does make clear is that all of the deaths occurred in classrooms near the main entrance, where Lanza shot his way through a window.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad I'm not completely off-base. The state's attorney report gives a partial sequence, which is what I used in drawing the diagram. What I meant to say was that based on my reading of the article as it was, the paragraph describing the school nurse was misplaced. The state's attorney report clearly states that Lanza entered the main office prior to proceeding eastward, but does not establish whether he entered Classroom 8 or 10 first:

On the morning of December 14, 2012, the shooter, age 20, heavily armed, went to Sandy Hook Elementary School (SHES) in Newtown, where he shot his way into the locked school building with a Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S rifle. He then shot and killed the principal and school psychologist as they were in the north hallway of the school responding to the noise of the shooter coming into the school. The shooter also shot and injured two other staff members who were also in the hallway.

The shooter then went into the main office, apparently did not see the staff who were hiding there, and returned to the hallway.

After leaving the main office, the shooter then went down the same hallway in which he had just killed two people and entered first grade classrooms 8 and 10, the order in which is unknown. While in those rooms he killed the two adults in each room, fifteen children in classroom 8 and five in classroom 10. All of the killings were done with the Bushmaster rifle.

— Office of the State's Attorney, Sandy Hook Final Report

I think that if there's some question on what the sequence was, it's the order in which Lanza entered the classrooms. He bypassed 12 [Roig] and was found in 10 [Soto]. Logically, from where he was found, it sounds like he went to 8 [Rousseau] and then 10, but there is no conclusive evidence to say so.

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, he killed Hochsprung and Sherlach first, and it is the sequence of the classroom shootings which is unclear. This is why the diagram is less than ideal. The diagram gives the impression that he went into 8 (Rousseau) and then 10 (Soto) but this is not known for sure due to the panic and confusion of the shooting. Adam Lanza was found dead in classroom 10 (page 26, final report) so it is tempting to conclude that the sequence was 8, 10, but the final report declined to say this. It is possible that he was in the hallway when the first responders arrived and he ducked into classroom 10. This is how the sequence of events is reported in this CBS news source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Thanks for letting me bounce the ideas off you, I've uploaded a revised version of the diagram which omits the speculative path that shows lobby -> office -> 8 -> 10. I'll leave it at that, as I drew the diagram to help my visualization of the events. If I should add any more labels, please let me know, as the sequence of events described in the article describes other locations (gymnasium, library, etc.).

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Is a start date necessary in the infobox?

There is an enthusiasm that some editors seem to have for pointing out when 2012 was, as in this edit. Do other editors want this? See also this thread at the Village Pump.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Chenpeng stabbing

I believe this article should have a link to the Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing, an attack that happened 14 hours earlier and has been compared to the Sandy Hook shooting. The Chenpeng article links to Sandy Hook. Considering it is so close before it and the target is identical, I would personally assume the Sandy Hook attack was directly inspired by the Chenpeng attack, but that would be original research, as this has amazingly not been raised by mainstream media. However, a reference to a primary school stabbing less than 24 hours before belongs in the article. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The link is not convincing, despite the two events occurring around the same time. I don't support having a "see also" link for this reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015

In the section toward the end headed "2014" there are two incorrect usages of the possessive form of attorney where the plural form is intended. "In January 2015, attorney's for the Bushmaster company…" "Then in February, attorney's representing the victim's families…"

These instances need to be changed to "attorneys." Thank you. Ricknickster (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, this was an example of a greengrocer's apostrophe.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015

As with several other high profile events that have happened in the USA, The Sandy Hook event has man detractor from all walks of life, and many proofs or evidences that need to be made available. Wiki, while providing the 'official' report and link to the same, should have links to those that disagree and have credible evidence, such as pages set up as memorials, and donations prior to the event in question. It should not be the place of Wikipedia to declare one version of events or to be a propaganda machine by allowing only the 'official' version for examination.

I suggest that there be a section dedicated to dissent from the official version that included the work of Wolfgang Halbig, and citations and references to the pages that were in place up to one month prior to the event, as memorials. All of this IS information and the public should be able to decide and cannot do so without a full viewing of all the evidence extant. Buzzbbird (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a separate article Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. This is in line with WP:FRINGE. Halbig's website is sandyhookjustice.com.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2015

On December 15, 2014, nine of the families affected by the shooting filed a lawsuit against the manufacturers of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used in the school attack. Also named in the suit is Camfour, a distributor of firearms, and the now-closed East Windsor store, Riverview Sales, where the gunman’s rifle was purchased. In January 2015, attorneys for the Bushmaster company petitioned to have the lawsuit moved to Federal court because, although the shooing took place in Connecticut, they are located in North Carolina. Then in February, attorneys representing the victim's families made a motion to move the lawsuit against the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle back state court.

The word to needs to be added to Then in February, attorneys representing the victim's families made a motion to move the lawsuit against the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle back to state court.

So it should read:

On December 15, 2014, nine of the families affected by the shooting filed a lawsuit against the manufacturers of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used in the school attack. Also named in the suit is Camfour, a distributor of firearms, and the now-closed East Windsor store, Riverview Sales, where the gunman’s rifle was purchased. In January 2015, attorneys for the Bushmaster company petitioned to have the lawsuit moved to Federal court because, although the shooing took place in Connecticut, they are located in North Carolina. Then in February, attorneys representing the victim's families made a motion to move the lawsuit against the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle back to state court.

23.28.140.240 (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015

In the final paragraph for 2014 there is a typo. The article shows shooing but should be shooting. In January 2015, attorneys for the Bushmaster company petitioned to have the lawsuit moved to Federal court because, although the shooing took place in Connecticut, they are located in North Carolina 75.101.100.48 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Requesting change to police response section.

The police response section states that last shot was heard nine minutes after the shooting began(states that the police entered the school 14 minutes after the shooting began and 5 minutes after the last shot was heard). However the box to the right says that the last shot was heard 5 minutes after the shooting began. This sounds rather suspicious. Most mass shootings last only 3-5 minutes, but the deadliest ones are the ones that last long. The Mcdonalds Massacre lasted 77 minutes. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/san-ysidro-massacre/

The Lubys shooting, 15 minutes. http://www.chron.com/life/article/Shooting-rampage-at-Killeen-Luby-s-left-24-dead-2037092.php

The Virginia Tech Shooting lasted 9 minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Virginia_Tech_shooting#Event

Somehow the media has been falsely reporting that the shooting lasted only 5 minutes, but this doesn't really fit with the high body count. I found a link to a police report that confirms that the Newtown shooting lasted over ten minutes. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/26/nyregion/26newtownside-timeline.html?_r=0

I really think we should change the police response section since saying that the shooting lasted only 5 minutes not only is false, but might lead people into believing that the high kill count might me attributed to the weapon that was used(assault weapon). I've looked at lists of mass shootings and found that not only are handguns the weapon of choice, but are also just as lethal as rifles. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/01/31/dhs-semiautomatic-hanguns-most-commonly-used-weapon-in-mass-shootings-n1502393 http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/18/1/125 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the wording in the article, and it is based on the timeline given in the final report. The police audio also confirms what is in the timeline. The alternative theorists have claimed various things, but there needs to be reliable sourcing to avoid problems with WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The report that you included in the Police Response section came out the same time the other police report included in the New York Times came out. I don't see how it's any less credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The NYT timeline says that the final shot, believed to be Adam Lanza killing himself, was heard at 9:40:03 AM, which is in line with other sources as it is part of the official report. The timeline also says that an unidentified parent heard gunshots at around 9:34 AM. The first 911 calls were made around 9:36. This suggests that the shooting was around 5-6 minutes in duration. Even after allowing for a margin of error, the NYT timeline does not support the theory that the shooting was over ten minutes long.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Still need to talk about changing the timeline section

I want to the Connecticut State Police website where the final report was located, and for some reason it consists of hundreds of documents, yet nothing on the website says where the timeline is. Somehow I downloaded all the stuff on the website and I still can't find the timeline in the documents, because it doesn't tell where to go for what your looking for(the documents are so big they are basically a book so I would have been nice if they could include a glossary): http://cspsandyhookreport.ct.gov/

While the media constantly says that the shooting lasted 5 minutes, Wikipedia isn't supposed to relay on information like that. Wikipedia policy requires all of it's information to come from a trust worthy source. If you can find the timeline in the above mentioned site, it might make it worth mentioning, but this following report I've mentioned earlier came out the same time the final report came out and contradicts the timeline the media has been using. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/26/nyregion/26newtownside-timeline.html?_r=1&

I my opinion if you can't find the timeline on the above mentioned reports I really thing we should use the timeline from the police report in the New York Times to create a timeline page for the Sandy Hook Shooting. The Virginia Tech shooting has it's own page with far more detail and yet because only adults(instead of kids) were killed in Virginia Tech the press on that incident wasn't as massive as Sandy Hook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Virginia_Tech_shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

See the section above. There isn't any convincing evidence in the New York Times timeline of the event that supports the theory that the shooting lasted more than five or six minutes. What do other editors think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. I missed the part about the suicide shot in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Amazon.com bans investigative book 'Nobody Died at Sandy Hook' because it disagrees with government version of what happened

This should be added in Controversy section. The book Nobody Died at Sandy Hook consists of analysis from different contributor authors, and it is edited by Ph.D. Jim Fetzer.

See the following links for more details:

- FBI Publishes Report Stating Nobody Died At Sandy Hook: http://www.truthandaction.org/fbi-publishes-report-stating-nobody-died-sandy-hook/ - Amazon.com bans investigative book: www.naturalnews.com/052081_Amazon_censorship_online_book_burning_Nobody_Died_at_Sandy_Hook.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenorb (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As my drill sergeant used to say, "not only no, but FUCK no," although he probably doesn't edit Wikipedia and that style of communication would not be appreciated here. Let us suffice it to say that this article doesn't have a controversy section and that posting material published by mentally ill people in this article just wouldn't be appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not done:1)Any mentions of Fetzer and his various writings would be more appropriate at James H. Fetzer as well as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. 2)There is no evidence in reliable sources that Amazon has banned anything that Fetzer has written (there are over 20 books & links to multiple blog posts listed at Fetzer's author page at Amazon). 3) Regarding the alleged FBI complicity in the asserted cover-up, Snopes covers the issue very well at "FBI Admits Sandy Hook Hoax?". Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Besides, the FBI statistics are already covered in the conspiracy theory article. If a mention is warranted anywhere, it is in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, not anywhere in the primary article. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This would lead to all of the usual problems of WP:WEIGHT and WP:REDFLAG. It would be worth mentioning in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories if it received significant coverage, but it hasn't so far. According to Fetzer, "The whole Sandy Hook operation was a sloppily staged fraud perpetrated by FEMA in collusion with local and state authorities."[35] This type of theory could be seen as libel and it is also offensive to imply that the parents who went to funerals were lying. Amazon.com has not given a reason for declining to sell this book, and it will be seen by tinfoil hatters as censorship of The Truth™.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• The book is not currently on Amazon and there is a cached version of the page here. It was added to Amazon on October 22, 2015 and apparently removed on November 19. Whether this counts as a ban is hard to say, but it is no longer on Amazon.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. There is no room for doubt here. Not every wild conspiracy theory or baseless opinion belongs in an encyclopedia article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Choosing Hope

I added a reference to Caitlin Roig's book, "Choosing Hope", but it was deleted. Why? 58.110.113.94 (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Geoffrey Hilliard

The book Choosing Hope: Moving Forward from Life's Darkest Hours is on Amazon here. There are various books about the Sandy Hook shooting and this probably isn't notable enough for a mention in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Assuming there's no conflict of interest here, perhaps you'll consider adding it to the Further reading section of Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? -- Chamith (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

List of victims and wounded

Improving the list

Why collapsing the list, Shearonink, if you have a list of victims and wounded? MOS:COLLAPSE normally discourages collapsing a list, although it allows collapsing if the list is summarized in prose. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Shearonink says the edit was accidental, so I accept her apologies. In the meantime, I hope others can comment on this. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Dude, as you say above) I was trying to fix my rollback, I hit the wrong button, it was a mistake on my part. I know the size and placement of the list has been discussed before on the talk page, usually under something like "Victims List" or "List of killed and wounded". There have been various permutations of the list of victims - it's been collapsible, then it wasn't, it was removed, then it was restored... I think the list's present appearance as of this edit is visually confusing as there is no box separating the list from the surrounding text, making the sentences look like they run into the names. Shearonink (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I added a solid border and a hide/show button, Shearonink. Should the border be simply black or grey? --George Ho (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed previously. Some people didn't want a list of the victims at all, and it does take up a lot of space.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Shall we ask others to either keep or remove the list then? George Ho (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The victim list at Virginia Tech shooting has smaller text. It could be redone in this way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The previous version wasn't perfect, but I think it is important to keep a list of the victims in the article (however it is crafted).  In the present version, it would help set off the List if the font was smaller as was done in the Virginia Tech article, otherwise the article text and the List names visually merge.  Shearonink (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I don't like the idea of shrinking the font size. That makes reading harder to see. However, per MOS:FONTSIZE, the size should not be less than 85%. --George Ho (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I just auto-collapsed the List of victims. If the editorial community dislikes the change, I have no problem with anyone reverting my change. I thought it was important to see the change on the article's page, within the article's entirety. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

How about turning a table into a subsection (or a section)? George Ho (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's possible. Some users felt that any sort of list of victims was unnecessary, although there is a list at Dunblane school massacre which also has small fonts. The problem with tables is that they can take up a lot of space next to text.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: List of victims

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to keep the list. AlbinoFerret 03:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The list of victims of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School is present in the article at the moment. Shall we keep the list or remove it as the whole? George Ho (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In some ways the list has WP:BLPNAME (for the relatives of the victims) and WP:NOTMEMORIAL issues, although there are similar lists of victims at other articles about mass shootings. Not naming all of the children who died does not lead to a significant loss of context for the Sandy Hook shooting. The other problem is the space taken up by a table or list of the victims.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keeping it seems fine to me. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The font size at Dunblane school massacre is not difficult to read. I support having the table like this as the current font is making the list too large in a vertical list next to article text.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I shrunk the text to 85%. I still don't like making subheadings smaller than they should be. George Ho (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep it would be my choice.  Richard27182 (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep it would be my choice as well. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• No benefit. To me, this list's purpose does not merit the space taken up even by the infobox as above. --MichaelProcton (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Remove it It looks strange and expositional CombatWombat42 (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep — It's just plain easier to overview the damage done by looking through this list than the very lengthy and complicated paragraphs it accompanies.--Carwil (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bold Split

Hi I've split the perpetrator from the article so that it can be expanded. He has received continual significant coverage over time. 76.124.114.73 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you planning to clean up the many broken citations you've created at Adam Lanza? I certainly hope so. You haven't actually completed the split until you've cleaned up after yourself. General Ization ^Talk 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the split violates WP:BLP1E - this is the only thing Lanza's noted for. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done, No it does not because he has had continual significant coverage. He also influenced gun policy and has been compared many times when compared to recent tragic events. 76.124.114.73 (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi I Disagree with the "Bold Split". Besides the fact that content was lifted from Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting without attribution, in my opinion WP:BIO1E applies. Lanza is only known for the massacre and nothing else, the facts of his life as they stand are only of interest for this event. If the editor above thinks that Lanza should have his own stand-alone article then they should open an Request for Comment on this page and seek consensus for the change. Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Hi I'd be happy to see an AfD if you desire, bold split is appropriate here because no discussion regarding the merit of this unfortunate heinous man has taken place. When it comes to these perpetrators continual significant coverage is what we look for. I think in the years since he has been covered as such so an article is warranted. 76.124.114.73 (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There has been discussion about this issue before...

Archive 7, Archive 2,Archive 4, and Archive 6.

An administrator should probably clean up the redirects/broken citations/etc and in my opinion you should then seek consensus on your proposed article split (using WP:RFC? - I think). Shearonink (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What you have cited is outdated and I agree with those at the time, however there are thousands of sources since and those need to be taken into consideration. This is the first split with continual coverage taken into affect an AfD would be better because this article could be massively expanded (btw I fixed those issues). 76.124.114.73 (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You should still seek editorial consensus from the community. 3 different editors have posted on this talk page that they have reservations of some sort re: the Bold Split or an Adam Lanza article. Also, the attribution issue has not been addressed, please take a look at Procedure for splitting an article and How to properly split an article. Shearonink (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This should have been discussed on the talk page to get a consensus first. Past consensus was not to do this and the result is a mess.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is showing no consensus to split Adam Lanza into a separate article, which is in line with past discussions. Please don't try to force this on the article. This is a high profile or sensitive article as defined at WP:PROSPLIT, so major decisions need a consensus first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there some kind of strange double-standard on Wikipedia with spree killers? Why is there a separate article about a non-notable person like Seung-Hui Cho from the Virginia Tech shooting, but there's no separate article about Adam Lanza? Moebiusstrip (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Show or hide the victims list?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus against collapsing the list. AlbinoFerret 18:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

---

MOS:COLLAPSE normally discourages collapsing any sort of content, like the victims list. Now that consensus decided to keep the list, shall we show the list with or without a "hide" button, or shall we hide it (mainly for size)? --George Ho (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• No change. I don't think the size is a significant problem, especially given that the element is floating rather than in-line. The MoS suggests we shouldn't collapse article content, so we should follow the MoS. --Topperfalkon (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• No change - Because the list is aligned properly to the right of the article, I see no reason to hide it. If we can avoid collapsing the list, which we have, we shouldn't change it. The page's layout is currently easy to navigate. Meatsgains (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• No change as per reasons already stated. Darknipples (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131218072027/http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/justice/sandy-hook-shooting-report/ to http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/justice/sandy-hook-shooting-report/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121215102959/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=167291334 to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=167291334
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130131034047/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJ4Isu1EHajyiWXnsRl5W2OlBrbg?docId=CNG.523dbeea9e619eecf426809221d998af.131 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJ4Isu1EHajyiWXnsRl5W2OlBrbg?docId=CNG.523dbeea9e619eecf426809221d998af.131
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121218041641/http://online.wsj.com:80/article/AP9bddda1ae22149f5aaa30fe0fc173f1f.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/AP9bddda1ae22149f5aaa30fe0fc173f1f.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Remove autism line

"Because of concerns that published accounts of Lanza's autism could result in a backlash against others with the condition, autism advocates campaigned to clarify that autism is a brain-related developmental disorder and not a mental illness". Why is this sentence in a wikipedia article when it wasn't talked about much in the aftermath of the shooting and also has no place in a factual article about a school shooting.

Unless autism "powers" somehow allowed Lanza to kill as many people at the school as he did...--Prestopotatoe (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and is Q5 in the FAQ, which says "Various people told investigators and the media that Adam Lanza had received a diagnosis of AS. Medical experts have said that even if he did receive this diagnosis, it would not provide an explanation for the shooting. The article attempts to put this into context." The article does not say that autism or Asperger syndrome was the cause of the shooting, and investigators were unable to pin down an exact motive. However, Lanza had received a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome in 2005 [36], page 41, which is an autism spectrum disorder.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't remove it. Wikipedia is not a mental health website, and autism and Asperger's are classed as mental disorders under the DSM-5 and ICD-10. Whether or not I agree with that is a completely different and irrelevant matter, but we go by what they say on here. Also, Adam Lanza doesn't have his own WP article, as he is notable only for the massacre, and not for any other reason. Mentioning his "brain-related developmental disorder", if you like, is required in the section about him for this reason. And that comment is coming from someone with AS, who feels as if we should be calling autism/AS a "mental disorder", or else our problems don't get taken seriously if people think that it is just a "difference". Just my opinion, I don't let that get in the way of my editing of autism/AS-related articles. Ches (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The article has been careful not to say that AS was the cause of the shooting, but it would be wrong to hide from readers the fact that Adam Lanza had been diagnosed with AS. Media sources have also made this point clearly.[37]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

ianmacm, yes, I agree. It needs to stay in the article. Ches (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's still irellevant whether or not he had AS. There's not a corellation between AS and random unprovoked violence. AS doesn't even significantly feature in any large news source story on the massacre. Wikipedia is trying to hard to be PC.--Prestopotatoe (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, all the article does is to report what reliable sources have said. The article is keen to stress that AS is not normally linked to violence and was not regarded as the cause of the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Found a photo of Adam Lanzas actual death certificate

https://sandyhooklighthouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/shl-lanzadeathcert.jpg. Should clear up the confuesion around the genealogies.com death cert..--Prestopotatoe (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your research but for WIkipedia purposes neither that blog nor (for that matter) Geneaolgies.com are considered a reliable source since they are both user-submitted/edited websites (like Wikipedia) with no editorial oversight (for instance, Genealogies.com is a website - like Wikipedia - that anyone can edit) etc. WP has editorial consensus but not really oversight....as soon as I hit "Submit" the content is published, no-one has to approve my contributions. Shearonink (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It is WP:PRIMARY. It may well be his death certificate, but no-one except the usual conspiracy theorists is arguing with the statement that Adam Lanza died on December 14, 2012.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not a primary source. That's an image on a blog. A primary source would be a copy of the death cert from the issuer itself. There's no guarantee that is the death certificate. I don't know why the death cert is necessary here, I don't think it is, but that image is in no way a reliable source in any capacity. - Aoidh (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want a copy of Adam Lanza's death certificate, it can be obtained here but would cost $20. The image on the blog looks OK as all of the details check out. Assuming that it is genuine, all it tells us is that he died from a gunshot wound on December 14, 2012, which is uncontroversial and already available in secondary sources. As a general rule, Wikipedia articles don't need to show a death certificate to prove that a person is dead. Here is a clearer image which I found in a web search. It seems genuine enough, but doesn't add much to what is already known.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately though, it is an image on a blog with no editorial oversight or credibility; the image is as reliable as the blog itself. There's no guarantee the cert wasn't tampered with, modified, or altered in any way. The imgur link is equally worthless as a reliable source, as there is zero guarantee that the user submitted image is genuine in any way. I'm not commenting on why the cert is being discussed here, but Wikipedia articles absolutely cannot use image files from random blogs as if it is a reliable source. - Aoidh (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I only really thought this cert would be useful to link to under the heading that mentions that genology.com link to Adam Lanza's death certificate. The website is pay-protected, so I was thinking it might be good not to just say it's approximate but link to a correct death cert.. Do the rules about reliable sources apply to non-mainspace wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestopotatoe (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

At one stage, the truthers were excited over the Social Security Death Index listing his death date as December 13, the day before the shooting.[38] It may say this on the index, and if it does then it is probably a clerical error.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2016

Last paragraph of Shooting section sentence 3 is redundant and unnecessary. It sounds poor in the series of sentences. Kramar69 (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the shooting section says:

"Authorities determined that Lanza reloaded frequently during the shootings, sometimes firing only fifteen rounds from a thirty-round magazine.[74] He shot all but two of his victims multiple times.[75] One victim, six-year-old Noah Pozner, was shot multiple times.[76] Most of the shooting took place in two first-grade classrooms near the entrance of the school.[77] The students among the victims totaled eight boys and twelve girls, all between six and seven years of age,[78] and the six adults were all women who worked at the school. Bullets were also found in at least three cars parked outside the school, leading police to believe that he was firing at a teacher who was standing near a window.[44][74] When police interviewed survivors, a teacher recalled hearing Lanza curse, saying such things as, "Look at me!" and "Come over here!" and "Look at them!"[54]"

Could you be more specific about the change being requested? Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"It sounds poor in the series of sentences", well, that's subjective, and we strive to be objective here. Care to explain why you regard it as "poor"? -- ChamithN (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said line 3, I meant sentence 3. If you read the paragraph it says "He shot all but two of his victims multiple times.[75]" immediatley followed by "One victim, six-year-old Noah Pozner, was shot multiple times.[76]." Seemed redundant and the page being protected I could not edit it. Probably not needed for me to be requesting the edit but I got excited about making achange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kramar69 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

One of the features of the shooting is that nearly all of the victims were shot multiple times, far more than was needed to kill them. It was initially reported that Noah Pozner was shot eleven times, but his father denied this.[39] The reference to Noah Pozner is repetitive wording, so it could be clarified. This online document is said to be the Medical Examiner's report into Pozner's injuries, but it is hard to vouch for the source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Cite errors

There are currently some cite errors showing at the bottom of the article page but I don't know how to fix this. Could somebody help, thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks are due to User:PC-XT at the Help desk who fixed this. The explanation was "One bot removed the names while adding the archives. The next edit was another bot recovering the references it considered lost." This article uses List-defined references and TBH I'm not a great fan of this system.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing firearm

There is also a missing firearm used in the shooting. The shooter was found with a Sig P226 as well as the other two firearms on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:1:356:4DE6:6E74:DB2:D6D7 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The infobox gives the Bushmaster XM15-E2S and Glock 20SF, because these were the only guns fired during the school incident. The victims were killed with the Bushmaster, and Lanza shot and killed himself with the Glock. At one point the infobox included the SIG Sauer P226, but there is no evidence that this was fired during the incident, although it was taken inside the school. Likewise, Lanza took a Saiga-12 shotgun to the school in the Honda Civic, but it was left in the car and not used during the incident. The text of the article does mention the SIG Sauer P226, but it is not in the infobox because it might give a misleading impression, and the same is true of the Saiga-12.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution video on YouTube

Newsweek reports this week that a video on YouTube is believed to show Adam Lanza playing Dance Dance Revolution at the AMC movie theater in Danbury, CT. The video was originally uploaded to Facebook on 2 June 2012, and people on the web have been debating for a long time whether it is genuine. Based on Global Positioning System data, investigators say that they believe that it is genuine. This may be worth adding to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the Newsweek article is a puzzle. It refers to a final report, although this was published in November 2013. This says "The GPS found in the home and reportedly belonging to the shooter indicated that he regularly went to the area of a theater that had a commercial version of the DDR game in the lobby. In 2011 and up until a month before December 14, 2012, the shooter went to the theater and played the game. He went most every Friday through Sunday and played the game for four to ten hours" (page 36). This was already known, but the final report did not make any assessment about whether the video was genuine. It is unclear where journalist Matthew Lysiak has got this information from, but it is not the final report published in November 2013. The video has been uploaded to YouTube numerous times, but the original upload was on Facebook with a post stamped "2 June 2012 near Bethel, CT, United States".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Photo of gun

Re this edit: User:Tapered is currently engaged in a spree of adding photos of guns lifted from Commons to articles about mass shootings. This isn't necessary or desirable. The guns are wikilinked, and the photos are not the actual guns used in the shooting. This gives a misleading impression. "File photo" is OK for lazy journalists, but Wikipedia articles should be made of sterner stuff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

If the photos in the Commons aren't there, in part at least, to illustrate articles, what ARE they there for? Most editors don't have the time to search out and secure available photos. If you're moralizing ("lazy") wasn't an uncalled-for personal attack, it would be amusing. The suggestion that the only suitable illustration for the type of weapon used is the actual murder weapon is reductio ad absurdum: absurd by definition. Tapered (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A photo of somebody else's Carcano rifle has no relevance to the assassination of President Kennedy. Here is what the actual gun looks like. WP:PERTINENCE says "Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Finding good replacements is encouraged when removing poor or inappropriate images, but in some articles images may not be necessary." This is clearly the case here, as Bushmaster XM15-E2S is wikilinked and shows what a Bushmaster looks like. None of the images in this article pretends to be the gun used in the Sandy Hook shooting, and the article should be careful about not giving this impression. I wasn't trying to say that you are a lazy journalist, but when a lazy journalist cannot find an image of something, they often go to the library and find and image of something similar. Wikipedia articles should not do this. Here is a photo of Lanza's Bushmaster, taken from the documents released by investigators. This is what the actual gun looked like; note the considerable amount of wear on the barrel. I'm not sure that this image needs to be in the article as it is non free.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not calling me a lazy journalist...because...get ready...I'm not...a journalist! I'm an editor. How is a picture of the model or type (for AR-15) of gun used not relevant? It's the essential instrument of these murderers. Your statement--that a picture of the rifle type or brand or model is irrelevant--isn't backed up by any reasoning yoked to Wikipedia guidelines. You state it as an article of faith. A photo of the actual weapon may have emotional value, but not more 'educational' value than a generic picture. Does a picture of the assassin have to show his/her actual clothes on the day of the murder? I assume that the reason for inclusion is to show readers what the weapon looks like. That's not "decorative," as per the guidelines you cited. Tapered (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Basically all that the edit did was to repeat the lead image in Bushmaster M4-type Carbine. This shows a "straight out of the box" gun on somebody's floor, shiny and clean and not at all like the actual gun used in the shooting. It isn't needed in this article per WP:PERTINENCE and could wrongly give the impression that it was the gun used in the shooting, as it had been positioned in the "Shooting" section. San Ysidro McDonald's massacre doesn't have an image captioned "Here is what a Uzi looks like." Wikipedia articles about mass shootings list the guns in the infobox and give wikilinks, and this is enough. Comments and thoughts from other editors on this issue are welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

First: your reversion has been reverted, with an explanation. Re: above You use words, but create strawmen (ex:"must be picture actual murder weapon, instead of useful photo for readers unfamiliar with firearms), and don't logically refute the arguments by tying them to Wikipedia guidelines. You mention pertinence, but don't explain why it isn't pertinent. Again, you write as if your assertion must be an article of faith. And thanks for the tip, I'll fix the San Ysidro article one of these days. Tapered (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Have chosen to wait a few days, will re-revert. Tapered (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a pertinence explanantion, with some attempt at humor.

"On the day of the massacre, his haircut was 3 weeks overdue, he hadn't shaved or showered for 2 days, and according to Mistuh Blackwell, his lime green shirt and khaki pants were horribly mismatched." This is grotesquely and obviously non-pertinent.

"He had not taken his anti-psychosis meds for 3 days before the massacre." This is very pertinent, but a picture of the meds would be of minimal pertinence. They are not a direct part of the massacre.

The firearm used is a direct part of the massacre, and as such an illustration/photo/image is useful. It does NOT have to be the actual weapon used to familiarize a reader with firearms, or help readers unfamiliar with firearms to distinguish between a Blunderbuss, a cap and ball revolver, or a modern semi-auto rifle or handgun. Or even between internal and external magazines, which I find isn't covered by Wikipedia's Rifle article. (More work to do.) Tapered (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Given the amount of nonsense that has been written on the Internet about Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, it is not a good idea to show a photo that is not the actual gun. The photo of the actual gun was released as part of an appendix to the November 2013 final report, and is presumably copyrighted. Even if it was possible to cobble together a fair use rationale for the actual gun photo, adding it to the article would not add significantly to a reader's understanding. Does Port Arthur massacre (Australia) have a generic photograph of the guns used? No. Does Hungerford massacre have a photograph of the guns used? No. And so on. Wikipedia articles about mass shootings do not include photographs which are captioned "Here is a photo of the gun that I found on Commons. It isn't the actual gun, but it looks nice anyway." This has no value for the reader, who is quite capable of following the wikilink to the article about the gun.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The gun photo can be labelled to make clear it's not the actual murder weapon. I'll make no concessions to conspiracy theorist types @ Wikipedia. They're already way beyond the pale. About the other articles, my reply is...not yet. Tapered (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• A better option is to give a link to the actual crime scene photos which are in the November 2013 appendix.[40] This contains a wide range of documents and photographs from the investigation. The photographs start on page 168. The Glock, Bushmaster and Sig Sauer are on pages 174 - 176. The Saiga-12 shotgun is on page 178. The Savage .22 rifle used to kill Nancy Lanza is on pages 211 - 212. These images are of more value because they are the actual crime scene photos, not random images lifted from Commons. There are also photos of the school and 36 Yogananda Street.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Unless details specific to the guns used in the crime are noted (which it does not sound like there were any) it would be inappropriate to use non-free in place of free substitutes per WP:NFCC#1. That said, I also don't think that the free gun images are really that helpful here, potentially glorifying the weapons used. Linking the weapons to their wikipages is just fine, but the images of the weapons do not really help here to understand the crime at large. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The notable thing about the photograph of the actual Bushmaster used in the shooting is the amount of white powdery material on the barrel. Lanza fired 154 shots from the Bushmaster in the space of around five minutes, and the barrel of the gun was anything but clean. This may be due to gunpowder residue, but I am not an expert. It is a fair point that Wikipedia articles should not be gun porn and be accused of glorifying guns. Any photo of a gun should comply strictly with WP:PERTINENCE and not be used for decorative purposes. Even if the appendix photos of the actual guns were free of copyright, I don't think that anything of great value would be obtained by adding them to the article. The appendix is useful because it gives the photos in the context of the crime scene.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Masem. An image makes a key component of the crime "real" to reader. Connecting an image to a horrific crime could only glamorize it in the mind of an already disturbed, unwell person. Tapered (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You are going out on a limb here. Columbine High School massacre does not show photographs of the guns either, but there is a CCTV image in the infobox. This is in line with WP:PERTINENCE, random images from Commons are not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You have more straw men than Mr. Green Jeans. Just because one article doesn't utilize an image doesn't imply that other similar articles ought not. You still have explained how an illustration of a murder weapon isn't pertinent, or why it's 'random.' Random would be a plate of ravioli. I've explained my rationale clearly. Please try a logical explanation to counter it. Tapered (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not a straw man. You have decided pretty much single handedly that Wikipedia articles about mass shootings should show photographs of the guns, then gone into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode when contrary arguments are produced. Please don't add ornamental photographs of guns to mass shooting articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Since the crux of your ostensible argument purports to be the policy against strictly 'ornamental/decorative' images, citing only other comparable articles, I submit for all readers the article Robert E. Lee. I'd never read this article before, but I did pick it because I guessed that it would be 'image rich.' I hit a jackpot. I further submit that the images of 1) the window at the National Cathedral, 2) the Lee Corner properties, 3) the map of Fort Monroe, 4) Arlington House/Christchurch, 5) Lee astride Traveller, 6) Arlington House '#2', 7) Lee Chapel, and 8) the CSS Robert E. Lee are all of less importance to their article than an image of the murder weapon type is to this article. A murder weapon is a necessary/vital component of a shooting. None of those images are as important to the events that give Robert E. Lee notability as the murder weapon is the the events @ Sandy Hook. Aside from the numberous images of Lee (or his monuments), the map of Fort DesMoines is by his hand, and the Battle of Gettysburg is the defining event of his career. Please refute this with a few well-reasoned sentences--that's what I've been requesting all along.

Alternatively, in the interest of consistency, I challenge you to remove the decorative images from Robert E. Lee. I'd do it, but that would be a flagrant violation of WP:POINT. FWIW, given your criteria, the stained glass window at the National Cathedral is most egregiously decorative of the 8 violations. It's beautiful. Tapered (talk) 05:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between free images of works and buildings that are based on representing an influential person's life, and the weapons used by a spree murderer. It is a matter of taste and discretion. Yes, we need to identify the types of weapons determined to be involved, but it is absolutely unnecessary to show the reader those weapons to explain the tragic nature of this event. --MASEM (t) 05:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't based on taste, short of avoiding truly revolting images for shock value. Please address the salient points of my argument, or failing that, explain why the photo is "absolutely unnecessary" citing Wikipedia guidelines. Tapered (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:IMAGES "Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers." A picture of the guns used in a mass shooting will be offensive to some, and are not required to understand the crime, so they should not be included. --MASEM (t) 06:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The example cited for this issue is a pornographic image interpolated into a medical article. This image is no way similar or analogous to that example. If you're referring to political sensitivities, may all your edits be reverted forever. That's censorship. For my part I promise to post no photos (if any are available) of the moment that bullets collide with flesh, nor any photos of Jenna Jameson toying with her "firearms." Tapered (talk) 10:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That's absolutely not censorship, it's called being reasonably tasteful. We still mention the makes and models of the firearms used, linked to respective pages, and those are completely within encyclopedic information. But in terms of a violent crime, simply including images of the weapons used where their appearance does not impact the article can be considered offensive, glorifying the crime and tools used rather than the tragedy itself. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The way that things are done in Wikipedia articles about mass shootings is to give a wikilink to the article about the gun, and then let the reader follow it. Until User:Tapered came along, everyone seemed to be happy with this arrangement. This is now getting to the WP:STICK stage, because there is no need for articles about mass shootings to repeat images that are already in the relevant articles about the gun.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Very often, the last refuge of someone who can't come up with a good, well-reasoned counter argument in a conflict situation is to say, "But that's the way we've always done it!" (A moment I while enjoy the imagined sound of the appropriate voicing!) In me, you encounter someone with NO reverence for custom for its own sake. Here, as I see it, custom needs be yoked, at least in some small way, to the Wikipedia guidelines. Next = dispute resolution. This is plainly insoluble. Tapered (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I would welcome a WP:RFC as we've started to go round in circles on this. Masem and I have tried to explain the situation but have not got very far.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll see to it tomorrow or the next day. Promise. Tapered (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Chiming in and hopeful that an RFC would be helpful. Editorial consensus seems to possibly be against including generic photos representative of the mass killing murder weapons, an RFC would set down whatever the editorial consensus actually is and allow for outside closure (I asked a similar question at Talk:2013 Santa Monica shooting about the photo in that article of a generic AR-15 that has yet to receive any responses.) Shearonink (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Recapitulation

This is a recapitulation of my argument to include an image of of the murder weapon in this article, and other mass shooting articles, and arguments to refute the counterarguments.

Assertion

The murder weapon is an essential and necessary, but not sufficient, component of the crime. It is, therefore, pertinent to the article. The image shows the reader what the weapon looks like, and makes it visually real.

Refutations

The photo needs to be the actual murder weapon. Using images from the Commons is “lazy” journalism.

The Commons exist to be used. From MOS:Images, “Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic.” Wikipedia is not journalism.

It's not customary to have pictures of firearms in mass shooting articles.

Although there's no special guidance, it's safe to say that Wikipedia is not about enforcing social customs not tied or yoked to the guidelines.

The photo is not pertinent. It's decoration.

Answered above. It can't be essential to the event and mere decoration at the same time.

For the Sandy Hook incident, photos of a generic prototype could excite existing fringe theories.

Wikipedia can't walk on eggshells to accommodate fringe theories, and the photo can be labelled so that a reasonable reader can understand what it is and is not.

The image might glamorize the weapon in the context of mass murder.

Only in an already unbalanced mind. Wikipedia can't be edited to accommodate such individuals.

Including the photo may offend some readers' 'tastes.'

MOS:Images example of an offense to taste is the interpolation of a pornographic image as a medical illustration. This image doesn't approach that level of offense.

Beyond that level of offense, catering to “taste” is censorship--”Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.”

An item linked in the Infobox should not be illustrated by an image in the article.

This not remotely supported by any guideline this editor has seen. If a reader wants an in-depth understanding of the weapon, the link is available. But it ought not be necessary to link for a single, simple image. Tapered (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a recipe for adding eye candy images to articles which may be unnecessary, inaccurate or both. See Talk:2013 Santa Monica shooting, where @DHeyward: (who knows what he is talking about with guns) correctly removed the image because it was inaccurate. Is Tapered a gun expert? Many people on Wikipedia are, and many readers of Wikipedia are. I never pretend to be a gun expert and always ask others for advice if confusion or inaccuracy is likely to occur.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no free images of the murder weapons. Police go to great lengths to match particular firearms (not models or replicas) precisely because they are different. Google images for "Bushmaster XM-15 Stripped Lower Receiver" and you will see the only thing in common with any other "Bushmaster XM-15". That's where the manufacturer and model is engraved and is the only part considered a firearm. No barrel, no bolt, no trigger, no stock, no sights - that piece of aluminum with holes drilled in certain spots is the regulated component and the part that requires a background check. Random pictures of what someone might have done to it are pretty useless. Every police officer brought an AR-15 style variant as well. There were probably 50 different variants of that rifle at the school that day. --DHeyward (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It is the same sort of situation with a Glock pistol. There is no such thing as "a Glock". There is a huge number of variants of this gun; Adam Lanza used a 10mm Glock to kill himself, which is somewhat unusual as Glocks are typically 9mm. If a non-gun expert goes around Commons lifting images like "Glock.jpg", they are going to make this sort of mistake over and over again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2016

In the summary on the right side of the page - Please change this: Weapons Bushmaster XM15-E2S .22 caliber rimfire rifle

To this: Weapons Bushmaster XM15-E2S .223 caliber semiautomatic centerfire rifle

To correct the error in the description of the weapon. If you wish, you could link the "Bushmaster XM15-E2S" part to the Wikipedia article on that rifle that mentions the caliber. This is that link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M4-type_Carbine Bstad (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is correct, as various reliable sources agree that the Bushmaster was .223 caliber.[41] However, I'm not sure that the rest of the detail is really needed in the infobox, which is a summary. Even in the text of the article, the difference between rimfire and centerfire is not all that notable. It is way too technical and did not make the victims any less dead. Saying that the gun was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S and wikilinking it is enough. There have been criticisms in the past about giving excessive technical details about guns in the infobox. In this edit, I changed the description to ".223 caliber semiautomatic rifle" because nobody other than a gun expert is ever going to be interested in whether the gun was rimfire or centerfire; I can't recall any MSM coverage making an issue of this. However, it is notable that the gun was semiautomatic and capable of firing 154 shots in the space of five to six minutes. The Sandy Hook school shooting set off a major debate about whether it was a good idea to allow civilians to own guns which can do this, and it is far more important than whether the gun was rimfire or centerfire.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• A bit of WP:OR: assuming that Lanza fired 154 shots in five and a half minutes, he was firing at an average rate of around one shot every two seconds until first responders arrived at the scene.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121218001444/http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting-20121214,0,6861962.story to http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting-20121214,0,6861962.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Generic gun photo

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.

---

Should a generic photo of the type of gun used be included? KSFT^C 04:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• No, per all the reasons above. This isn't standard practice in Wikipedia articles about mass shootings due to WP:PERTINENCE and the risk of confusing the reader with a photo that somebody has uploaded to Commons that looks nothing like the actual murder weapon. A wikilink is sufficient.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has no policy saying that if a Wikilink is available in the Title box, no images of anything to do with that Wikilink can appear in the article. Why, if it did, it would be possible for any editor, or collaborating group of editors, to insert a link into the box and pre-empt any placement of the image in the article. As far as I know, no insincere, fanatical group of editors devoted to image control has ever tried anything like that. Tapered (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Since this is a less structured forum that WP:DR, I have an observation about all of my interlocutors, especially Ianmacm. They cite guidelines and link to them, but they never use the actual word content of the guidelines in their 'reasoning.' I now realize that since the 'customary' practices of the various firearms editors are so at variance with the actual content of guidelines, they can't use the content to bolster their position. The content would undermine their 'customs.' I don't blame them for using the guideline links like talismans--they have no choice...unless they want to reconsider their 'customary' positions and procedures. My comments, observations, and rejoinders, from the onset of this disagreement, have included reference to the actual language of the guidelines cited. Tapered (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep in mind, that policy and guides are descriptions of common practice, and should not be argued at the "exact wording" level. We go by the spirit of what they outline. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest you add that "spirit" concept into the guidelines someplace...and see how long it lasts. I would venture to say that high-level Wikipedians don't like that sort of vague, open-ended terminology. I'd further venture to say that it opens the door to chicanery. And if an editor invokes the "spirt" of the guidelines, there's still a need to explain how the "spirit' is in allignment with the guidelines. Tapered (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• It's already there at WP:POLICY. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• No - I see no purpose or value of such a photo. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• No. Even though WP:EDITDISC is an essay, I think it lays out my thoughts on this matter well. "...meeting Wikipedia policies and guidelines is necessary to allow inclusion, but not necessarily sufficient to warrant inclusion..." Just because it is possible for particular material (an image, in this case) to be included, doesn't mean we necessarily have to include that content. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• That's absolutely a fact. If an image falls within guidelines, however, the argument to exclude it needs to be, at least, very tight, and probably compelling. If you think your arguments to this point are either, you're mistaken. I've explained that at length. Tapered (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• No Per my arguments above (That the visual appearance of the types of guns used is unnecessary for understanding of the article, in addition to avoiding over-attention to the weapons used. Links are available if the reader needs to see the guns' appearances. ) --MASEM (t) 15:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• No I agree that it is significant that among Wikipedia's list of school shootings in the US, they all list the weapons used but it's hard to find one that shows images of them. I do personally think most of the articles are unnecessarily scant on images, but there's no reason to feature the weapon unless there was a compelling reason to be more descriptive about it. Ender and Peter 05:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nuts! To honor the intellectual depth, honesty, and perspicacity of the other interlocutors, I offer up this tidbut from today's news (I think I saw it in The Onion). Extra!Extra! Five mysterious murders occurred today in St. Nostradamus Parish, Louisiana. Louis Cyphre, 45, stands accused. Several witnesses independently confirmed that he held his empty hands as though he was aiming a rifle, and they heard loud, cracking noises. According to Constitutional Sheriff Ignatz Ubatz, all 5 of the victims (who remain unnamed until their families are notified) died from bullet wounds, "and the slugs have striations consistent with those fired from a rifled barrel." He went on, "Preliminarily, we're prepared to concede that the NRA finally has proof that 'people kill people, not guns.' But we're still going to consult with Penn & Teller, The Amazing Randi, and the descendants of Harry Houdini and Marie Laveaux." Tapered (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment To summarize the other "no" comments: would a reader's understanding of this (or any other mass shooting) be seriously impaired if the article did not show a photograph of the gun used, and just gave a wikilink instead? Almost certainly not. There would need to be something special that the reader would lose out on if they did not see it. Otherwise a wikilink would be sufficient. We've all worn out the keyboard saying this, and it is now time to accept that the consensus is not to add photos of guns unless there is a clear cut reason for doing so. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• No, a wikilink to the article is sufficient if the picture is not the actual weapon used, per WP:PERTINENCE. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• No though I'd support photos of the actual weapons used if we had any such public domain images with adequate quality. Rklawton (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment All of the actual guns used in the shooting can be seen in the November 2013 appendix to the final report, on pages 174 to 212. These are copyrighted as part of the investigation, and it unlikely that public domain images will turn up. Even if these images were PD, they might still have problems with WP:PERTINENCE as a wikilink is generally enough to show what a gun looks like and to give details about it, per WP:TOPIC. The article here is about the shooting, not the guns themselves.--♦IanMac M♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• No - I see no purpose or value of such a photo. per OpenFuture Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Maybe under the right circumstances. I agree that our first concern should be confusion. We need to make it clear that the photo is not the actual gun used. If we can do that, then maybe we can put a photo in the one place that it could possibly go -- next to the paragraph on assault weapon-style ban in the Gun Control sub-section of the Responses section -- as an illustration of one of the guns that the ban would attempt to ban. That section is talking about banning that gun model and so it might be helpful there to see what the gun looked like. However, I would be reluctant to use the photo with all the magazines as that might cause confusion.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• No - Like the above I too don't see any purpose in adding the image .... –Davey2010^Talk 16:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Motive

Still inconclusive? 209.140.44.56 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the November 2013 final report represents the final word of the official investigation. Since Adam and Nancy Lanza both died in the incident, it is unlikely that much more will come out than is already known. Sandy Hook remains one of the most puzzling of mass shootings. Although it is clear that Adam Lanza had a range of psychological and emotional problems, it is unclear why he carried out the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox "Defenders" section

I don't understand what the Defenders listed in the infobox are/why they're there. It seems like these are people who have been identified as playing a large role in the defense of students, but I fail to see why they should be included in the infobox. Prominent mention in the article or a section devoted to them? Sure. Aren't infoboxes designed to be the basic facts, the things that don't need any other information to be fully understood? Alan daniel (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe they weren't strictly defenders, but they did receive the Presidential Citizens Medal, and six of these medals were awarded as a result of the shooting. President Obama said "And then when Dawn Hochsprung, and Mary Sherlach, Vicki Soto, Lauren Rousseau, Rachel D’Avino, Anne Marie Murphy -- when they showed up for work at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14th of last year, they expected a day like any other -- doing what was right for their kids; spent a chilly morning readying classrooms and welcoming young students -- they had no idea that evil was about to strike. And when it did, they could have taken shelter by themselves. They could have focused on their own safety, on their own wellbeing. But they didn’t. They gave their lives to protect the precious children in their care. They gave all they had for the most innocent and helpless among us. And that's what we honor today -- the courageous heart, the selfless spirit, the inspiring actions of extraordinary Americans, extraordinary citizens."[42]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think what @Alan daniel is saying is that the text you just provided should be in the body of the article, rather than mentioning this strictly (or at all) in the infobox. It currently doesn't appear there; the only mentions of Soto, for example, are in the narrative of the events during the shooting, and the fact that her name has been submitted for trademark protection. If it doesn't appear in the article, it probably shouldn't be in the infobox. General Ization ^Talk 21:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Correction: It is mentioned ("President Obama honored the six slain adults posthumously") but seemingly only as an afterthought. General Ization ^Talk 21:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying these people shouldn't be mentioned. I'm not saying that they are anything less than legitimate heroes. What I am saying is that an infobox on Wikipedia is generally for the basic facts of the topic. The size, population, dates, number of victims, etc. Having a section of the infobox that says only "Defenders" and lists several names isn't helpful. Defenders of what? Defenders of the shooter(s) in court proceedings? Defenders of the children at the incident? I have no way of knowing from that information. When I have to go to the text of the article to understand what something in the infobox means at its most basic level, the infobox system has failed. Again, I am NOT saying these people are not important or did not do an incredibly brave thing. I am simply saying that section of the infobox doesn't achieve what I feel infoboxes are here for. Alan daniel (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

These poor people were victims. Their actions are mentioned in the body of the article. I don't know that there needs to be a "defenders" section in the infobox for them. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I expanded the information on the Presidential citation in the Responses section, including Obama's comments which name the honorees and the link to the whitehouse.gov page, and removed the "Defenders" attribute from the infobox. General Ization ^Talk 12:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Orlando shooting

Re this edit: if 50 people have died in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting then Sandy Hook is now in third place behind Orlando and Virginia Tech. Sourcing needed though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If these things need to be parsed, then there are other attacks on US soil that could qualify - I am chiefly thinking of Wounded Knee Massacre. I have seen some news reports that parse this present horror very carefully by saying that the Pulse attack is the single most-deadly attack by a single attacker/gunman on US soil in its history (therefore Oklahoma City bombing & Bath School disaster would not be included). Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, people in the 19th century USA were also big fans of killing each other, usually for racial reasons. This is similar to the Umpqua Community College shooting, where it was pointed out that the death toll in the Chinese Massacre Cove incident exceeded that of the college shooting. I always think of the first modern mass shooting in the USA as the "Walk of Death" by Howard Unruh in 1949. This involved a deranged individual who had access to a gun capable of rapid fire, a situation that has been repeated many times since.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It is all too horrific that we have to parse the modifiers so carefully. Most deadly (regardless of what some news outlets are stating, the words "bombing" or "attack" can't really be used because that would bring in other mass-murders so..) "single most deadly shooting by single attacker or shooter on American soil"... Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A simple Question

Man, Lanza's diagnosis, sounds like he must be born a freaking maniac. Has somebody ever made up the idea, that he might have just become one through the self-fulfilling prophecy of his environment and the many grinding years of its contempt? Why did he have to leave university and get home schooled? Why did he write "selfish"? Why did he shoot his mother? Wasn't his whole shooting his way of saying: "I never had a proper childhood, why should anybody else have?" Breaking up the contact with his father and brother, also sort of means: "You leave me in the lurch, and treat me as a medical condition and not a human being, why should you be part of my life then?"

I think I could go on with drawing conclusions, which are more than obvious to see, the problem is, as long as we see a symptom as a cause, as something god-given, we do nothing but worsen its condition to branch out as something far worse.

Sadly I think he hasn't been given any other choice than to explode. His convictions that something will ever help him return to a beloved state of mind have become extinct the moment he decided to shoot his mother. Then all the Hell he interally developed during his whole life has been let loose. Just like he progressively developed a demonized personality, having oftentimes reached points of no return:

• very early, in school being cast out for having no friends. (Accepting it as god given, believing himself to be not someone to be liked etc, he misses the opportunity to have somebody see him in a pleasant light, which could give him the chance to break-free from the used negative cycle of other impacts)
• At the Pyschologist, being called an asperger: an inferior being (Another stigmatization, now a medical condition that stands between him and his chance of becoming a beloved personality, but all actually is dependent on the next point: its interpretation)
• Being treated as such a malcreation or despicable mental condition (So, being sick is one thing, but how you handle this sickness is another. some or most might be sympathetic for their children, because they unconditionally love them. Others use this medical or mental condition with contempt to reduce their children to something far worse than human dignity would ever allow and actually provoke a dysfunctional behaviour).

So for me this fatal break-out actually is an escalated family affair with people unable to properly raise their children, with severe mental condition themselves. This in fact is only one factor, since a proper social environment could have helped to reduce stress levels, accusations, despise and additionally strengthen or support harmony and trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.134.22.98 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of this is WP:OR. The WP:TLDR version is that investigators were unable to pin down a specific motive despite months of investigation. Adam Lanza's contact with the mental health services was at best patchy, but he was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome although this would not in itself explain the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the specific cause of the fellow's mental illness, it is clear he was on the autism spectrum. XavierItzm (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Adam Lanza

I propose that the section on Adam Lanza should be split into another article. The section is about 12,000 bytes, so it's a pretty huge chunk of this article. The article is over 167,000 bytes long, so a split is definitely necessary per WP:TOOBIG. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and the past consensus is not to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed 4 times before (see Q9/A9 above) but in light of recent events revisiting the issue would seem to be in order. So, in that event see below... Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. I just don't think it's necessary. There's nothing new that has come out about Lanza so it looks to me that a standalone article would then basically just be a copy/paste of the present content of the Perpetrator section. WP:TOOBIG/WP:SIZERULE/the Size guideline (divide at 100/60/50kb etc) does not apply in this case. I just ran a "Page size" tool on the Perpetrator section and the readable prose size for the section came out to 982/5.8kb, the article itself came out to 39 kb/6643 words. Maybe there are some policies/guidelines that would cover my other thoughts about this but I don't feel like thinking about it now. Will add further explanation later if I have time.Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Also don't think it's necessary. Clearly there are cases where the sheer volume of info, or subsequent trial, life, etc justify a seperate article. However since none of those apply here, this is just an unnec. contentfork. Pincrete (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Just to clarify, I don't agree with a split per the previous discussions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I think that in an article of this length there needs to be a separate article for the perpetrator. It would make the article easier to navigate. Tigerboy1966  22:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• WTF? Does anyone even care about WP:ARTICLESIZE, or are we going to keep this page one huge unnavigable mess? I disagree with Q9/A9. This should be changed, ASAP. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've posted a request for comment on situations like this on the Village Pump. I suspect we need general policy guidelines. Bdushaw (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. There is enough interest and background on the shooter Lanza to make a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.7.237 (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

There might be enough interest to have a separate article. Re: editors' thoughts about article length - I would like to mention that WP:SIZERULE would not seem to apply in this case. That guideline says that if an article has less than 40kB of readable prose size, "length alone does not justify division". This article clocks in at 39. Shearonink (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, there may have been some confusion here, because WP:SIZERULE doesn't include HTML markup, citations etc. The article prose isn't excessively long, and the past consensus is that a separate article for Adam Lanza would be an unnecessary content fork.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree split into another article. The article would be much cleaner if there was a separate article for the murderer, and only the most basic biographic facts were presented on the massacre's page. Right now, this is a navigational mess. XavierItzm (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. By doing this, you would be partially vindicating Lanza, which I'm sure you must find morally reprehensible. SaucyJimmy (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. His only significance is related to this massacre. Furthermore, going beyond raw logic here, but do we really want to incentivize would-be spree shooters by immortalizing them on Wikipedia? Obviously I'm not proposing a spree shooter blackout, but the difference between "own article" and "part of a larger article" is pretty significant, psychologically speaking. Sarysa (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Second injury name

Please include the following citations for Deborah Pisani being the second person injured, as her name is not in the current citation given:

<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chilling-book-excerpts-detail-newtown-massacre-article-1.1534303|title=NEWTOWN: Exclusive book excerpts detail how Adam Lanza massacred 20 children and six adults|publisher=New York Daily News|author=Matthew Lysiak|quote=Kindergarten aide Deborah Pisani was forty feet down the hallway as the scene unfolded. She was frantically trying to bolt her door, which only locked from the outside, when a ricochet bullet struck her foot.|date=December 2, 2013|accessdate=June 29, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-sandy-hook-lanza-lawsuit-20150313-story.html|title=Families Of Sandy Hook Victims Sue Nancy Lanza Estate|publisher=Hartford Courant|author=Dave Altimari|quote=...and two teachers who were injured, Natalie Hammond and Deborah Pisani.|date=March 14, 2015|accessdate=June 29, 2016}}</ref>

Direct links to citations for anyone who wants to check:

• NEWTOWN: Exclusive book excerpts detail how Adam Lanza massacred 20 children and six adults
• Families Of Sandy Hook Victims Sue Nancy Lanza Estate— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8602:e570:41c1:5902:e4c1:bf8c (talk • contribs) 06:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The official investigation did not reach firm conclusions about the exact sequence of the shooting.[43] It began in the north hallway before moving into classrooms 8 and 10, the order of which is also unknown. Deborah Pisani is given in the infobox as one of the wounded, and the cite from the Hartford Courant has been added. I'm a bit wary of using Matthew Lysiak's book as a source, because he has previously said that authorities knew that Adam Lanza was the person in the Dance Dance Revolution video, when all that the final report said was that GPS readings showed that he had regularly visited the theater. Although he may be the person in the video, authorities never said that it was him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Split discussion

there's a 'split proposal' but no split discussion! So I'll start one. Why?, why split that is. Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This relates to the discussion at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_8#Adam_Lanza. Since it wasn't a formal move proposal, it was automatically archived after 30 days. As things stood, there was no consensus to have Adam Lanza as a separate article, which was in line with previous discussions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality?

"Sandy Hook conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite overwhelming contemporary coverage of the incident." is the only mention, without detail, not even a paragraph. "Despite" should be "in spite and despite". "Contemporary coverage" should be "mainstream media coverage", "mainstream coverage", or if needs "contemporary mainstream media coverage" with all that does or does not imply. "Abundant" (and ad nauseam) or "sensational" not "overwhelming" which seems overwhelmingly bias, as if we should believe everything we hear without question. I hate Trump but even he says the media lies. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been split off into an entire article named Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories per WP:TOPIC. The article here is about the shooting and it isn't worth giving a great deal of attention to the various tinfoil hat wearers who have said that Sandy Hook was a hoax or the work of the government. This would lead to problems with WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The answer is no, Wikipedia is not neutral. Anything of a controversial nature is covered poorly here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.5.117 (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That isn't true. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories has its own article. It would have WP:TOPIC issues here. What Wikipedia has not done is to give equal weight to theories of this kind, per WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: — The anonymous commenter is correct, and you are dead wrong. Even a cursory examination of the publicly available evidence will convince a rational person that the Sandy Hook shooting was a complete fabrication and there is an ongoing conspiracy to deny, obfuscate and falsify. In fact, the evidentiary support for the premises of this article as it now stands is tenuous, at best. This entire article will eventually need to be scrapped or rewritten from scratch. As far as I know, Wikipedia isn't in the business of promoting and perpetuating hoaxes. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 10:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)