![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
can we get this article locked please. too much reported rumours are being listed without real facts being established — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.88.162 ( talk) 19:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should include any number of dead unsourced, especially when the facts are not yet clear. CNN is reporting "close to 20", which isn't 27. Against the current ( talk) 18:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...well, read the news! (your reason here) -- MoRsE ( talk) 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
20 children were killed. That should be changed. Camyoung54 ( talk) 23:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no source for who the perpetrator was. Should we just remove that until we get a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.250.2 ( talk) 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The shooter's name has now been confirmed by CNN. And I think I've found his Facebook page. It has a few pictures of him. Hard to be 100% sure, but the name matches, as does the city where he lives (Hoboken) and of origin (Newtown). Not sure if it should be added to the article, or how to present it, so I'll just post it here. If anyone thinks it's relevant, feel free to add it in: http://www.facebook.com/rlanza. Also, a google search on his name + Newtown seems to indicate that he was a honor roll student at Newtown High School. Desdenova ( talk)
I'ts not Ryan Lanza,It's Adam Lanza "law enforcement official identified the shooter as Adam Lanza and that a brother, Ryan Lanza, had been questioned."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school.html?_r=0 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
150.250.122.86 (
talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep for now - Since this happened recently, article should be kept for two weeks to determine WP:Recentism. After this, it should be kept (or redirected to Sandy Hook Elementary School).-- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... there should be information readily available in Wikipedia. People looking it from here. It also seems that this event is unfortunately going to be significant. -- 88.113.156.80 ( talk) 20:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the second most deadly school shooting in US history. It's the most savage one that has ever happened. A mass murderer who kills dozens of preteen child is an extremely rare phenomenon and one that certainly deserves attention. This guy clearly didn't kill for the attention or fame. If he did, he wouldn't have offed himself. So no, this article should NOT be deleted.
The article has already been speedy snow kept at AfD per the box at the top of this page. 2010 SO16 ( talk) 21:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Please add map of location. 155.201.35.58 ( talk) 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It should be something like "2012 Connecticut School Shooting." Coretheapple ( talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This is too much concern over something unimportant. The narrative in the future will tell us what the best name for this event is. Right now, we need to worry about the specifics of the event itself, and can worry about renaming it later. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I came looking for the article on this subject, and it really was a little difficult to find. I had no idea of the school name. ike9898 ( talk) 20:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
CNN says the shooter is named R--- L----. I'll wait to add this info in case it turns out to be incorrect. -- MoRsE ( talk) 19:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that it can be reported as Ryan Lanza, based on this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/14/school-shooting-connecticut/1769367/ Coretheapple ( talk) 19:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It was NOT Ryan; it was his brother Adam. Police officer made a mistake on a report and the news ran with it. http://www.ctpost.com/news/crime/article/AP-source-Suspect-is-24-younger-brother-held-4118962.php 76.20.209.221 ( talk) 22:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Almost certain it will be subject to vandalism. Thanks -- Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's refs to many articles that call it or refer to it as "connecticut school shooting:"
Leitmotiv ( talk) 19:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the sources cited refer to the event as "the Connecticut School Shooting" with such capitalization. I've removed this from the introduction three times, and it's been re-inserted. I am no longer interested in removing it but I don't think it's a legitimate alternate name and suggest that others decide for themselves. 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I keep trying to re add the completed usatoday ref Gary Stoller and Gary Strauss (14 December 2012). "26 reported killed in Newtown, Conn., school shooting". USA TODAY. Newtown, Conn. and each time I get an edit conflict.-- Auric 20:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This has no direct referenced connection to the Sandy Hook event and should not be included in the article. The Oregon shooting article is scheduled for deletion and is is of little significance. 66.116.62.178 ( talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The above event has no direct referenced connection to the Sandy Hook event and should not be included in the article. The Oregon shooting article is scheduled for deletion and is is of little significance.
66.116.62.178 ( talk) 20:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Please avoid needless words like this. As long as we're using reliable sources, there's no need to hedge our statements. Sancho 20:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/ 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Source-29-dead-including-22-children-in-Newtown-4118505.php has repeatedly been removed by someone claiming that it fails verification for the shooter father's school (Quinnipiac Univ.) which it does not. It says it clearly and the death toll has not been retracted. 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
More mainstream news sources reporting 29 dead, 22 kids:
I don't want to be accused of edit warring, but at this point it wouldn't bother me if someone accused me of claiming that other editors don't bother to read sources or do a Google News search before making a decision. 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The State Police officer giving a press conference right now is confirming 27 - 20 children, 6 adults, and the shooter. There is another adult victim at a second crime scene. Natalie ( talk) 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.ctpost.com/news/crime/article/AP-source-Suspect-is-24-younger-brother-held-4118962.php 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm watching someone on Fox saying that Ryan Lanza is in custody and that Adam Lanza was the shooter. The source also said the guns were registered to the mother. Keep an eye out for sources to confirm this. Ryan Vesey 20:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Uh oh. Someone is posting on Ryan Lanza's Facebook page claiming it wasn't him: https://twitter.com/MattBors/status/279672597837402112 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add reference for flag status.
Achbed ( talk) 20:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It is thought that 5 children were from the same family.-- Cotten134 ( talk) 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I heared there are other possible future shooters that are still at large? Should'nt they lock down all the schools in Connecticutt? One of my best friends lives there.-- Cotten134 ( talk) 20:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC) |
There seems to be extreme attention to this topic as there have been many new sections on this talk page whitin a few minutes.-- Cotten134 ( talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Pls fix the shooter ASAP, he is not named Ryan but Adam. [2] [3] Tyypos ( talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The suspect in the Connecticut school shootings is Adam Lanza, 20, the son of a teacher at the school where the shootings occurred, a law enforcement official said Friday. A second law enforcement official says the boy's mother, Nancy Lanza, is presumed dead. Adam Lanza's older brother, Ryan, 24, of Hoboken, N.J., is being questioned by police, said the first official. Earlier, a law enforcement official mistakenly transposed the brothers' first names." -- http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-source-20-year-old-suspect-had-ties-school 2010 SO16 ( talk) 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there any information on his motive? Pass a Method talk 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
One problem I have is that it seems to be undue to post the comments of a representative from another state. How then do we decide whether or not to post the opinion of Governor Mark Dayton or Representative Darrell Issa (randomly chosen). I think we should limit reactions to the President, Governor, senators from Connecticut, local rep, and other similar figures. The current statement from Nadler should probably be removed on those grounds. That being said, it is likely that this will bring up more comments on gun control. I believe that a section on gun control will be relevant sometime in the upcoming week. I think it's too early to report on it now, but I would disagree with the notion that it would be POV to post it later. Ryan Vesey 21:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a second murder scene at the home of the shooter and his victim mother, with at least one body. The house, per the local tax records appears to be (this is OR) located here: 41°24′32″N 73°13′40″W / 41.4090017°N 73.227745°W. Not adding to article at this time pending better sources. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the police have not released the suspects identity. If the news is reporting that, it is through unnamed or unofficial channels. This needs to be clarified. If you watch the official news conferences the lead police officers are saying they have not released the suspects identity. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 22:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I created an Adam Lanza page. please link to it. I am looking up information on him now Bobkeyes ( talk) 00:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Why? -- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
CNN just announced that the father was interviewed by the police, so obviously he's not dead and therefore this is not a patricide :-o Desdenova ( talk) 23:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe the death toll is 26, not 28. 18 kids and 6 adults killed on site. 2 children died at the hospital. 96.224.204.56 ( talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
it says 200 children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, before the gunman, identified as Adam Lanza, 20,[3] fatally shot himself it should say 20 not 200 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.72.250.141 (
talk) 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
page has been corrected thanks
Is it really necessary to have the whole sentence of the mother of the shooter being killed link to matricide?
Is there any reason why the various reactions are listed in a bullet list, rather than as a cohesive narrative? This seems to go against the grain of WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. - Mr X 22:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
To many edits made me edit conflict a lot trying to add a mother murder cide (forgot now) and I give up trying. Sorry for disruption I guess I'll stop trying. -- Hinata talk 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second sentence should read
Twenty children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, before the gunman, identified as Adam Lanza, 20,[3] shot himself. Jpmarciano ( talk) 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Sandy Hook massacre is not the second deadliest shooting in American history; In fact it is the third, behind the Bath School Bombings and the Virginia Tech Massacre. Awesomeness169 ( talk) 23:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
BBC news reporting Adam Lanza killed both his parents, so how has his father refused to comment? 86.151.162.200 ( talk) 00:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Fox News said that a reporter told Lanza's father about the shooting. I think we should the father out until there is more verification (preferably from sources less biased and unreliable than Fox). Abigail 00:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Father and mother were divorced and lived in separate towns. Father was originally said to be killed in the home, but that was in error. Father is alive. SilverFox183 ( talk) 01:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Your teaser for this article on google has a major mistake. It gives the number 200 instead of 20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.51.110 ( talk) 00:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence is ambiguous: "The principal and school psychologist, identified by police as Mary Sherlach, 56, were among the dead." It makes it sound as if the principal and school psychologist were one and the same person. I suggest rewording it to "The school psychologist, identified by police as Mary Sherlach, 56, and the principal were among the dead." 66.165.22.190 ( talk) 00:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC) 66.165.22.190 ( talk) 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Jim N.
Updated info: CNN reports the principal as Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, age 47. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-shooting-school-principal/index.html?hpt=hp_c2:
According to various network television interviews of parents at the parking lot of the school, the authorities had someone in handcuffs wearing camouflage pants, and as they passed the crowd he looked at the parents and stated "I didn't do it." Is there a firm RELIABLE SOURCE yet of who this individual was? It would seem bizarre if the brother was just outside of the premises when the incident happened (according to the parents, he was in a wooded area adjacent to the school). HammerFilmFan ( talk) 01:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I undid a recent removal of the government reaction section. I don't feel especially strongly about this point, but our recent articles similar to this have these sorts of sections and I think that speaks to their appropriateness. See Virginia Tech massacre, for example.
I do think concern over their size blossoming is legitimate, but I don't think wholescale removal is appropriate. Shadowjams ( talk) 01:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the reaction section from other world leaders notable? It's just saying that they are "horrified" about the massacre, but I don't think it adds any encyclopedic value. 66.68.218.69 ( talk) 01:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It makes sense for the VT article to focus on reactions from South Korea because the gunman was Korean. What's being said here is what makes the reactions not notable. MrX said that "listing every reaction does not add much to the knowledge of the subject, especially when it consists mostly of cliches such as ...thoughts and prayers...deeply saddened...horrified..." and WWGB described them as "predictable, non-notable knee-jerk comments written by media hacks." Even the IP editor above points out how worthless the comments are. We don't need them. They don't add anything to the page. However, I would not be opposed to what HiLo48 suggested above. TheArguer SAY HI! 01:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The article currently uses the format "Prime Minister X stated on Twitter that..." - this is almost certainly incorrect, as there is no proof anyone but a staffer wrote these Facebook and Twitter messages. I suggest the format be changed to "Prime Minister X's Twitter account carried the message that..." 68.144.172.8 ( talk) 03:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
"Neither handgun would have been legal for the gunman to possess at the time of the incident, as he was under 21 years of age"
This is a pathetic attempt to push Anti-Gun Control complaints into the article in the wake of the shooting. This is not a matter of a "criminal having a gun", the guns were legal and readily available. Trying to paint this as a "take our guns and only criminals will have guns" doesn't apply. The firearms were LEGAL. They were legally purchased firearms left unsecured in a home where the shooter lived.
Delete that sentence. It has no place in this article outside of a possible future "reactions" or "controversy" section. It's place there is clear POV pushing. 124.148.64.144 ( talk) 02:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Oh please, peddle that ignorance somewhere else. It's illegality is NOT in question and you're obvious position on this issue is blatant since you just implied people don't understand murdering children to be illegal.
That the use of the firearms was illegal has no place in this article outside of discussion regarding reactions. As such it is at the top of the article and specifically details something that has NO place outside of obvious Anti-Gun Control POV pushing. It is a pitiful attempt to push the classic Anti-Gun Control fallacy of "if you take our guns only criminals will have guns" in the face of the already established illegal murder of children and tragedy. That gun-nuts would use this article to attempt to push such a POV is sickening and it needs to be deleted immediate.
If you desperately want it in there, you can explain exactly what relevance it has to being presented at all in that particular section. Otherwise it is clearly an attempt to push that POV at the very beginning of the article to quell the rising gun-control sentiment in the wake of the shooting. It can be included if and when we introduce a reactions or controversy section, as it's place as presented with the SUBJECT of the illegality of the ownership and use will be brought up. Currently it has been shoved in a section it has no place in to cause a deliberate POV pushing.
Delete it immediately. 124.148.64.144 ( talk) 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane
a handgun cannot be purchased by someone under 21 from an FFL. But they may posses and use one, or be given one. I believe they may also legally purchase one from a private seller. This is somewhat addressed in this source : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/25/us-usa-handguns-decision-idUSBRE89O1D120121025?feedType=RSS Gaijin42 ( talk) 04:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
We report what is verifiable, if that means politicians religious comments then we put that in the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I hope the religious stuff will be limited, if not completely deleted. It's quite obvious that the 27 people weren't given devine protection, as there's no God. GoodDay ( talk) 02:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
|
This conversation isn't going anywhere good as of now. gwickwire talk edits 03:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed the image in the infobox for a couple of reasons. First it appears to be a clear copyright violation, taken from news reports without permission. Additionally, an image of scared minors who's faces are clearly visible is not necessary here. Let's leave the exploitation to the media. We done need it here.-- RadioFan ( talk) 02:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I deleted it while you guys were busy removing it. The fair use rationale was terrible. Rklawton ( talk) 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a regular editor, please forgive errors, but: the reference article link for "somewhat autistic" no longer contains that phrase. I'm pretty sure it did earlier and I'm wondering if the source news article was edited after the fact. In short, as of this posting, there is no reference for the quote that the shooter was somewhat autistic. (As of right now, it is footnote #22) 98.26.2.78 ( talk) 02:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The "somewhat autistic" comment appears to be an inflammatory and prejudiced comment, not based on objective fact reporting since (1) it is hearsay by Adam's brother instead of a direct quote from a qualified medical practitioner who actually evaluated Adam, (2) there is no such thing as "somewhat autistic", since by definition (i.e. -- re:APA DSM V or DSM IV) either you are autistic or you or not, and (3) autistic people do not have any history of being serial murderers, have resorted to any mass violence, or have participated in any brutal killing. Therefore the reference to the phrase "somewhat autistic" should either be stricken or it's unprofessional and medical unsoundness should be clearly pointed out. HY1802D ( talk) 03:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The article says: "Some news organizations incorrectly showed photos from a Facebook page of a man with the same name as Ryan."
The Facebook page was from Ryan Lanza, as in, Adam's brother, not from "a man with the same name as Ryan".
Can we please be WP:CIVIL here? |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Too many "editors" acting like policemen rather than actually contributing. Start adding stuff, or get out of the way, fer cryin' out loud! grrr
|
thumbnail thumbnail Is posible?
Thanks. Deivismaster ( talk) 03:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It was not adam it was ryan who did the shooting. please change the name Bzane2 ( talk) 03:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
State Police confirm that one shooter is dead. A second gunman is apparently at large and multiple people have been shot, sources told ABC News.
http://news.yahoo.com/two-gunmen-elementary-school-shooting-151955649--abc-news-topstories.html
According to one television report, a second man was caught by police in an adjoining wood, handcuffed and escorted from the scene. There were very few non-fatal injuries reported, indicating that once targeted, there was rarely any chance of escape, and that the gunman was unusually accurate in his fire.Vance said the majority of killings took place in one section of the school, in two rooms".
http://www.smh.com.au/world/connecticut-shooting-leaves-20-children-dead-20121215-2bfw3.html
I see there is a discussion to delete which has been closed and refused.
I agree that this article should be kept according to the culture of Wikipedia. However, I question to whether this process loses sight of the big picture. We should ask if the big news of the day deserves a Wikipedia article.
If we ask people what the bad news of the past was, the Columbine shooting certainly qualifies. However, there are articles in Wikipedia of the murder of people, which I think do not qualify. Yet, if you read the rules, you will find that even those obscure articles pass the criteria because there are a lot of newspaper articles about them.
If you ask my opinion, I think it is not clear whether this event will be a historical event or not.
Reasonableplease ( talk) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a collection of reactions from world leaders: http://sfy.co/fCbr Lufkens ( talk) 23:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
...and will be irrelevant (and hence deleted) after a few days. But we have a couple of editors determined to include this detail under Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Reactions.
I don't want an edit war, but this content is just silly. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are the local churches' extended hours not noteworthy? Shouldn't we be sensitive to the locals reading the article? It's about a local event, after all, even if it is internationally newsworthy. 2010 SO16 ( talk) 00:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The red cross is mentioned in many disaster articles.
Why should this one be different? -- Agnostihuck ( talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I have found a source ( The Hartford Courant) describing Lanza's path through the school which says he demanded to know where Soto's students were. Given that 7 of her students survived by hiding in the closet (and are therefore the only possible witnesses, I don't think we can still say that, "Witnesses said that throughout the incident, they never heard the perpetrator say a word." Abductive ( reasoning) 20:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms could be added to the talk page, if there is an effect on firearms distribution. There is already an effect in terms of discussion of such changes. I didnt know about this project until just now (wasnt even editing here). 99.31.164.28 ( talk) 20:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is this article listed under the category of Apocalypticism? Although it mentions his mother may have been a doomsday prepper, nothing in this article suggests the perpetrator committed the crime because of end-of-the-world leanings. 98.221.141.21 ( talk) 20:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The article currently reads: Sen. "Dianne Feinstein said she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.[101] Critics of this move call it purely political ..." Unfortunately, the second sentence links to a 2005 article which certainly cannot be criticizing Diane Feinstein's announcement today. 24.151.50.173 ( talk) 22:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposed for inclusion in some way, shape or form: "Magazines that fed bullets into the primary firearm used to kill 26 children and adults at a Connecticut school would have been banned under state legislation that the National Rifle Association and gunmakers successfully fought. The shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Adam Lanza, 20, used a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle with magazines containing 30 rounds as his main weapon, said Connecticut State Police Lieutenant Paul Vance at a news conference today. A proposal in March 2011 would have made it a felony to possess magazines with more than 10 bullets and required owners to surrender them to law enforcement or remove them from the state. Opponents sent more than 30,000 e-mails and letters to state lawmakers as part of a campaign organized by the NRA and other gun advocates, said Robert Crook, head of the Hartford- based Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, which opposed the legislation. “The legislators got swamped by NRA emails,” said Betty Gallo, who lobbied on behalf of the legislation for Southport- based Connecticut Against Gun Violence. “They were scared of the NRA and the political backlash.” ... The Connecticut shooting is the latest mass murder in which the gunman’s arsenal included a high-capacity magazine. Connecticut’s bill was written in response to an attack last year in Tuscon, Arizona, that killed six and injured U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, said Gallo." Ban on 30-Round Gun Magazines in Connecticut Died After Pressure 24.151.50.173 ( talk) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Along the lines of politicizing an article that should not be about politics, why is there a link to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the See also section? -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 01:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and from the other side of the debate the calls for reduction of restrictions to allow the teachers to be armed. If we let the article become a coatrack, gun debate-related material in this article would dwarf the actual topic. North8000 ( talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If anybody wanted to know the kind of people who become teachers, they need only read of the bravery of the staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It starts with the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, who had the presence of mind to turn on the school intercom, broadcasting screaming and gunshots into every classroom, so that others had time to take cover. "That saved a lot of people," said teacher Theodore Varga, who survived the massacre. Hochsprung was in a meeting with a parent and senior staff when Lanza began shooting nearby. At the sound of gunshots and screaming, some in her office dived for cover, but Hochsprung and the school's psychologist, Mary Sherlach, 56, ran out to confront Lanza, shouting back to the others to lock the door. They were both shot dead, Hochsprung as she lunged at the killer. -- 91.66.8.86 ( talk) 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for quoting The Independent. What do you want us to do with it? RGloucester ( talk) 00:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
As discussed, this request is premature. Numerous possible names have been suggested, and it's too early to determine which will predominate among reliable sources and otherwise meet the needs of an encyclopedia article's title. — David Levy 01:26/01:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting → Newtown shooting – Despite most of the shooting taking place inside Sandy Hook Elementary School, the criminal did kill his mother at his home. 68.44.51.49 ( talk) 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title of this article be "Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre" rather than "Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting"? I note that the Virginia Tech massacre was called a "massacre," not a "shooting." Certainly the number of people murdered and the manner in which they were murdered warrants the term "massacre." Chisme ( talk) 01:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
We are currently not documenting a whole raft of material pertaining to the aftermath, while in many cases I agree with the specifics I am a little worried by this as a blanket approach. It is certainly valid to say that such-and-such a point is not significant to the article, but we are past the point, I think, where
Aftermath of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can be considered non-notable - indeed the majority of the article, or close to it, is already about the aftermath. The problem with suggesting that we delay this stuff is that it in itself skews our coverage. There is, for example massive coverage of the funerals, comments by parents etc. While we should not go into great detail about these events we should be reporting that the coverage is extensive. In fact reporting on media coverage is one of the things we seem to do well. The "aftermath" article should probably be spun off when there is sufficient material, rather than written separately, partly because we do not know now what will be the significant and notable parts, though obviously we suspect gun control.
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC).
Be on the look out. The latest claim is that Adam "snapped" because he learned that his mother was about to commit him to a psych ward. See: School gunman Adam Lanza may have snapped over fears mother was going to send him to psychiatric facility. If/when it gets reported by reliable sources, it offers good information on "motive" for this article. Also, there is some info in there about Adam resenting the school kids because his mom "loved them more than she loved him", evidenced (in his mind, at least) by the fact that she was about to commit him. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 22:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to rein in Bookworm857158367 ( talk · contribs), who in my opinion is adding way too much detail that does not pertain to the development of the shooting. I'll say it again: not every person's actions during the events needs to be tracked. See my reverts here and here. Drmies ( talk) 03:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm copying this from the talk page of David Levy ( talk · contribs). I'd like a quick consensus on whether or not we should include in the list of victims that Hammond was a lead teacher rather than just a teacher. David (correct me if I summarize incorrectly) says it's a minor detail that messes with the layout, the IP thinks that it's an important enough detail--and for now I tend to agree with them.
Hi David--I'm going to undo this one. Column width is important, but she is more important. Plus, she just got the promotion. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The article states: The National Rifle Association of America said it was shocked and saddened by the tragedy in Newtown, and is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again", [1] although it has in the past strenuously fought against all such measures. [2]
The last clause (which I have italicized in boldface) is inappropriate and inapplicable. Or, at the very least, it is not well-written to describe what it is attempting to describe. I deleted it, and the original poster reinstated it. A third editor also deleted it, and the original poster again reinstated it. Consensus on this issue? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know which WP policy it violates, but it seems to be inflammatory and biased given the context of the statement and article. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 05:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There's an odd statement in the Perpetrator section about Lanza's mother. It says, "According to her sister-in-law, she belonged to the
Doomsday Preppers.
[3]
[4]". The wikilink is to the site of a TV show called Doomsday Preppers. First, someone can not "belong to" a TV show. They could appear on the show, or be featured on the show, but they cannot belong to a show. Second, only one of the two cites even mention the term "Doomsday Prepper", but it's mentioned in a different context; it talks about Doomsday Preppers as a movement, not as a TV show. Does anyone know anything about this. Something just seems very wrong about this, particularly because it links to that TV show article even though there's no evidence that she was on the show. And the second cite says nothing about Doomsday Preppers at all, so why is it being used to support the sentence?? It just alludes to her being a survivalist. Also, are there concerns of BLP violations with this content? I noticed there's a hidden note also next to the text that says "NOTE: Marsha Lanza later changed her story and said Nancy had four guns or so and kept them for the sake of safety as a single woman." I just wanted to bring this up so some experienced editors can decide what to do with it. Thanks. --
76.189.123.142 (
talk) 05:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If you read the dailymail article which is the ultimate source of the claim, its full of tabloid sensational quotes all over the place. Additionally, if we are going to include that information, we should at least include the full quote, which talks about positive aspects of the Mother's life as well. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I took this out for now. There's an awful lot of people - friends, neighbors - that news sources interviewed that say none of this survivalist stuff is accurate. She was just a legal gun owner/enthusiast, enjoyed target practice, like so many millions of other innocent Americans, according to them. Wait for an official report on this? I don't trust these rumored-stories. The press has had to eat it now on at least three occasions for this incident. We can wait a few days can we not? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There does seem to be some credible accounts in reliable sources [9] that Nancy was preparing for an economic collapse at the very least. My only contribution was that the link should be to the article Apocalypticism (the philosophy), not one about the various methods of destruction. So if we are waiting until tomorrow, and someone else adds that content back, please consider this. Greg Bard ( talk) 00:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
To whomever added the headings to the list (Perpetrator's mother, School staff, Students)... nice job. It looks good and makes sense. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 06:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The only thing I think looks bad is that for two of the children, the age is sandwiched between two cites (Madeleine Hsu and Ana Marquez-Greene). See below. That should be fixed so that the two cites are at the end, after the age.
-- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 06:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lanza's use of certain video games is now getting focused coverage by RS media -- see, e.g., this Telegraph article. Someone might consider how best to sift it in.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the Perpetrator section, can someone move the cite so it's not sandwiched in between the city and state. See below. The problem is that two wikilinks are being used (one for city and one for state), instead of just using one for both ( Exeter, New Hampshire). So can someone move the cite so it's after New Hampshire? Thanks.
-- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 07:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
[[Exeter, New Hampshire]]
).
Ryan
Vesey 07:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)I saw a feedback suggestion [10] and thought I'd bring it up here. If someone was willing to put together a collage, would it meet our non-free image requirements as identification of the victims? Ryan Vesey 07:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
1. Looks like the media is now stating Nancy Lanza was shot 4 times while she slept. 2. Did Marsh Lanza really "change her story" about Nancy keeping the guns simply for safety, or was she misquoted in the earlier news reports? After all, she says she had not seen the family since the shooter was 3 years old. CNN had a video with several neighbors who also say any of these survivalist stories are bunk, and she was a responsible gun-owner and a good mother, friendly, just a normal mom with a troubled child whom she worked hard to help. Anyway, if there is no basis for the "change of story" note on the reference, it should be removed ASAP. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 11:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
With the small pgph under the Victims heading and the float-right list of victims, the picture of Lanza takes visual focus on the page. What is the consensus of the group to change the format of the long thin list into a columnar table inside the Victims heading and floating the image of Lanza. Should the image be scaled down? Bill D ( talk) 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to revert the moves made to the archived talk pages (they were moved, without discussion, to Talk:2012 Newtown school shooting/Archive x) and I screwed one of them up--I moved Archive 3 to Archive 4. I feel an acute heart attack coming up (metaphorically) and I can't wrap my feeble brain around what I messed up and how to straighten it out. Your immediate help is appreciated--with the archives, that is; I'll be fine. With my apologies, and a private rant for whoever started renaming archived pages. Drmies ( talk) 15:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the sources support the claim that a shotgun was found in the trunk of Lanza's car. Jaybeee3 ( talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The sources are unfortunately retroactively editing their articles, and this particular item is complicated as it was originally reported that the bushmaster was found in the trunk. The following search shows several sources discussing the gun found in the trunk though.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Good article, coherently makes some decent arguments for both sides that might be useful for a NPOV presentation of the issues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/18/a-better-target-for-gun-control/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Who was the teacher shot in the classroom in which the first-grader led his friends out the door?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.7.211 ( talk • contribs)
But if that was Soto, then I (humbly) think the editor should either -- 1)mention her name where he describes the heroic act of the first-grader, or 2) move that sentence back, to the earlier account of Soto's encounter with the shooter. I understand my initial question wasn't worded well ("teacher shot in the classroom, etc.") and I wasn't careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.7.211 ( talk) 03:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to revisit adding the information about Cerberus' decision to sell Freedom Group, maker of the Bushmaster rifle used (and also the Marlin rifle, although I haven't seen that in the press). Of (arguably) the three most important American newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post, the Journal and the Post carried the story on page 1 [12], [13] and the NYTimes carried the story on page 1 of the business section. [14].
This is clearly important, as we can see from its coverage in secondary sources, and it is directly linked by the company to this event. It warrants a few sentences. GabrielF ( talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The Clackamas Town Center shooting article mentions this event in a respectable manner. Is there still consensus that the Clackamas Town Center shooting should not be mentioned or linked within this article? Many sources mention both events, especially in the context of the ongoing debate over gun control. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a very interesting article in today's The News-Times, (Danbury News-Times) - the major newspaper for the Newtown/Sandy Hook area - about how the Newtown school district is going to essentially replicate Sandy Hook elementary at a nearby vacant school, down to the smallest details. NBC News said that 98% of the furniture, equipment, and supplies will be moved to the new school. I'm not sure if there's anything in the story that's worthy of inclusion in this article, but I just wanted to point it out. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 20:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need 30 references? Do we really need a footnote after each name, replicated 30 times? I assume that we can find one cite that lists all names ... and just cite that one source one time (at the top or bottom of the list). No? Having 30 different footnotes is unnecessary, distracting, and unaesthetic. Any thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 21:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why are we referring to him as "ex-husband" and by residence and occupation, but not by name (although his name is found in the title of the reference)? Is this some sort of a refined BLP exercise that I am missing? He's made a public statement and everything, and it's been widely reported who he is, so I don't see why we're omitting his name. I added it at some point, but it's been removed. -- Y not? 21:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, his name is already in the article - it's just in the reference section right now. -- Y not? 22:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion, should we remove the father's name from the Reactions section? It says, "The day after the shootings, Peter Lanza, the perpetrator's father, released a statement:". I propose changing it to "The day after the shootings, the perpetrator's father released a statement:". Feel free to indicate below if you Support or Oppose this proposed removal. Thanks. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 23:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Previously, see archive.
Here is an image of the Bushmaster semi-auto used in the shooting. Any objection to putting this image in the article where the weapons are described? Chisme ( talk) 23:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, Iran's state-run news service now claims that Israel was behind the shooting. A harebrained and offensive conspiracy theory for sure, but considering that it's actually a foreign government making the claim (and a very prominent one in the region at that), does that make it notable or worth mentioning? LonelyBoy2012 ( talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Responding to the OP - If you read the Press TV article the source of this claim is "Michael Harris" who is described in the Press TV article as "a former Republican candidate for governor of Arizona and GOP campaign finance chairman." The Michael Harris article on Wikipedia is a disambiguation page with none of the people listed seeming to match the Michael Harris we are interested in.
A check on Google News finds that apparently only the Iranians were able to detect Mr. Harris's "internationally televised news broadcast."
Shalom Life has a rebuttal to the Iranians. They describe Harris in less flattering terms as "The journalist, Michael Harris, is the financial editor at Veterans Today a website known more for its anti-Semitic and anti-Israel conspiracy theories, than journalism of any kind."
Michael Harris is probably Mike Harris who is listed as a Financial Editor, one of the Speakers Bureau, and one of the Radio Hosts for Veterans Today. [15] I learned that Veterans Today banned links to Wikipedia last year which is probably why they needed to shake the Press TV tree to get our attention. [16] -- Marc Kupper| talk 01:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
(UTC)
There is a tradition of including international reactions to dramatic events when there are, so putting it in a section dedicated to such reactions would seem reasonable. — SniperMaské ( talk) 13:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I realize that people pushing to get an article for the shooter, but I would like to reaffirm my request to trim down the Perpetrator section here. I find the current state, where we have 4 lines about the victims, mostly about the process of their identification and bodies. While the shooter get his "sad" life story memorized here, insulting.-- Mor2 ( talk) 03:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, if we have the shooter picture, I'll appreciate if someone can upload one for the victims. Maybe something like this [17] -- Mor2 ( talk) 04:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mor2. The Victims section needs to be more informative. Photos of the victims are now published, and there is enough information "out there" to provide a very short biography aside each one. I make every attempt to view wikipedia through a non-emotional lens, and having the list of victims on the same screen as the perpetrator photo just feels wrong. He deserves mention, of course, but the victims are the story. While the artile is indeed about the shooting and one can't have a shooting without a shooter, the victims are what makes this shooting so different from all the others. The victims are the reason this is an international story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoinonia ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed before but in the archives, but I think there's general agreement we don't need excessive detail on the specifics / minute-by-minute movement within the event. We can let other resources provide those answers, but that is not ours to give in that much detail. (Those that might jump to the Columbine article should recognize that we also agree that one is far far far too details as well, and should not be used as an example). This again is maybe where Wikinews would be better to spell this out, and we can certainly link to that. -- MASEM ( t) 06:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I would think that if there is particular relevance to some portion of the timeline, that portion should be included. For example, although it may still be premature at this point to edit the article to specify how long it took police to arrive at the scene, there are media reports that it took some 20 minutes from the first 911 call, and there is unconfirmed information that the police station is only 2.3 miles away from the school. If this information is true, it might raise questions about police performance that is directly relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopkins200 ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That's what I heard on the radio. I don't know where, and I don't know where they'll go permanently, but it's time to at least say the kids are back in school.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I find it a bit surprising that the kids would be put into school this early following such a horrific tragedy, it must be hard on them.
There is a new report that Adam Lanza was taking the drug Fanapt ( Iloperidone). See: The Antipsychotic Prescribed To Adam Lanza Has A Troubled History All Its Own. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk)
There is a slight inconsistency in these two sentences regarding the weapons used:
At home, Lanza "had access" to three more firearms: a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle, but it is not clear where these weapons were. Lanza used the .22 Marlin rifle to kill his mother, but did not bring that weapon to the school.
Specifically, I think the .22 Marlin should be dropped from the first sentence since we do have information from the CT medical examiner (sourced to the Hartford Courant) about the .22 Marlin. GabrielF ( talk) 17:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
At home, Lanza "had access" to three more firearms: a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle. Lanza used the .22 Marlin rifle to kill his mother, but did not bring that weapon to the school.
There is conflicting reports regarding the weapons used. NBC reported this morning that 4 handguns were used by shooter and that the ar-15 wasn't used and was found in the vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.205.239 ( talk) 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"At least three guns were found -- a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car," [10]
Why don't we just limit this to items that are directly about the topic, not items that are just somehow related to the topic? For an active prominent article like this, the latter is a bottomless pit coatrack. North8000 ( talk) 18:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a little while ago that the Victim's section actually only comprises two new sentences, one saying that the bodies were removed and identified during the night, the other saying that a State Trooper had been assigned to each family to support them. The sentence about multiple gun shot wounds to each victim is already covered in the Investigation section. Since the two victim sentences themselves actually fit well into the Investigation section, I tried a WP:BOLD edit to see what would happen if we simply incorporated the sentences there, which has the added advantage of moving the Victim's list (it floats at page right) up and away from the Perpetrator section, which I've never liked because the previous section ended up listing out all the names alongside Lanza's biographic section. Take a look and judge for yourself. I was being bold here, so feel free to revert me if you feel I've made things worse by doing this. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 03:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The article states: "Some time before 9:30 a.m. (1430 UTC) on December 14, 2012, Adam Peter Lanza ...". Is the UTC time supposed to have a colon, like the regular, standard time? Or is the colon deliberately left out? In other words, should it be listed as 1430 UTC, or 14:30 UTC? I looked at the UTC article, but it was of no help. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
An editor deleted all the cited-refs for the children in the 'Killed Infobox', but left a massive amount of redlinks in the wake of that edit. I am trying to fix it now. Shearonink ( talk) 06:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Understanding mortality numbers requires context. The media often fails to provide it, but we can. Underlying Cause of Death, 1999-2010 (aka "Detailed Mortality (2010)") on CDC WONDER is a source.
Some US numbers: 2010 US deaths age 6 (466) and 7 (461) were 927. Of which 359 were non-disease (ICD-10 Codes V01-Y89 (External causes)), of which 166 were transport accidents, and 40 assault. Ages 5-9, US, 2010, were 2,330 total, 919 non-disease, 108 assault. Some CT numbers: 2008-2010 CT deaths (3 years) were 22, or 7.3 per year. 2000-2010 CT non-disease deaths (11 years) were 23. Ages 5-9, CT, 1999-2010 (12 years) were 278 total, 85 non-disease, 10 assault.
Analysis. So for the US, 20 deaths ages 6 and 7, represent 8 days of average US mortality for ages 6-7, 20 days of non-disease, and half a year of assault. Or 3 days of average for ages 5-9, 8 days of non-disease, and 68 days of assault. But CT is a small state (1% of US population). So the deaths represent three years of average CT mortality for ages 6-7, more than a decade of non-disease, and several decades of assault. Or a year of average mortality for ages 5-9, three years of non-disease, and decades of assault.
Writer notebook. Saying "more children than" is problematic, because infant mortality is high. "more children this age than" is ambiguous in age range, but if the comparison is imprecise enough, it can be correct regardless.
So what are some lines that might be added to the article to provide context? ... more children this age than CT usually loses in a year; loses to accidents in a years; loses to assault in decades. ... is a big part of the children this age lost to assault this year in the US; was only a small part of all children this age who died this year in the US.
Disclaimer: It's late, and I didn't double check the work. Someone else will have to take on any edits.
Re WP:NOR, I suggest this was routine calculation plus wordsmithing, but at some point, the selection of numbers from a database starts looking like synthesis of non-explicit conclusion, and what would a cite look like, so... I don't know how to call it. 76.24.26.198 ( talk) 08:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Per this discussion I've put the "had" back in. The last time it was removed without discussion; it would be nice to see it being given some thought this time. DBaK ( talk) 09:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
If you think that made your head explode, try reading Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. LOL! Ok...let consensus decide the "had", but I kinda support the usage.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 00:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The article currently states: The massacre is the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It is also the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the Bath School bombings of 1927. Another editor wants it to read: The massacre was the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It was also the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the Bath School bombings of 1927. Any consensus? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
A Virginia man was arrested Wednesday after police say he brought a 2-by-4-foot board with the words 'High Powered Rifle' written on its side into Sandy Hook Elementary School in the town of Strasburg.
Interesting, but I don't see the direct link. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 21:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Now that things are a little calmer, I think we should re-consider whether the assertions by Huckabee, Fischer and others (that their God had abandoned the schools because children are no longer forced to worship Him by government teachers) belong in the article, properly sourced and without the POV my sarcasm conveys. I would say that the political backlash indicates that it is notable; certainly far more so than some pro sports team's "tribute". -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
There have been reactions like, (a) higher gun sales (b) schools ought to be provided with guns, with staff trained in their use (c) Divine retribution (d) too many women in the school allowed the incident to happen. (e) the incident is not as serious as the many abortions that happen in USA each day... These reactions have come from notable persons, people's representatives, and other public persons. The exclusion of such reactions from the article makes this article unbalanced. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 02:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed this POVish statement from the Illinois State Rifle Association, as well as the sentence immediately after it which is no longer true:
Richard Pearson, executive of the Illinois State Rifle Association, told the Chicago Sun-Times, "The problem we have is a gun-free zone. We have a gun-free zone around a school. Every crazy person knows that. And so, the gun-free zone is like a magnet for the lunatics. He or she knows there won’t be any resistance there". Pearson also said, "Had there been a teacher who was armed, this wouldn’t have happened". [11] Gun rights activists declined to comment, with all but one choosing not to appear on talk shows the first Sunday after the shootings. [12]
Content such as this risks taking this article about the shooting in a very political direction. I think it would be better for a content fork article that discusses the array of reactions that arise from this shooting. - Mr X 01:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC) - Mr X 01:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Its just another reaction, why the special heading? -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 05:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it necessary to list other killers thought to have had Autism/Aspergers syndrome? This seems to promote the idea that there's a link between Autism/Aspergers and violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.196.252 ( talk) 16:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, there is evidence that Autism/Aspergers has made up an aspect of the total psychological makeup of some spree killers (an already small group of people). And the fact that they were spree killers, not serial killers, etc, is significant (for researchers). After this attack, the killers thought to come within the "autism-spectrum" (or whatever their name happens to be this particular decade) will certainly come in for closer scrutiny & study as a sub-group within the larger spree killer group. TreMinty ( talk) 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a terrible idea, however saying which shooters had Asperger's is very subjective and usually not based on scientific study. For instance some people say that the Virginia Tech shooter had Asperger's some don't, some people even say that the Dark Knight shooter had it, others don't. So as you can see there is no unanimous agreement on who had it and who didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 ( talk) 21:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The quote above says it all "There is no evidence of a link between the two" - therefore there is no reason to make them a "See also". Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree that Asperger's is irrelevant here and in any article where it might be discussed as related to a crime. The DSM has just (December 2012) deleted Asperger's as a separate topic; it is now considered part of the autism spectrum. 71.163.114.49 ( talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason why Victoria Soto is the only name without a cite on the Killed list (besides Lanza's mother)? I thought there used to be one. There have been many stories about her in reliable sources, including this one from today's New York Times. Just wanted to point this out in case it needs addressed. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 20:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Should there be a list of all those who lost their life? I can see a yes and a no. Please discuss and decide.
Yes: Part of history. No: Excessive list of non-notable people.
I lean toward yes, inclusion. Auchansa ( talk) 05:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of the possibility that Lanza was misdiagnosed? This columnist ( Robert Stacy McCain) has suggested Lanza actually had childhood onset schizophrenia, which fits better with what we know about him (as well as with the shooting; there's a known connection between schizophrenia and violence while there isn't one for Asperger's). LonelyBoy2012 ( talk) 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Might suggest WikiPedia use a professional standard here. Diagnosis must be made by someone state licensed to do so. Would suggest that the licensed person making any diagnosis be required to follow their own professions generally accepted standards. i.e. they administered a broad array of well accepted psychological tests (or reviewed prior testing results), meet with the person directly, typically on several occasions, had free access to and reviewed other records, had input from third parties, etc. The diagnosis absolutely must then be reduced to, and committed to in writing, ideally as part of a full report that concludes with the specific diagnosis, and perhaps includes discussion other potentially alternative diagnosis, and providing reasonable explanation for the conclusions. Suggest the professional standing of anyone claiming to make a diagnosis be completely verified (license number, currently licensed, etc.)
Any subsequent suggestion of "misdiagnosis" should likewise be approached with a high degree of skepticism. Ideally it would be someone officially licensed, with full access to all prior records. Beyond that there may be "Experts" who perform reasonable forensic evaluations and perhaps can offer expert opinion. Suggest not publishing such opinions without holding "experts" to a high level of expertise in the subject they are expressing their opinion on, and that they have significant input data from this case specifically to draw from. Examples would include psychologists and psychiatrists with a reasonably long and independently verifiable track record in any of the following: bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dementia, criminal behavior, homicide / suicide forensics, anti-social personality disorder, etc.
Would basically ignore all other non verified "expert" opinion. Rick ( talk) 18:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The article states: The massacre is the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Another editor wants to change it to: The massacre is the second-deadliest shooting in an educational institution in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Any consensus? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
NYBankoff
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Investigators look for insight into Newtown gunman's mind
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).greenwichtime
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nydailynews4
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).seacoastonline
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Lieberman
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
can we get this article locked please. too much reported rumours are being listed without real facts being established — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.88.162 ( talk) 19:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should include any number of dead unsourced, especially when the facts are not yet clear. CNN is reporting "close to 20", which isn't 27. Against the current ( talk) 18:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...well, read the news! (your reason here) -- MoRsE ( talk) 18:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
20 children were killed. That should be changed. Camyoung54 ( talk) 23:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no source for who the perpetrator was. Should we just remove that until we get a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.250.2 ( talk) 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The shooter's name has now been confirmed by CNN. And I think I've found his Facebook page. It has a few pictures of him. Hard to be 100% sure, but the name matches, as does the city where he lives (Hoboken) and of origin (Newtown). Not sure if it should be added to the article, or how to present it, so I'll just post it here. If anyone thinks it's relevant, feel free to add it in: http://www.facebook.com/rlanza. Also, a google search on his name + Newtown seems to indicate that he was a honor roll student at Newtown High School. Desdenova ( talk)
I'ts not Ryan Lanza,It's Adam Lanza "law enforcement official identified the shooter as Adam Lanza and that a brother, Ryan Lanza, had been questioned."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school.html?_r=0 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
150.250.122.86 (
talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep for now - Since this happened recently, article should be kept for two weeks to determine WP:Recentism. After this, it should be kept (or redirected to Sandy Hook Elementary School).-- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... there should be information readily available in Wikipedia. People looking it from here. It also seems that this event is unfortunately going to be significant. -- 88.113.156.80 ( talk) 20:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the second most deadly school shooting in US history. It's the most savage one that has ever happened. A mass murderer who kills dozens of preteen child is an extremely rare phenomenon and one that certainly deserves attention. This guy clearly didn't kill for the attention or fame. If he did, he wouldn't have offed himself. So no, this article should NOT be deleted.
The article has already been speedy snow kept at AfD per the box at the top of this page. 2010 SO16 ( talk) 21:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Please add map of location. 155.201.35.58 ( talk) 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It should be something like "2012 Connecticut School Shooting." Coretheapple ( talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This is too much concern over something unimportant. The narrative in the future will tell us what the best name for this event is. Right now, we need to worry about the specifics of the event itself, and can worry about renaming it later. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I came looking for the article on this subject, and it really was a little difficult to find. I had no idea of the school name. ike9898 ( talk) 20:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
CNN says the shooter is named R--- L----. I'll wait to add this info in case it turns out to be incorrect. -- MoRsE ( talk) 19:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that it can be reported as Ryan Lanza, based on this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/14/school-shooting-connecticut/1769367/ Coretheapple ( talk) 19:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It was NOT Ryan; it was his brother Adam. Police officer made a mistake on a report and the news ran with it. http://www.ctpost.com/news/crime/article/AP-source-Suspect-is-24-younger-brother-held-4118962.php 76.20.209.221 ( talk) 22:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Almost certain it will be subject to vandalism. Thanks -- Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's refs to many articles that call it or refer to it as "connecticut school shooting:"
Leitmotiv ( talk) 19:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the sources cited refer to the event as "the Connecticut School Shooting" with such capitalization. I've removed this from the introduction three times, and it's been re-inserted. I am no longer interested in removing it but I don't think it's a legitimate alternate name and suggest that others decide for themselves. 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I keep trying to re add the completed usatoday ref Gary Stoller and Gary Strauss (14 December 2012). "26 reported killed in Newtown, Conn., school shooting". USA TODAY. Newtown, Conn. and each time I get an edit conflict.-- Auric 20:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This has no direct referenced connection to the Sandy Hook event and should not be included in the article. The Oregon shooting article is scheduled for deletion and is is of little significance. 66.116.62.178 ( talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The above event has no direct referenced connection to the Sandy Hook event and should not be included in the article. The Oregon shooting article is scheduled for deletion and is is of little significance.
66.116.62.178 ( talk) 20:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Please avoid needless words like this. As long as we're using reliable sources, there's no need to hedge our statements. Sancho 20:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/ 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Source-29-dead-including-22-children-in-Newtown-4118505.php has repeatedly been removed by someone claiming that it fails verification for the shooter father's school (Quinnipiac Univ.) which it does not. It says it clearly and the death toll has not been retracted. 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
More mainstream news sources reporting 29 dead, 22 kids:
I don't want to be accused of edit warring, but at this point it wouldn't bother me if someone accused me of claiming that other editors don't bother to read sources or do a Google News search before making a decision. 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The State Police officer giving a press conference right now is confirming 27 - 20 children, 6 adults, and the shooter. There is another adult victim at a second crime scene. Natalie ( talk) 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.ctpost.com/news/crime/article/AP-source-Suspect-is-24-younger-brother-held-4118962.php 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm watching someone on Fox saying that Ryan Lanza is in custody and that Adam Lanza was the shooter. The source also said the guns were registered to the mother. Keep an eye out for sources to confirm this. Ryan Vesey 20:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Uh oh. Someone is posting on Ryan Lanza's Facebook page claiming it wasn't him: https://twitter.com/MattBors/status/279672597837402112 2010 SO16 ( talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add reference for flag status.
Achbed ( talk) 20:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It is thought that 5 children were from the same family.-- Cotten134 ( talk) 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I heared there are other possible future shooters that are still at large? Should'nt they lock down all the schools in Connecticutt? One of my best friends lives there.-- Cotten134 ( talk) 20:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC) |
There seems to be extreme attention to this topic as there have been many new sections on this talk page whitin a few minutes.-- Cotten134 ( talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Pls fix the shooter ASAP, he is not named Ryan but Adam. [2] [3] Tyypos ( talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The suspect in the Connecticut school shootings is Adam Lanza, 20, the son of a teacher at the school where the shootings occurred, a law enforcement official said Friday. A second law enforcement official says the boy's mother, Nancy Lanza, is presumed dead. Adam Lanza's older brother, Ryan, 24, of Hoboken, N.J., is being questioned by police, said the first official. Earlier, a law enforcement official mistakenly transposed the brothers' first names." -- http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-source-20-year-old-suspect-had-ties-school 2010 SO16 ( talk) 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there any information on his motive? Pass a Method talk 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
One problem I have is that it seems to be undue to post the comments of a representative from another state. How then do we decide whether or not to post the opinion of Governor Mark Dayton or Representative Darrell Issa (randomly chosen). I think we should limit reactions to the President, Governor, senators from Connecticut, local rep, and other similar figures. The current statement from Nadler should probably be removed on those grounds. That being said, it is likely that this will bring up more comments on gun control. I believe that a section on gun control will be relevant sometime in the upcoming week. I think it's too early to report on it now, but I would disagree with the notion that it would be POV to post it later. Ryan Vesey 21:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a second murder scene at the home of the shooter and his victim mother, with at least one body. The house, per the local tax records appears to be (this is OR) located here: 41°24′32″N 73°13′40″W / 41.4090017°N 73.227745°W. Not adding to article at this time pending better sources. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the police have not released the suspects identity. If the news is reporting that, it is through unnamed or unofficial channels. This needs to be clarified. If you watch the official news conferences the lead police officers are saying they have not released the suspects identity. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 22:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I created an Adam Lanza page. please link to it. I am looking up information on him now Bobkeyes ( talk) 00:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Why? -- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
CNN just announced that the father was interviewed by the police, so obviously he's not dead and therefore this is not a patricide :-o Desdenova ( talk) 23:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe the death toll is 26, not 28. 18 kids and 6 adults killed on site. 2 children died at the hospital. 96.224.204.56 ( talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
it says 200 children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, before the gunman, identified as Adam Lanza, 20,[3] fatally shot himself it should say 20 not 200 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.72.250.141 (
talk) 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
page has been corrected thanks
Is it really necessary to have the whole sentence of the mother of the shooter being killed link to matricide?
Is there any reason why the various reactions are listed in a bullet list, rather than as a cohesive narrative? This seems to go against the grain of WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. - Mr X 22:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
To many edits made me edit conflict a lot trying to add a mother murder cide (forgot now) and I give up trying. Sorry for disruption I guess I'll stop trying. -- Hinata talk 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The second sentence should read
Twenty children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, before the gunman, identified as Adam Lanza, 20,[3] shot himself. Jpmarciano ( talk) 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Sandy Hook massacre is not the second deadliest shooting in American history; In fact it is the third, behind the Bath School Bombings and the Virginia Tech Massacre. Awesomeness169 ( talk) 23:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
BBC news reporting Adam Lanza killed both his parents, so how has his father refused to comment? 86.151.162.200 ( talk) 00:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Fox News said that a reporter told Lanza's father about the shooting. I think we should the father out until there is more verification (preferably from sources less biased and unreliable than Fox). Abigail 00:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Father and mother were divorced and lived in separate towns. Father was originally said to be killed in the home, but that was in error. Father is alive. SilverFox183 ( talk) 01:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Your teaser for this article on google has a major mistake. It gives the number 200 instead of 20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.51.110 ( talk) 00:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence is ambiguous: "The principal and school psychologist, identified by police as Mary Sherlach, 56, were among the dead." It makes it sound as if the principal and school psychologist were one and the same person. I suggest rewording it to "The school psychologist, identified by police as Mary Sherlach, 56, and the principal were among the dead." 66.165.22.190 ( talk) 00:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC) 66.165.22.190 ( talk) 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Jim N.
Updated info: CNN reports the principal as Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, age 47. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-shooting-school-principal/index.html?hpt=hp_c2:
According to various network television interviews of parents at the parking lot of the school, the authorities had someone in handcuffs wearing camouflage pants, and as they passed the crowd he looked at the parents and stated "I didn't do it." Is there a firm RELIABLE SOURCE yet of who this individual was? It would seem bizarre if the brother was just outside of the premises when the incident happened (according to the parents, he was in a wooded area adjacent to the school). HammerFilmFan ( talk) 01:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I undid a recent removal of the government reaction section. I don't feel especially strongly about this point, but our recent articles similar to this have these sorts of sections and I think that speaks to their appropriateness. See Virginia Tech massacre, for example.
I do think concern over their size blossoming is legitimate, but I don't think wholescale removal is appropriate. Shadowjams ( talk) 01:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Is the reaction section from other world leaders notable? It's just saying that they are "horrified" about the massacre, but I don't think it adds any encyclopedic value. 66.68.218.69 ( talk) 01:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It makes sense for the VT article to focus on reactions from South Korea because the gunman was Korean. What's being said here is what makes the reactions not notable. MrX said that "listing every reaction does not add much to the knowledge of the subject, especially when it consists mostly of cliches such as ...thoughts and prayers...deeply saddened...horrified..." and WWGB described them as "predictable, non-notable knee-jerk comments written by media hacks." Even the IP editor above points out how worthless the comments are. We don't need them. They don't add anything to the page. However, I would not be opposed to what HiLo48 suggested above. TheArguer SAY HI! 01:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The article currently uses the format "Prime Minister X stated on Twitter that..." - this is almost certainly incorrect, as there is no proof anyone but a staffer wrote these Facebook and Twitter messages. I suggest the format be changed to "Prime Minister X's Twitter account carried the message that..." 68.144.172.8 ( talk) 03:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
"Neither handgun would have been legal for the gunman to possess at the time of the incident, as he was under 21 years of age"
This is a pathetic attempt to push Anti-Gun Control complaints into the article in the wake of the shooting. This is not a matter of a "criminal having a gun", the guns were legal and readily available. Trying to paint this as a "take our guns and only criminals will have guns" doesn't apply. The firearms were LEGAL. They were legally purchased firearms left unsecured in a home where the shooter lived.
Delete that sentence. It has no place in this article outside of a possible future "reactions" or "controversy" section. It's place there is clear POV pushing. 124.148.64.144 ( talk) 02:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane
Oh please, peddle that ignorance somewhere else. It's illegality is NOT in question and you're obvious position on this issue is blatant since you just implied people don't understand murdering children to be illegal.
That the use of the firearms was illegal has no place in this article outside of discussion regarding reactions. As such it is at the top of the article and specifically details something that has NO place outside of obvious Anti-Gun Control POV pushing. It is a pitiful attempt to push the classic Anti-Gun Control fallacy of "if you take our guns only criminals will have guns" in the face of the already established illegal murder of children and tragedy. That gun-nuts would use this article to attempt to push such a POV is sickening and it needs to be deleted immediate.
If you desperately want it in there, you can explain exactly what relevance it has to being presented at all in that particular section. Otherwise it is clearly an attempt to push that POV at the very beginning of the article to quell the rising gun-control sentiment in the wake of the shooting. It can be included if and when we introduce a reactions or controversy section, as it's place as presented with the SUBJECT of the illegality of the ownership and use will be brought up. Currently it has been shoved in a section it has no place in to cause a deliberate POV pushing.
Delete it immediately. 124.148.64.144 ( talk) 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane
a handgun cannot be purchased by someone under 21 from an FFL. But they may posses and use one, or be given one. I believe they may also legally purchase one from a private seller. This is somewhat addressed in this source : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/25/us-usa-handguns-decision-idUSBRE89O1D120121025?feedType=RSS Gaijin42 ( talk) 04:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
We report what is verifiable, if that means politicians religious comments then we put that in the article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I hope the religious stuff will be limited, if not completely deleted. It's quite obvious that the 27 people weren't given devine protection, as there's no God. GoodDay ( talk) 02:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
|
This conversation isn't going anywhere good as of now. gwickwire talk edits 03:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed the image in the infobox for a couple of reasons. First it appears to be a clear copyright violation, taken from news reports without permission. Additionally, an image of scared minors who's faces are clearly visible is not necessary here. Let's leave the exploitation to the media. We done need it here.-- RadioFan ( talk) 02:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I deleted it while you guys were busy removing it. The fair use rationale was terrible. Rklawton ( talk) 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a regular editor, please forgive errors, but: the reference article link for "somewhat autistic" no longer contains that phrase. I'm pretty sure it did earlier and I'm wondering if the source news article was edited after the fact. In short, as of this posting, there is no reference for the quote that the shooter was somewhat autistic. (As of right now, it is footnote #22) 98.26.2.78 ( talk) 02:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The "somewhat autistic" comment appears to be an inflammatory and prejudiced comment, not based on objective fact reporting since (1) it is hearsay by Adam's brother instead of a direct quote from a qualified medical practitioner who actually evaluated Adam, (2) there is no such thing as "somewhat autistic", since by definition (i.e. -- re:APA DSM V or DSM IV) either you are autistic or you or not, and (3) autistic people do not have any history of being serial murderers, have resorted to any mass violence, or have participated in any brutal killing. Therefore the reference to the phrase "somewhat autistic" should either be stricken or it's unprofessional and medical unsoundness should be clearly pointed out. HY1802D ( talk) 03:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The article says: "Some news organizations incorrectly showed photos from a Facebook page of a man with the same name as Ryan."
The Facebook page was from Ryan Lanza, as in, Adam's brother, not from "a man with the same name as Ryan".
Can we please be WP:CIVIL here? |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Too many "editors" acting like policemen rather than actually contributing. Start adding stuff, or get out of the way, fer cryin' out loud! grrr
|
thumbnail thumbnail Is posible?
Thanks. Deivismaster ( talk) 03:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It was not adam it was ryan who did the shooting. please change the name Bzane2 ( talk) 03:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
State Police confirm that one shooter is dead. A second gunman is apparently at large and multiple people have been shot, sources told ABC News.
http://news.yahoo.com/two-gunmen-elementary-school-shooting-151955649--abc-news-topstories.html
According to one television report, a second man was caught by police in an adjoining wood, handcuffed and escorted from the scene. There were very few non-fatal injuries reported, indicating that once targeted, there was rarely any chance of escape, and that the gunman was unusually accurate in his fire.Vance said the majority of killings took place in one section of the school, in two rooms".
http://www.smh.com.au/world/connecticut-shooting-leaves-20-children-dead-20121215-2bfw3.html
I see there is a discussion to delete which has been closed and refused.
I agree that this article should be kept according to the culture of Wikipedia. However, I question to whether this process loses sight of the big picture. We should ask if the big news of the day deserves a Wikipedia article.
If we ask people what the bad news of the past was, the Columbine shooting certainly qualifies. However, there are articles in Wikipedia of the murder of people, which I think do not qualify. Yet, if you read the rules, you will find that even those obscure articles pass the criteria because there are a lot of newspaper articles about them.
If you ask my opinion, I think it is not clear whether this event will be a historical event or not.
Reasonableplease ( talk) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a collection of reactions from world leaders: http://sfy.co/fCbr Lufkens ( talk) 23:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
...and will be irrelevant (and hence deleted) after a few days. But we have a couple of editors determined to include this detail under Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Reactions.
I don't want an edit war, but this content is just silly. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are the local churches' extended hours not noteworthy? Shouldn't we be sensitive to the locals reading the article? It's about a local event, after all, even if it is internationally newsworthy. 2010 SO16 ( talk) 00:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The red cross is mentioned in many disaster articles.
Why should this one be different? -- Agnostihuck ( talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I have found a source ( The Hartford Courant) describing Lanza's path through the school which says he demanded to know where Soto's students were. Given that 7 of her students survived by hiding in the closet (and are therefore the only possible witnesses, I don't think we can still say that, "Witnesses said that throughout the incident, they never heard the perpetrator say a word." Abductive ( reasoning) 20:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms could be added to the talk page, if there is an effect on firearms distribution. There is already an effect in terms of discussion of such changes. I didnt know about this project until just now (wasnt even editing here). 99.31.164.28 ( talk) 20:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is this article listed under the category of Apocalypticism? Although it mentions his mother may have been a doomsday prepper, nothing in this article suggests the perpetrator committed the crime because of end-of-the-world leanings. 98.221.141.21 ( talk) 20:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The article currently reads: Sen. "Dianne Feinstein said she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.[101] Critics of this move call it purely political ..." Unfortunately, the second sentence links to a 2005 article which certainly cannot be criticizing Diane Feinstein's announcement today. 24.151.50.173 ( talk) 22:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposed for inclusion in some way, shape or form: "Magazines that fed bullets into the primary firearm used to kill 26 children and adults at a Connecticut school would have been banned under state legislation that the National Rifle Association and gunmakers successfully fought. The shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Adam Lanza, 20, used a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle with magazines containing 30 rounds as his main weapon, said Connecticut State Police Lieutenant Paul Vance at a news conference today. A proposal in March 2011 would have made it a felony to possess magazines with more than 10 bullets and required owners to surrender them to law enforcement or remove them from the state. Opponents sent more than 30,000 e-mails and letters to state lawmakers as part of a campaign organized by the NRA and other gun advocates, said Robert Crook, head of the Hartford- based Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, which opposed the legislation. “The legislators got swamped by NRA emails,” said Betty Gallo, who lobbied on behalf of the legislation for Southport- based Connecticut Against Gun Violence. “They were scared of the NRA and the political backlash.” ... The Connecticut shooting is the latest mass murder in which the gunman’s arsenal included a high-capacity magazine. Connecticut’s bill was written in response to an attack last year in Tuscon, Arizona, that killed six and injured U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, said Gallo." Ban on 30-Round Gun Magazines in Connecticut Died After Pressure 24.151.50.173 ( talk) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Along the lines of politicizing an article that should not be about politics, why is there a link to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the See also section? -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 01:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and from the other side of the debate the calls for reduction of restrictions to allow the teachers to be armed. If we let the article become a coatrack, gun debate-related material in this article would dwarf the actual topic. North8000 ( talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If anybody wanted to know the kind of people who become teachers, they need only read of the bravery of the staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It starts with the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, who had the presence of mind to turn on the school intercom, broadcasting screaming and gunshots into every classroom, so that others had time to take cover. "That saved a lot of people," said teacher Theodore Varga, who survived the massacre. Hochsprung was in a meeting with a parent and senior staff when Lanza began shooting nearby. At the sound of gunshots and screaming, some in her office dived for cover, but Hochsprung and the school's psychologist, Mary Sherlach, 56, ran out to confront Lanza, shouting back to the others to lock the door. They were both shot dead, Hochsprung as she lunged at the killer. -- 91.66.8.86 ( talk) 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for quoting The Independent. What do you want us to do with it? RGloucester ( talk) 00:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
As discussed, this request is premature. Numerous possible names have been suggested, and it's too early to determine which will predominate among reliable sources and otherwise meet the needs of an encyclopedia article's title. — David Levy 01:26/01:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting → Newtown shooting – Despite most of the shooting taking place inside Sandy Hook Elementary School, the criminal did kill his mother at his home. 68.44.51.49 ( talk) 01:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the title of this article be "Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre" rather than "Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting"? I note that the Virginia Tech massacre was called a "massacre," not a "shooting." Certainly the number of people murdered and the manner in which they were murdered warrants the term "massacre." Chisme ( talk) 01:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
We are currently not documenting a whole raft of material pertaining to the aftermath, while in many cases I agree with the specifics I am a little worried by this as a blanket approach. It is certainly valid to say that such-and-such a point is not significant to the article, but we are past the point, I think, where
Aftermath of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can be considered non-notable - indeed the majority of the article, or close to it, is already about the aftermath. The problem with suggesting that we delay this stuff is that it in itself skews our coverage. There is, for example massive coverage of the funerals, comments by parents etc. While we should not go into great detail about these events we should be reporting that the coverage is extensive. In fact reporting on media coverage is one of the things we seem to do well. The "aftermath" article should probably be spun off when there is sufficient material, rather than written separately, partly because we do not know now what will be the significant and notable parts, though obviously we suspect gun control.
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC).
Be on the look out. The latest claim is that Adam "snapped" because he learned that his mother was about to commit him to a psych ward. See: School gunman Adam Lanza may have snapped over fears mother was going to send him to psychiatric facility. If/when it gets reported by reliable sources, it offers good information on "motive" for this article. Also, there is some info in there about Adam resenting the school kids because his mom "loved them more than she loved him", evidenced (in his mind, at least) by the fact that she was about to commit him. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 22:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to rein in Bookworm857158367 ( talk · contribs), who in my opinion is adding way too much detail that does not pertain to the development of the shooting. I'll say it again: not every person's actions during the events needs to be tracked. See my reverts here and here. Drmies ( talk) 03:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm copying this from the talk page of David Levy ( talk · contribs). I'd like a quick consensus on whether or not we should include in the list of victims that Hammond was a lead teacher rather than just a teacher. David (correct me if I summarize incorrectly) says it's a minor detail that messes with the layout, the IP thinks that it's an important enough detail--and for now I tend to agree with them.
Hi David--I'm going to undo this one. Column width is important, but she is more important. Plus, she just got the promotion. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The article states: The National Rifle Association of America said it was shocked and saddened by the tragedy in Newtown, and is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again", [1] although it has in the past strenuously fought against all such measures. [2]
The last clause (which I have italicized in boldface) is inappropriate and inapplicable. Or, at the very least, it is not well-written to describe what it is attempting to describe. I deleted it, and the original poster reinstated it. A third editor also deleted it, and the original poster again reinstated it. Consensus on this issue? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 05:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know which WP policy it violates, but it seems to be inflammatory and biased given the context of the statement and article. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 05:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There's an odd statement in the Perpetrator section about Lanza's mother. It says, "According to her sister-in-law, she belonged to the
Doomsday Preppers.
[3]
[4]". The wikilink is to the site of a TV show called Doomsday Preppers. First, someone can not "belong to" a TV show. They could appear on the show, or be featured on the show, but they cannot belong to a show. Second, only one of the two cites even mention the term "Doomsday Prepper", but it's mentioned in a different context; it talks about Doomsday Preppers as a movement, not as a TV show. Does anyone know anything about this. Something just seems very wrong about this, particularly because it links to that TV show article even though there's no evidence that she was on the show. And the second cite says nothing about Doomsday Preppers at all, so why is it being used to support the sentence?? It just alludes to her being a survivalist. Also, are there concerns of BLP violations with this content? I noticed there's a hidden note also next to the text that says "NOTE: Marsha Lanza later changed her story and said Nancy had four guns or so and kept them for the sake of safety as a single woman." I just wanted to bring this up so some experienced editors can decide what to do with it. Thanks. --
76.189.123.142 (
talk) 05:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
If you read the dailymail article which is the ultimate source of the claim, its full of tabloid sensational quotes all over the place. Additionally, if we are going to include that information, we should at least include the full quote, which talks about positive aspects of the Mother's life as well. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I took this out for now. There's an awful lot of people - friends, neighbors - that news sources interviewed that say none of this survivalist stuff is accurate. She was just a legal gun owner/enthusiast, enjoyed target practice, like so many millions of other innocent Americans, according to them. Wait for an official report on this? I don't trust these rumored-stories. The press has had to eat it now on at least three occasions for this incident. We can wait a few days can we not? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There does seem to be some credible accounts in reliable sources [9] that Nancy was preparing for an economic collapse at the very least. My only contribution was that the link should be to the article Apocalypticism (the philosophy), not one about the various methods of destruction. So if we are waiting until tomorrow, and someone else adds that content back, please consider this. Greg Bard ( talk) 00:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
To whomever added the headings to the list (Perpetrator's mother, School staff, Students)... nice job. It looks good and makes sense. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 06:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The only thing I think looks bad is that for two of the children, the age is sandwiched between two cites (Madeleine Hsu and Ana Marquez-Greene). See below. That should be fixed so that the two cites are at the end, after the age.
-- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 06:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lanza's use of certain video games is now getting focused coverage by RS media -- see, e.g., this Telegraph article. Someone might consider how best to sift it in.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the Perpetrator section, can someone move the cite so it's not sandwiched in between the city and state. See below. The problem is that two wikilinks are being used (one for city and one for state), instead of just using one for both ( Exeter, New Hampshire). So can someone move the cite so it's after New Hampshire? Thanks.
-- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 07:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
[[Exeter, New Hampshire]]
).
Ryan
Vesey 07:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)I saw a feedback suggestion [10] and thought I'd bring it up here. If someone was willing to put together a collage, would it meet our non-free image requirements as identification of the victims? Ryan Vesey 07:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
1. Looks like the media is now stating Nancy Lanza was shot 4 times while she slept. 2. Did Marsh Lanza really "change her story" about Nancy keeping the guns simply for safety, or was she misquoted in the earlier news reports? After all, she says she had not seen the family since the shooter was 3 years old. CNN had a video with several neighbors who also say any of these survivalist stories are bunk, and she was a responsible gun-owner and a good mother, friendly, just a normal mom with a troubled child whom she worked hard to help. Anyway, if there is no basis for the "change of story" note on the reference, it should be removed ASAP. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 11:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
With the small pgph under the Victims heading and the float-right list of victims, the picture of Lanza takes visual focus on the page. What is the consensus of the group to change the format of the long thin list into a columnar table inside the Victims heading and floating the image of Lanza. Should the image be scaled down? Bill D ( talk) 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to revert the moves made to the archived talk pages (they were moved, without discussion, to Talk:2012 Newtown school shooting/Archive x) and I screwed one of them up--I moved Archive 3 to Archive 4. I feel an acute heart attack coming up (metaphorically) and I can't wrap my feeble brain around what I messed up and how to straighten it out. Your immediate help is appreciated--with the archives, that is; I'll be fine. With my apologies, and a private rant for whoever started renaming archived pages. Drmies ( talk) 15:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the sources support the claim that a shotgun was found in the trunk of Lanza's car. Jaybeee3 ( talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The sources are unfortunately retroactively editing their articles, and this particular item is complicated as it was originally reported that the bushmaster was found in the trunk. The following search shows several sources discussing the gun found in the trunk though.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Good article, coherently makes some decent arguments for both sides that might be useful for a NPOV presentation of the issues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/18/a-better-target-for-gun-control/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Who was the teacher shot in the classroom in which the first-grader led his friends out the door?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.7.211 ( talk • contribs)
But if that was Soto, then I (humbly) think the editor should either -- 1)mention her name where he describes the heroic act of the first-grader, or 2) move that sentence back, to the earlier account of Soto's encounter with the shooter. I understand my initial question wasn't worded well ("teacher shot in the classroom, etc.") and I wasn't careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.7.211 ( talk) 03:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to revisit adding the information about Cerberus' decision to sell Freedom Group, maker of the Bushmaster rifle used (and also the Marlin rifle, although I haven't seen that in the press). Of (arguably) the three most important American newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post, the Journal and the Post carried the story on page 1 [12], [13] and the NYTimes carried the story on page 1 of the business section. [14].
This is clearly important, as we can see from its coverage in secondary sources, and it is directly linked by the company to this event. It warrants a few sentences. GabrielF ( talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The Clackamas Town Center shooting article mentions this event in a respectable manner. Is there still consensus that the Clackamas Town Center shooting should not be mentioned or linked within this article? Many sources mention both events, especially in the context of the ongoing debate over gun control. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a very interesting article in today's The News-Times, (Danbury News-Times) - the major newspaper for the Newtown/Sandy Hook area - about how the Newtown school district is going to essentially replicate Sandy Hook elementary at a nearby vacant school, down to the smallest details. NBC News said that 98% of the furniture, equipment, and supplies will be moved to the new school. I'm not sure if there's anything in the story that's worthy of inclusion in this article, but I just wanted to point it out. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 20:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need 30 references? Do we really need a footnote after each name, replicated 30 times? I assume that we can find one cite that lists all names ... and just cite that one source one time (at the top or bottom of the list). No? Having 30 different footnotes is unnecessary, distracting, and unaesthetic. Any thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 21:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why are we referring to him as "ex-husband" and by residence and occupation, but not by name (although his name is found in the title of the reference)? Is this some sort of a refined BLP exercise that I am missing? He's made a public statement and everything, and it's been widely reported who he is, so I don't see why we're omitting his name. I added it at some point, but it's been removed. -- Y not? 21:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, his name is already in the article - it's just in the reference section right now. -- Y not? 22:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion, should we remove the father's name from the Reactions section? It says, "The day after the shootings, Peter Lanza, the perpetrator's father, released a statement:". I propose changing it to "The day after the shootings, the perpetrator's father released a statement:". Feel free to indicate below if you Support or Oppose this proposed removal. Thanks. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 23:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Previously, see archive.
Here is an image of the Bushmaster semi-auto used in the shooting. Any objection to putting this image in the article where the weapons are described? Chisme ( talk) 23:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, Iran's state-run news service now claims that Israel was behind the shooting. A harebrained and offensive conspiracy theory for sure, but considering that it's actually a foreign government making the claim (and a very prominent one in the region at that), does that make it notable or worth mentioning? LonelyBoy2012 ( talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Responding to the OP - If you read the Press TV article the source of this claim is "Michael Harris" who is described in the Press TV article as "a former Republican candidate for governor of Arizona and GOP campaign finance chairman." The Michael Harris article on Wikipedia is a disambiguation page with none of the people listed seeming to match the Michael Harris we are interested in.
A check on Google News finds that apparently only the Iranians were able to detect Mr. Harris's "internationally televised news broadcast."
Shalom Life has a rebuttal to the Iranians. They describe Harris in less flattering terms as "The journalist, Michael Harris, is the financial editor at Veterans Today a website known more for its anti-Semitic and anti-Israel conspiracy theories, than journalism of any kind."
Michael Harris is probably Mike Harris who is listed as a Financial Editor, one of the Speakers Bureau, and one of the Radio Hosts for Veterans Today. [15] I learned that Veterans Today banned links to Wikipedia last year which is probably why they needed to shake the Press TV tree to get our attention. [16] -- Marc Kupper| talk 01:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
(UTC)
There is a tradition of including international reactions to dramatic events when there are, so putting it in a section dedicated to such reactions would seem reasonable. — SniperMaské ( talk) 13:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I realize that people pushing to get an article for the shooter, but I would like to reaffirm my request to trim down the Perpetrator section here. I find the current state, where we have 4 lines about the victims, mostly about the process of their identification and bodies. While the shooter get his "sad" life story memorized here, insulting.-- Mor2 ( talk) 03:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, if we have the shooter picture, I'll appreciate if someone can upload one for the victims. Maybe something like this [17] -- Mor2 ( talk) 04:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mor2. The Victims section needs to be more informative. Photos of the victims are now published, and there is enough information "out there" to provide a very short biography aside each one. I make every attempt to view wikipedia through a non-emotional lens, and having the list of victims on the same screen as the perpetrator photo just feels wrong. He deserves mention, of course, but the victims are the story. While the artile is indeed about the shooting and one can't have a shooting without a shooter, the victims are what makes this shooting so different from all the others. The victims are the reason this is an international story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoinonia ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed before but in the archives, but I think there's general agreement we don't need excessive detail on the specifics / minute-by-minute movement within the event. We can let other resources provide those answers, but that is not ours to give in that much detail. (Those that might jump to the Columbine article should recognize that we also agree that one is far far far too details as well, and should not be used as an example). This again is maybe where Wikinews would be better to spell this out, and we can certainly link to that. -- MASEM ( t) 06:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I would think that if there is particular relevance to some portion of the timeline, that portion should be included. For example, although it may still be premature at this point to edit the article to specify how long it took police to arrive at the scene, there are media reports that it took some 20 minutes from the first 911 call, and there is unconfirmed information that the police station is only 2.3 miles away from the school. If this information is true, it might raise questions about police performance that is directly relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopkins200 ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That's what I heard on the radio. I don't know where, and I don't know where they'll go permanently, but it's time to at least say the kids are back in school.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I find it a bit surprising that the kids would be put into school this early following such a horrific tragedy, it must be hard on them.
There is a new report that Adam Lanza was taking the drug Fanapt ( Iloperidone). See: The Antipsychotic Prescribed To Adam Lanza Has A Troubled History All Its Own. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk)
There is a slight inconsistency in these two sentences regarding the weapons used:
At home, Lanza "had access" to three more firearms: a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle, but it is not clear where these weapons were. Lanza used the .22 Marlin rifle to kill his mother, but did not bring that weapon to the school.
Specifically, I think the .22 Marlin should be dropped from the first sentence since we do have information from the CT medical examiner (sourced to the Hartford Courant) about the .22 Marlin. GabrielF ( talk) 17:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
At home, Lanza "had access" to three more firearms: a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle. Lanza used the .22 Marlin rifle to kill his mother, but did not bring that weapon to the school.
There is conflicting reports regarding the weapons used. NBC reported this morning that 4 handguns were used by shooter and that the ar-15 wasn't used and was found in the vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.205.239 ( talk) 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"At least three guns were found -- a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car," [10]
Why don't we just limit this to items that are directly about the topic, not items that are just somehow related to the topic? For an active prominent article like this, the latter is a bottomless pit coatrack. North8000 ( talk) 18:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a little while ago that the Victim's section actually only comprises two new sentences, one saying that the bodies were removed and identified during the night, the other saying that a State Trooper had been assigned to each family to support them. The sentence about multiple gun shot wounds to each victim is already covered in the Investigation section. Since the two victim sentences themselves actually fit well into the Investigation section, I tried a WP:BOLD edit to see what would happen if we simply incorporated the sentences there, which has the added advantage of moving the Victim's list (it floats at page right) up and away from the Perpetrator section, which I've never liked because the previous section ended up listing out all the names alongside Lanza's biographic section. Take a look and judge for yourself. I was being bold here, so feel free to revert me if you feel I've made things worse by doing this. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 03:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The article states: "Some time before 9:30 a.m. (1430 UTC) on December 14, 2012, Adam Peter Lanza ...". Is the UTC time supposed to have a colon, like the regular, standard time? Or is the colon deliberately left out? In other words, should it be listed as 1430 UTC, or 14:30 UTC? I looked at the UTC article, but it was of no help. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
An editor deleted all the cited-refs for the children in the 'Killed Infobox', but left a massive amount of redlinks in the wake of that edit. I am trying to fix it now. Shearonink ( talk) 06:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Understanding mortality numbers requires context. The media often fails to provide it, but we can. Underlying Cause of Death, 1999-2010 (aka "Detailed Mortality (2010)") on CDC WONDER is a source.
Some US numbers: 2010 US deaths age 6 (466) and 7 (461) were 927. Of which 359 were non-disease (ICD-10 Codes V01-Y89 (External causes)), of which 166 were transport accidents, and 40 assault. Ages 5-9, US, 2010, were 2,330 total, 919 non-disease, 108 assault. Some CT numbers: 2008-2010 CT deaths (3 years) were 22, or 7.3 per year. 2000-2010 CT non-disease deaths (11 years) were 23. Ages 5-9, CT, 1999-2010 (12 years) were 278 total, 85 non-disease, 10 assault.
Analysis. So for the US, 20 deaths ages 6 and 7, represent 8 days of average US mortality for ages 6-7, 20 days of non-disease, and half a year of assault. Or 3 days of average for ages 5-9, 8 days of non-disease, and 68 days of assault. But CT is a small state (1% of US population). So the deaths represent three years of average CT mortality for ages 6-7, more than a decade of non-disease, and several decades of assault. Or a year of average mortality for ages 5-9, three years of non-disease, and decades of assault.
Writer notebook. Saying "more children than" is problematic, because infant mortality is high. "more children this age than" is ambiguous in age range, but if the comparison is imprecise enough, it can be correct regardless.
So what are some lines that might be added to the article to provide context? ... more children this age than CT usually loses in a year; loses to accidents in a years; loses to assault in decades. ... is a big part of the children this age lost to assault this year in the US; was only a small part of all children this age who died this year in the US.
Disclaimer: It's late, and I didn't double check the work. Someone else will have to take on any edits.
Re WP:NOR, I suggest this was routine calculation plus wordsmithing, but at some point, the selection of numbers from a database starts looking like synthesis of non-explicit conclusion, and what would a cite look like, so... I don't know how to call it. 76.24.26.198 ( talk) 08:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Per this discussion I've put the "had" back in. The last time it was removed without discussion; it would be nice to see it being given some thought this time. DBaK ( talk) 09:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
If you think that made your head explode, try reading Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. LOL! Ok...let consensus decide the "had", but I kinda support the usage.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 00:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The article currently states: The massacre is the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It is also the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the Bath School bombings of 1927. Another editor wants it to read: The massacre was the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It was also the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the Bath School bombings of 1927. Any consensus? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
A Virginia man was arrested Wednesday after police say he brought a 2-by-4-foot board with the words 'High Powered Rifle' written on its side into Sandy Hook Elementary School in the town of Strasburg.
Interesting, but I don't see the direct link. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 21:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Now that things are a little calmer, I think we should re-consider whether the assertions by Huckabee, Fischer and others (that their God had abandoned the schools because children are no longer forced to worship Him by government teachers) belong in the article, properly sourced and without the POV my sarcasm conveys. I would say that the political backlash indicates that it is notable; certainly far more so than some pro sports team's "tribute". -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
There have been reactions like, (a) higher gun sales (b) schools ought to be provided with guns, with staff trained in their use (c) Divine retribution (d) too many women in the school allowed the incident to happen. (e) the incident is not as serious as the many abortions that happen in USA each day... These reactions have come from notable persons, people's representatives, and other public persons. The exclusion of such reactions from the article makes this article unbalanced. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 02:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed this POVish statement from the Illinois State Rifle Association, as well as the sentence immediately after it which is no longer true:
Richard Pearson, executive of the Illinois State Rifle Association, told the Chicago Sun-Times, "The problem we have is a gun-free zone. We have a gun-free zone around a school. Every crazy person knows that. And so, the gun-free zone is like a magnet for the lunatics. He or she knows there won’t be any resistance there". Pearson also said, "Had there been a teacher who was armed, this wouldn’t have happened". [11] Gun rights activists declined to comment, with all but one choosing not to appear on talk shows the first Sunday after the shootings. [12]
Content such as this risks taking this article about the shooting in a very political direction. I think it would be better for a content fork article that discusses the array of reactions that arise from this shooting. - Mr X 01:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC) - Mr X 01:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Its just another reaction, why the special heading? -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 05:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it necessary to list other killers thought to have had Autism/Aspergers syndrome? This seems to promote the idea that there's a link between Autism/Aspergers and violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.196.252 ( talk) 16:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, there is evidence that Autism/Aspergers has made up an aspect of the total psychological makeup of some spree killers (an already small group of people). And the fact that they were spree killers, not serial killers, etc, is significant (for researchers). After this attack, the killers thought to come within the "autism-spectrum" (or whatever their name happens to be this particular decade) will certainly come in for closer scrutiny & study as a sub-group within the larger spree killer group. TreMinty ( talk) 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a terrible idea, however saying which shooters had Asperger's is very subjective and usually not based on scientific study. For instance some people say that the Virginia Tech shooter had Asperger's some don't, some people even say that the Dark Knight shooter had it, others don't. So as you can see there is no unanimous agreement on who had it and who didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 ( talk) 21:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The quote above says it all "There is no evidence of a link between the two" - therefore there is no reason to make them a "See also". Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree that Asperger's is irrelevant here and in any article where it might be discussed as related to a crime. The DSM has just (December 2012) deleted Asperger's as a separate topic; it is now considered part of the autism spectrum. 71.163.114.49 ( talk) 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason why Victoria Soto is the only name without a cite on the Killed list (besides Lanza's mother)? I thought there used to be one. There have been many stories about her in reliable sources, including this one from today's New York Times. Just wanted to point this out in case it needs addressed. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 20:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Should there be a list of all those who lost their life? I can see a yes and a no. Please discuss and decide.
Yes: Part of history. No: Excessive list of non-notable people.
I lean toward yes, inclusion. Auchansa ( talk) 05:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of the possibility that Lanza was misdiagnosed? This columnist ( Robert Stacy McCain) has suggested Lanza actually had childhood onset schizophrenia, which fits better with what we know about him (as well as with the shooting; there's a known connection between schizophrenia and violence while there isn't one for Asperger's). LonelyBoy2012 ( talk) 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Might suggest WikiPedia use a professional standard here. Diagnosis must be made by someone state licensed to do so. Would suggest that the licensed person making any diagnosis be required to follow their own professions generally accepted standards. i.e. they administered a broad array of well accepted psychological tests (or reviewed prior testing results), meet with the person directly, typically on several occasions, had free access to and reviewed other records, had input from third parties, etc. The diagnosis absolutely must then be reduced to, and committed to in writing, ideally as part of a full report that concludes with the specific diagnosis, and perhaps includes discussion other potentially alternative diagnosis, and providing reasonable explanation for the conclusions. Suggest the professional standing of anyone claiming to make a diagnosis be completely verified (license number, currently licensed, etc.)
Any subsequent suggestion of "misdiagnosis" should likewise be approached with a high degree of skepticism. Ideally it would be someone officially licensed, with full access to all prior records. Beyond that there may be "Experts" who perform reasonable forensic evaluations and perhaps can offer expert opinion. Suggest not publishing such opinions without holding "experts" to a high level of expertise in the subject they are expressing their opinion on, and that they have significant input data from this case specifically to draw from. Examples would include psychologists and psychiatrists with a reasonably long and independently verifiable track record in any of the following: bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dementia, criminal behavior, homicide / suicide forensics, anti-social personality disorder, etc.
Would basically ignore all other non verified "expert" opinion. Rick ( talk) 18:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The article states: The massacre is the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Another editor wants to change it to: The massacre is the second-deadliest shooting in an educational institution in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Any consensus? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
NYBankoff
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Investigators look for insight into Newtown gunman's mind
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).greenwichtime
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nydailynews4
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).seacoastonline
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Lieberman
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).