![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Various interesting new information in this article from the Hartford Courant. Lanza was found dead wearing earplugs, and is described as "wearing all black clothes under a drab olive green utility vest with pockets filled with 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster." He is not described as wearing a mask, which tends to confirm the view that this was an early mistake.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is "Adam Lanza" not hyperlinked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.212.115 ( talk) 05:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The father is mentioned in the article but not by name. Should the father be mentioned by name?
We have in the section titled Perpetrator:
And we have in the section titled Reactions:
"Our hearts go out to the families and friends who lost loved ones and to all those who were injured. Our family is grieving along with all those who have been affected by this enormous tragedy. No words can truly express how heartbroken we are. We are in a state of disbelief and trying to find whatever answers we can. We too are asking why. We have cooperated fully with law enforcement and will continue to do so. Like so many of you, we are saddened, but struggling to make sense of what has transpired."
This question is addressed in this thread in Talk page archives. It is also addressed in this thread which I initiated on the WP:BLPN. Bus stop ( talk) 16:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
specifically covered by Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names. The name does not add significant value. should not be included. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
How is Wikipedia dealing with corrections which were made to the original, official story claiming that Ryan Lanza was the killer? Because Wikipedia is based on citing reliable sources, and these reliable sources claimed that Ryan was the killer before making changes to the story. Are we no longer citing the reliable source claims that Ryan was the killer simply because reliable sources have published a reversion of that claim themselves?
I ask because, although reliable sources first reported that Lanza stole his mother's black Honda civic and drove it to the scene, since the police background check of the car was released, we can hear them say that the car, with the license plate 872-YEO, was registered to (Redacted). It could be that Lanza's mom purchased the car from (Redacted), or that Adam Lanza somehow obtained access to this car, which did not belong to his mom. Both are conjecture. In any case, are we simply reporting that the car belonged to Lanza's mom because the press did not revert its original story like it did with the Ryan Lanza report?
Here are our two sources, dated December 14, the day of the incident:
But since then the audio tape where police run a background check on the car has been released.-- Nonono2222 ( talk) 07:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Both the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech tragedies have Wikipedia articles which refer to them as "massacres". Since the circumstances surrounding this shooting were very similar to those two shootings, and the number of victims was even greater than the number of victims at Columbine, why in the world is it so controversial to retitle this article "Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre"? That's what it freaking was, a freaking massacre!!! Get over your silly issues and call it that already! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.44.248 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 January 2013
I couldn't agree more that this page should be titled massacre rather than shooting because it well fits the definition of massacre:
The definition of 'massacre': http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/massacre 1. The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the norms of civilized people.
The definition of 'shooting': http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shooting 1. An instance of shooting (a person) with a gun. Police are hunting the people who carried out the shootings last week.
What happened at Sandy Hook School better fits the definition of a massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.13.205 ( talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to go on record saying I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the quasi-statistical sports-themed scoreboard box. This looks like nothing less than glorifying and highlighting individual aspects of the shooting completely liberated from the terrible nature of the crime. This is the same format used to highlight reasons to be proud of or impressed by athletes and other high achievers, and I think it actually feeds into encouraging this behavior as somehow normative. There's a long-standing, hateful meme about "high scores" and gun spree killers that is widely circulated. Additionally, this presence of this scoreboard box could well be traumatizing for relations and victims of these events. Is there some discussion or justification about using this design element that has taken place? If not, I am going to remove it as highly inappropriate, hurtful, possibly to be seen as an endorsement of this kind of behavior, and it adds very little of value to the article in any case. None of the information presented is tabulated or aggregated in any useful fashion to the best of my knowledge, so why put it out there as if it represents a valid body of statistical data when it does not? 146.115.156.66 ( talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind a list of victims. I'm talking about the pull out box at the top right that lists facts about the event, like "Attack type" and "Weapon(s)" used. Its ghastly to portray this information as if this mass shooting was a golf tournament or a shoot-em-up video game. Not only is it a shock to the conscience, it's a poor way to represent the information. As I said before, this information is being presented as if it were pulled from a body of statistical data; and it isn't. Can we replace this scorecard box with a short, factual blurb that summarizes the information and doesn't literally look like the level summary screen from a violent video game? 146.115.156.66 ( talk) 19:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose merging Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories with this per WP:FORK, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE p b p 00:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps some mention in the article could be made of the conspiracy theorists who are now claiming that this tragedy was in fact staged or created by Obama in order to further his gun control policies?
"(SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL) A communication professor known for conspiracy theories has stirred controversy at Florida Atlantic University with claims that last month’s Newtown, Conn., school shootings did not happen as reported — or may not have happened at all.
Moreover, James Tracy asserts in radio interviews and on his memoryholeblog.com. that trained “crisis actors” may have been employed by the Obama administration in an effort to shape public opinion in favor of the event’s true purpose: gun control."
Here are some other links: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/08/florida-professor-questions-newtown-shooting-massacre-calls-for-more/#ixzz2HPUHuNSg http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/01/absolute-proof-sandy-hook-massacre-was-staged-2447514.html http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/01/theater-shooter-actors-linked-to-sandy-hook-actors-exposed-as-a-fraud-video-2530994.html http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/latest-news/1129--further-evidence-shows-sandy-hook-was-staged http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/professor-obama-staged-sandy-hook-massacre/#cQClK1b3Y1drVLEk.99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.208.202 ( talk) 03:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
No.
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Time (in the summary box) of the shootings listed is the time of the response, not the shootings. Why is the wrong time listed? 76.21.107.221 ( talk) 17:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I found this personal detail about the injuries associated with a name to be unnecessary: "and at least one victim, six-year-old Noah Pozner, 11 times." While it is true those details were given in the references I wonder if such details could be cut from this article. Personally I don't see how the number of times they were shot or where they were shot are of any importance unless they formed a pattern of some significance. The fact that the details were published elsewhere may not be good reason to post it here. Zedshort ( talk) 17:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and written Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. As press coverage of these theories continues, the topic is more solidly meets WP:GNG with every passing day. However, since the issue has caused controversy before on this talk page, I wanted to build consensus before forcing it into the article. I was thinking a very short section with a {{ main}}, but it may also be appropriate to name some of the more prominent theories. What do you think? -- BDD ( talk) 23:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The current lede has several deficiencies, an obvious problem is the irrelevant mention of his age in the lede, but the whole structure of the lede is an issue as well. Proseline is problematic in any part of an article, but in the first part of the lede starting off with "on x date" and never giving a formal name for the subject makes the article seem more like a journal entry or news timeline than an encyclopedic work. Additionally, while the editor restoring the status-quo and the little note on the page cites MOS:BOLDTITLE, by keeping the current version we are ignoring several more important aspects of WP:LEDE. The first sentence does not name the actual subject and it does not explain why this event is notable. As such I would suggest the following change:
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, also called the Newtown massacre, was the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history and the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school. It occurred on December 14, 2012, when Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members and wounded two at the elementary school in Sandy Hook, Newtown, Connecticut. Before driving to the school, Lanza had shot and killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.
While there is some redundancy, it is not even close to the extent of that provided in the example on the guideline page. I do not believe the redundancy is distracting in this case and it helps distinguish aspects of the event's notability. Please suggest any changes, but I think we can easily incorporate the article title into the first sentence of the lede and have it read well at the same time. There is no reason to keep reverting back to the old lede.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" does a pretty good job of describing the event and where it occurred.
It doesn't give the date, but there is no need to give a date for an event in the first sentence of the lede and it would be in the sentence right after that.
Also, while it isn't the formal name, it is definitely a common name that was being used right from the start, though sometimes leaving out the word "school".
Nothing you have mentioned is of such importance as to demand keeping the current the version.
I took a moment to look at when that note was first added and located it. Funny thing is, that editor seems to be saying "I've seen this elsewhere so adding it here",
and I also noticed that in every article I could find on this sort of killing, the only other times such a note or style occurs on these major articles is when you have been there shoving it into the article.
This is just MOS POV-pushing, and I also see that you have been repeatedly forcing this style of lede, and the note, into this article: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. At that time you reverted five times to an identical version based on your own personal preference, four of those reverts being within four hours.
Yet you had the gall to warn me of edit-warring, absolutely absurd.
We should keep the who/what/where/when information in the first sentence. Comparative/editorial content needs to come after that, as you have to be able to define what you are talking about to compare it to something else. No comment on if any particular version are POV pushing Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, also called the Newtown massacre, took place on December 14, 2012, when Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members and wounded two at the school in the village of Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut.
Is there a reason the age should be omitted? I've restored it. Can we discuss this? Bus stop ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Watched a conspiracy vid, and though geeze, this is crap, but i decided to try to debunk it myself. I found: https://www.facebook.com/VictoriaSotoCausePag/info and https://www.facebook.com/pages/RIP-Victoria-Soto/331085463672239?sk=info The second link actually says "Test Event Webpage" in the description! Really? How did they know she was going to die 4 days ahead of schedule? Now I am starting to wonder if there is something behind the conspiracy theory after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.229.193 ( talk) 07:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Adding this to discuss terminology. In President Obama's statement in the reaction section, originally there was an entry calling the actions "slaughter" I changed it to "murder" and then it was changed to "killing" The notion is that murder requires maliceaforethought, mensrea. I reverted killing to murder per WP:BRD - let's discuss - I think it's pretty clear that these acts were murderous. The alleged criminal destroyed a hard drive, killed his mother, drove to the school, put on earplugs, and went on a shooting spree. the word kill seems like it could be innocent without fault while slaughter seems like something that is done to animals not humans. What say you all? - Justanonymous ( talk) 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the first line of the second paragraph under the "shootings" heading. The rifle was found locked in the trunk of the car and was never used at the school. Incidentally, the rifle was not even a Bushmaster. The way it is currently written is not true. I respect Wikipedia and use it often for research. I am troubled to find such a glaring lie on your website.
69.10.216.9 ( talk) 02:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is incomplete without a thorough listing of the specific crimes committed in this horrific event. I respectfully request that this information be added by local experts in law enforcement and/or the judicial system. Without this information, we are unable to have reasonable and objective discussions about changing existing laws or adding new laws to try to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.114.167 ( talk) 03:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
In investigations like this, where the lone perpetrator is dead and the details are straightforward, it's not usual for a state to seek to seal records sealed for additional time and to keep details from the general public unless they're just having a hard time making heads or tails of the evidence or if there is too much evidence to piece together in the time they've had. The statement that the state's interest outweighs the release and that the release of details could affect the outcome of the investigation means that the state is still conducting their investigation - they might be chasing a loose end, something or someone (but we don't know and we should not conjecture on the wiki). I think it's noteworthy to add a one liner indicating that the state sought and won a request to keep the records sealed for an additional 90 days as their investigation continues.- Justanonymous ( talk) 13:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently reverted some (good faith) additions of polling information. I do not think we have consensus for such information, but if we do, we certainly must include the ragnge of reliable polling information in an WP:NPOV manner, not just 1 or 2 poll results that support a particular POV.
Here are some additional reliable/major polls that would need to be incorporated into a balanced view.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add interwiki link please: ur:سینڈی ہک ایلمینٹری سکول فائرنگ Fmc47 ( talk) 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Snopes has a new article looking at conspiracy theories surrounding the shooting. [15] It also debunks the claim that the man CR was the owner of the black Honda in which Lanza drove to the school. [16]-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update on my request per Gwickwire's suggestion: Please change the first line of the second paragraph under the "shootings" heading. The rifle was found locked in the trunk of the car and was never used at the school. Incidentally, the rifle was not even a Bushmaster. The way it is currently written is not true. Here is my source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iGn4o1Lb6L0 This is a link to the NBC news video. [1]
69.10.216.9 ( talk) 05:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove all notice of Adam Lanza using an AR-15 assault rifle, NBC news reported on Jan 14th that te AR was found in the car in the parking lot. and not used in the shootings and that there is validiity to the "conspiracy theorists" becasue their is so much contradicitng information.
71.36.9.212 ( talk) 05:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Scroll-up and see the answer to the previous request and then please check the Talk archive for the previous 3 or 4 answers to the same question.-- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 06:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Contrary to NBC News, NO rifles were used. My source is NBC Today Show news, which aired at a later date than the footnotes about the Bushmaster in the article, therefore NBC had updated news about the weapons used. NBC aired this on Jan 17, 2013. In the future I'd like to see the actual coroner report instead of links to news articles. The news got every detail about this shooting wrong multiple times. A coroner report would settle this most significant detail, and stop bad information from being spread further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGn4o1Lb6L0&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelava22 ( talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He did not use an assault rifle. He did not use a bushmaster, He used handguns. Get your facts straight. 76.22.152.245 ( talk) 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
"Under Connecticut law,[74] the 20-year-old Lanza was old enough to carry a long gun,[75]"
"Carry" has common meaning in conversations surrounding US gun law, inconsistent with the sentence's intended meaning and the content of the cited source. Specifically, with regard to carrying of handguns on one's person. Recommend replacement sentence... perhaps something like, "the 20-year-old Lanza would have met the minimum age requirement for purchase of a long gun [...]". Though that might imply it is the only requirement, which it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveD-0101 ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It is misleading to imply anything he did with the guns was legal. He didn't legally acquire them. He couldn't legally take them to the school, he couldn't legally carry them. All of this should be made clear. Promontoriumispromontorium ( talk) 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am questioning if we can say for certain the long gun that was used to kill the children was an XM-15. See this CNN article and they say it was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon" and "Police didn't offer details about the specific model of the rifle Lanza used." I've seem other articles say authorities said the Bushmaster XM-15 was use, but is that a direct quote from authorities or supposition on the part of some journalist. Maybe the news outlets are just quoting Wikipedia. Do we have a direct quote or better yet a press release? See Bushmaster's product page for XM-15s, MOE and Carbon 15. You can see the all look based on the AR-15 and thats just what they are selling now. They may have had other products in the past. Do we know what he used? Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Just for referance this is where XM-15 entered the article as a link and here as a visable name. here the editor mentions the rational for adding it, however the article he references no longer says anything about the rifle. It may have been changed. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 21:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the 'Investigation' portion of the article, in the first paragraph, the usage of the word "clips" is incorrect. It should read "magazines" instead. A clip is not used on AR-platform rifles. While not an urgent revision, it can simply be seen as a mirror towards the media's ignorance. 99.187.145.247 ( talk) 05:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was Saiga-12? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiga-12
Spelled "canta" if you try to read the cyrillic as english.
Niberto ( talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
As this has been removed twice from the "Investigation" section, we should probably have a discussion as to whether or not we should retain the words "high capacity" in the sentence "A 30 round high capacity magazine was recovered with the rifle" or if we should delete those two words so that it simply reads "A 30 round magazine was recovered with the rifle." The source citation is to the Connecticut State Police press release dated 18 January 2013, which says that seized inside the school was a "Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine".
One could argue that a 50-round or 100-round drum magazine is high capacity, hence a 30-round banana magazine shouldn't be. Conversely, they also make 10-round and 20-round magazines for AR-15 style rifles, in which case you might argue 30 rounds is high capacity. I'm not sure if there is a definitive definition of "high capacity", but with regard to the source citation before us, the State Police described it as "high capacity", hence I think we should stick with what the source says. Others may have a different opinion, so please share them here and we'll sort this out. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
A month and half after the incident the autism diagnosis is not confirmed by a psychiatrist or past medical records? may be rumors only, but the article states it as a fact. Kiatdd ( talk) 17:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
This statement, "The other was an unidentified adult.[6]" regarding the wounded sent to the hospital seems to be remedied in the section above that names the teacher being shot in an arm and a leg. Anyone care to update this? Or is this too ambiguous (i.e. WP:SYNTH? Rklawton ( talk) 19:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't know how best to say it but I saw on NBC news that the AR-15 was not used in the shootings. In the shooting section of this article t is stated that it was used to go into the school then it intimates that it was used throughout. The citations for those statements are either nebulous 'sources say he changed magazines a lot' or were reported, incorrectly, in the flurry of activity immediately after the shooting. More up-to-date and wholly different information is now available and should, in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, be substituted for the earlier and inaccurate statements. 99.88.195.58 ( talk) 00:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please addend "alleged" where relevant. I.e.throughout the ENTIRE post. No investigation has been completed. Godxkiller ( talk) 05:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up that one of the child victims was made into a seperate article which is now up for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Social Security Death Index (SSDI) Death Record states that Adam P. Lanza died on Thursday December 13, 2012. That is the day before the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident.
http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/ssdi/doc/ssdi/v1:143EB37C71A1FA78
Slorri ( talk) 19:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Also Ancestry.com is reporting the same date of death, Thursday December 13, 2012. Both these sites get their data from Social Security Administration (SSA). One need to be registered to get all of the date from ancestry.com http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2_s&gsfn=Adam&gsln=Lanza&mswpn__ftp=Newtown%2C+Fairfield%2C+Connecticut%2C+USA&mswpn=71&mswpn_PInfo=8-%7C0%7C1652393%7C0%7C2%7C3242%7C9%7C0%7C1000%7C71%7C0%7C&uidh=000
I suppose that Social Security Administration (SSA) is a RS. Slorri ( talk) 22:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
There was conflicting information and inconsistent reports about the event. I request a section talking about the inconsistencies. The name and identity of the shooter was wrong, the car was reported belonging to someone else, number of shooters, etc. Media coverage of the the event is relevant to what happened. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] USchick ( talk) 16:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
According to anonymous reports, authorities were investigating whether Lanza attempted to buy a rifle at a sporting goods store in Danbury, Connecticut, two days before the massacre. Anonymous sources claimed Lanza was turned down because he did not want to undergo a background check or abide by the state's waiting period for gun sales.
Can you expand the lead section to include info on the school shooting's background (or what happened before the shooting) and its aftermath, legacy and impact (like its impact on gun control for example), please. Thanx. 67.172.190.101 ( talk) 06:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This edit was reverted, but it is worth taking a brief look at it. The inventive people in the blogs have claimed that the words "Aurora" and "Sandy Hook" appear in the film The Dark Knight Rises. This article takes a look at the claim. It is surprising how much conspiracy material the shooting is generating, but cherry picking is not new and can be used to prove almost anything. A famous example is the article Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Fully aware that we have been keeping most of the speculative issues out of this article, I've been looking at the Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article - one that I would normally consider for deletion - as a way to describe in neutrally as possible the impact on gun control, mental health, and video games - among others - that came from the shooting, that we are purposely avoiding here to avoid bias/unsubstantiated claims.
Take the area of video games, where no, there is no connection outside of Lanza playing some of the more violent ones. That said, we can talk about how the media pointed figures there, a few new bills that have come about to restrict sale of violent games, the whole mess with Senator Lee of California, and a bunch of sourcable details of what has happened in the VG arena due to the shooting. As long as we start off : "Some politicians and media journalists have suggested that the presence of violent video games contributed to the shooting", we are not affirming or condoning this theory, and thus stay NPOV, particularly since I know for the VG industry we can talk both sides of the issue.
I can believe we can do the same with the mental health aspects, pointing out that Lanza's conditions has been suggested by others (providing such links) to be tied to the event and the reactions from various mental health experts on why and why not that would be possible.
Obviously gun control is easy to do this as well - we effectively have it, but I would support moving what we have to the Reactions page to strengthen that one. We can leave summaries here, until such a time where the reactions become more significant - eg say that we eventually get the "Victoria Soto Gun Control Law" passed in Congress (just an example), we can describe that since it will become more tightly connected to the topic at hand.
There may be other theories that otherwise fall outside of FRINGE territory (eg: we are not going to mention the Westboro BC's theory that gay marriage was at fault). As long as the issue can be approached on either side as with the three mentioned above, it should be good to include there. This would also alleviate some of the points we've got in the FAQ about why X isn't mentioned - I think having it on the separate page helps to break any implication we (as WPian editors) may unintentionally make here and would make it easier to keep the sections there unbiased. -- MASEM ( t) 16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of paragraph/sentence that says "She often took her two sons to a local shooting range.[100]", just above the section entitled "Reactions", please add.
"During an interview with Connecticut State Police, it was said Nancy Lanza's guns were not secured. "They weren't under lock and key," the friend said. "She kept her stuff all together in a closet."
Chris87654321 ( talk) 19:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Newtown Sides with NRA: Votes for Armed Guards In Schools
Should this be incorporated into the article?
If so, how should it be incorporated (Reactions section presumably)? -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 00:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Having scanned the FAQ and the Talk archives (and the page itself) it seems that these findings or reports or ... have not yet been released. There have been officials having press conferences, but not the "official" findings. Correct? (Asked because I'm getting tired of people asking me where they are and I thought there would be a link here, if anywhere.) htom ( talk) 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This section stems from a discussion above here on the talk page the question being do we really need an eye catching list that in my opinion goes against WP:NOTMEMORIAL in the article? So what I am going to do is form a consensus on it, please choose one of the following proposals, and place your opinion on it.
Please voice your opinion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Oxymoron alert! "Consensus poll" makes no sense. If we're going to get this right, let's at least demonstrate that we can use language correctly here. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and removed the list, if you wish to revert or reinclude it please state a reason on why you feel it should be kept, keep in mind that the names of the victims are already included in the article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that including a list of the victims in the article is in bad taste. However, it can be justified for either side. I don't think it would belong in an infobox, but maybe a list within the article, if it is determined by consensus to include it. There is no standard, the Virginia Tech Massacre contains the names of the individuals killed, but in something like the Oklahoma City Bombing, the victims are not mentioned. Aneah| talk to me 23:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems odd to me to acknowledge the shooter, and not the victims, particularly as other mass shootings Wiki entries acknowledge the victims (e.g. Aurora, Wisconsin Sikh Temple, and others already given). If Sandy Hook is to be an exception, what is some of the reasoning for delisting the victims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.100.15 ( talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that a list of the victims is quite appropriate and its removal is a bit absurd. This is a deadly shooting, which is most essentially one person killing others. The killer has an entire section and picture. The people killed can at least be listed. This is quite in line with nearly every other similar article. Bath School disaster. Virginia Tech massacre. 2012 Aurora shooting. 2011 Norway attacks. In Aménas hostage crisis. Kandahar massacre. University of Texas clock tower massacre. Waco Siege. All of these articles appropriately have separate lists of victims. Rock Springs massacre, a featured article, appropriatly lists victims. I read WP:NOTMEMORIAL to ban articles about these people unless they are independently noteworthy, and limit excessive description. Something like "Victim Smith, age 6, was a loving young boy who liked playing with his pet dog Fido, building forts with his brother Sam and sister Betsy, and reading Dr. Seuss books. His parents called him the 'light of our life.' ..." has WP:NOTMEMORIAL problems. Merely "Victim Smith, age 6" is not problematic. Erudy ( talk) 14:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Since WP:MEMORIAL has been cited in regards to the list of victims, I thought I would take a look at what that policy actually states.
so, there are two operative/important words here, the first of which is "Subject" and the second of which is "memorialize".
In my opinion, a list of the victims as verified from multiple, independent reliable sources should be included, especially in its previous incarnation of only stating the verifiable facts...names, ages and not including any of the life-details one would normally find in an obituary or on a memorial site. Shearonink ( talk) 20:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Super Goku V ( talk) 06:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[...] It should be noted that the fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial does not proclude covering those who died in notable events- merely that people should not be included merely as a memorial. The overwhelming consensus was that these people were collectively notable as a result of the circumstances of their deaths. [...] (emphasis added)
— User:WjBscribe 125316593
I think there's a consensus (below) to put in the list back in. I'm going to be bold and do so. Erudy ( talk) 18:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
There hasn't been much discussion on this for a few days; let me try to summarize, with the obvious caveat that I'm on record as in favor of having a list.
Masem and Mobushgu strongly believe there should be no list of individuals, due to WP:NOTMEM concerns. Knowledgekid87 has similar concerns, perhaps more particularly about a "oversized" list rather than in-text exposition.
Aneah finds an infobox to be in bad taste, although perhaps justifiable; would prefer in-text exposition. RedSoxFan2434 similarly suggests that a list is OK, although would prefer integration with text so as not to be an "eyecatcher".
Scalhotrod, Dream Focus, Coretheapple, Manipande, GabrielF, Fox2k11, Shearonink, Super Goku V, (and, of course, myself, Erudy) variously think the list is innocuous, helpful, and appropriate.
I think that WP:NOTMEM is an important policy to keep in mind, especially for tragedies such as this one. But I think getting rid of the list entirely goes too far. Let me propose that we keep the list, with certain modifications to reduce its visual signature. Hopefully this will reduce the NOTMEM concerns (although I assume that it won't completely satisfy Masem), partly meet concerns about an "eye-catching" list, but still follow what I propose is the weight of opinion expressed so far.
In the proposal at right, I've removed the bolding of the names, put some of the notes in italics to soften their impact, and slightly reduced the text size. Are we willing to put this compromise back in the article? Erudy ( talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
[...] It should be noted that the fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial does not proclude covering those who died in notable events- merely that people should not be included merely as a memorial. The overwhelming consensus was that these people were collectively notable as a result of the circumstances of their deaths. [...] (emphasis added)
— WjBscribe, 125316593
While I don't have an opinion on whether to include the list or not, I have reverted my edit on the page. While the list looks pretty, it has way too much markup. If it stays, it should be rewritten with more maintainable markup per MOS:MARKUP. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I heard the recent news about the Aurora shooting victims' families being harassed by conspiracy theorists, and wondered if we this was an issue with the Sandy Hook victims, and if this should be something to consider when discussing changes to this article Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two paragraphs under the heading Shootings are in slight conflict with each other.
The first passage cites an early, less accurate report.
I propose changing the passage,
In a first-grade classroom, Lauren Rousseau, a substitute teacher, was shot in the face and killed. Fifteen of the sixteen students in her class were killed; a six-year-old girl was the sole survivor. ... Sanchez, Raf (December 17, 2012).
"Connecticut school shooting: six-year-old stayed alive by playing dead". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved December 18, 2012.
He shot mostly in two first-grade classrooms near the entrance of the school, killing fourteen in one room and six in the other.
"Sandy Hook shooting: What happened?". CNN. Retrieved January 8, 2013.
70.194.64.168 (
talk)
10:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Page cannot be edited. But this sentence is wrong: "Police ... began evacuating the survivors room-by-room." It should be "room by room" (with spaces). Hyphens are only used to form an adjective, e.g. "a room-by-room evacuation". Consider "they hate dogs" vs. "dog-hating people". 86.174.188.81 ( talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This article needs to be edited to show that the AR-15 style Assault Rifle was NOT actually used in the shooting. The Medical Examiner has determined that all victims were actually shot with Handguns and NOT the AR-15. In the discussion area, there have been Multiple links. This NEEDS to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagsc7 ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The coroner was being questioned by the media the day after the shootings when all the results were preliminary. It's unlikely that bullets recovered from the bodies had been matched to any barrels yet as that requires sending the recovered projectiles and weapons to a criminal forensics lab for regimented testing. Carver already knew at this point, however, that the injuries and wounds were caused by a rifle, and he knew what the police had found inside the school (two handguns and the XM15). Hence, he knew in his mind subjectively and with a high degree of certainty that the kids in the school were killed by the Bushmaster, but experts in his position are trained not to answer the question that way, as it can get you in trouble later in court if you've overstepped what you know and what you think you know. This is why he was being evasive with the reporters who were pressing him to identify the weapon that was used; he knows the wounds were caused by a long weapon and he knows that the police found the rifle, but he couldn't say for sure that the wounds were caused by that particular rifle yet, without having done the science first. Re-watch the video with the volume turned up so that you can hear both the reporters questions and his responses in this context, and the reason for him avoiding putting out the information that way becomes clear. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 03:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I have removed material from this article that I believe contributes nothing in the way of insight and is more of prurient interest.
Prurient: : marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire
While WP requires the material added to the article should be from a reliable source as a necessary condition, but that is not a sufficient condition. The inclusion of material that appeals to our baser instincts should not be added and if added should be removed. It is interesting to know that some reliable source provided the original information but it does not follow that it must be used and if not of genuine use in enlightening or too far off topic it should not be included. We do not need to know that some victim was shot in the face, nor do we need to know that a particular child ran from the school covered in blood, nor do we need to know what part of the body Lanza shot himself. Those details have no genuine value and I have removed them as they contribute nothing to the article. I have the impression that there are more than a few people editing such articles as this, who have an rather unwholesome interest in providing such gory and useless material and I urge you to delete it whenever you find it just as I will. Zedshort ( talk) 02:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The gruesome details of a persons wounds and suffering are not of value to the article. Such details provide no insight, nor does it put the subject into perspective. I see the reporting of such details as something that belongs to a rag that is attempting to garner readers by including racy material that causes the gut to stir and does nothing for the task of informing. In addition, I think the feelings of the families and even friends of the victims should be considered. Again, simply because some reliable source made the mistake of reporting the details originally it does not follow that it should be taken up and repeated here. We can be better than they are. Zedshort ( talk) 05:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
At the top of the Edit Page of the article is a warning about such articles involving Biographies of Living Persons and states: "This policy also applies to the recently deceased out of concern for any living relatives and other persons closely connected to them. Contentious or questionable material should be removed from both the article and its talk page." Material providing the morbid details of the suffering and death and the trauma of the living has no place in an encyclopedic article. This is not a newspaper that simply gathers snipits of articles from many sources. And once again, not inserting material or removing material does not constitute censorship of an article. The material should be necessary and provide insight into the subject not just be kinda interesting.
Just FYI, none of these details are of "prurient interest", since they do not evoke sexual interest. I think what was meant was "morbid interest". It is similar but not quite the same thing.-- Auric talk 01:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Please note the the absolute terms in which it was expressed by the last sentence. It strikes me as a bit closeminded. Zedshort ( talk) 01:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
inquest = court case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquest
1) I know people are in a state of frenzy but to say Adam Lanza is the one responsible is a bit premature. No Ruling except in the public media has said Adam Lanza is responsible. So I feel we should wait until the court rules he was guilty as we should in all law cases even if it seems obvious. We can always change the page later
2) Why is President Obama in this page??
Popular Press: Lanza was described as a bright but painfully awkward student. Lanza subsequently was home-schooled by his mother, and earned a GED. Adam Lanza: Skinny outcast who became a mass killer. Lanza, who friends and officials said suffered from Asperger’s syndrome or a personality disorder, had a tortured mind. Lanza avoided public attention and had few, if any, friends, though he was a member of the high-school tech club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinky2013 ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The latest stuff to hit the news media this morning about the shooter's motive concerning the Norwegian mass-murderer has been denied as mere speculation:
I don't think this stuff should be added? It's just more of the same. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 11:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Page cannot be edited. The word "publicly" is misspelled on the page as "pubicly" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiks ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Done.--
♦IanMacM♦
(talk to me)
16:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Reference 100 is some Template:Cite_weblast%3DGoodwin&action=edit&redlink=1 template???? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 19:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Re this edit: The photos of Adam Lanza in this article are new, the claims about Lanza having sensory integration disorder and Asperger syndrome are not. Locals told the media and investigators these things in the first few days after the shooting. Unless they are confirmed by a medical professional or a public comment from the investigators, they are not reliably sourced.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | Lanza's brother told law enforcement that Adam was believed to have a personality disorder and was "somewhat autistic".[100] An anonymous law enforcement official[101] and friends of Nancy Lanza[102] reported that Adam had been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome.[103][104][105] According to the Hartford Courant and Frontline, Lanza was diagnosed with sensory integration disorder when he was about 6.[10] | ” |
One aspect to keep in mind - until we figure out (we haven't) if we should have a separate page for Lanza (my suggestion is still "no" at this point w/ what we know), this page is serving as his bio. Thus, even if the relationship to the shooting is tenancious or even off-topic but a normal facet that 1) meets RS/(BLP-ish) type sourcing requirements and 2) would normally be included in a bio article about a person, that should be included here. We just have to make sure that in writing about material that could be taken as a tie/cause for the shooting, that we don't create any implication about that. We've done a good job so far in writing as neutrally as possible about Lanza's mental health and disconnecting it as a factor in the shooting, but reporting on it since this has been a major factor in reliable (not sensational) news reports. -- MASEM ( t) 16:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen of the court, I bring to your attention this statement:
"The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, and a proposal for new legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic weapons and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition"
This statement is, verbatim, a polar opposite to the argument that the new gun legislation infringes on the Second Amendment, and in the theory of argumentation, embracing such a belief is called bias. When it is portrayed without a counter argument, it becomes a universal truth about it. Therefore, I recommend removing it or by adding this phrase:
"Critics warn that they may unfairly be at risk of being victims of prejudicial behavior in terms of the Federal Government adopting new, untested policies [9] concerning enforcement of new laws (New York Safe Act), and groundbreaking medical research (DSM-5) in the field of mental health."
The new paragraph being represented as:
"The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, and a proposal for new legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic weapons and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition [10]. Critics warn that they may unfairly be at risk of being victims of prejudicial behavior in terms of the Federal Government adopting new, untested policies [11] concerning enforcement of new laws (New York Safe Act), and groundbreaking medical research (DSM-5) in the field of mental health."
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.104.241 ( talk) 22:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
References
abcvictims
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).courant1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).cbslocal1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Victim Rachel D'Avino
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Connecticut shooting: Services for Katonah native Anne Marie Murphy set
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Police: Second person injured in Connecticut school shooting survived
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).If you read this article, you see that the term is controversial and that Lanza better satisfies criteria of " rampage" or " mass murder" - all deaths committed within short period of time, in small geographic range. It wasn't as if he had been driving around the state, killing people at multiple locations over a period of days. His mother was the only person he killed outside the school, and he killed himself before his identity was even known - more characteristic of mass murder than spree killing. Parkwells ( talk) 17:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
...and Ms. Soto's class picture shows 15 students.
These reports mention 16.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
"19 children you protected" Jillian Soto:
[5]
There were 3 first-grade classes
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
Kaitlyn Roig's class was spared. All but one of Mrs. Rousseau's class perished. Where did the extra students come from?
70.194.134.152 (
talk)
17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
References
She ran from the school, and was the first child to escape the building.
I propose expanding on that with
Newtown Middle School resource officer Leonard Penna found the student in Rousseau's class who survived standing alone. He grabbed the uninjured girl by the arm and ran with her out to a triage area set up in the parking lot.
[1]
Six surviving children from Soto's class crawled out of the cupboards after the shooting and fled the school. They and a school bus driver took refuge at a nearby home.
[2]
The cited article only says "...he is unsure how the students escaped the school...".
I propose replacing that sentence with
One group of 4 girls and 2 boys from Ms. Soto's class fled the school. They, along with a school bus driver, were brought in to a nearby home.
[3]
[4]
[5] Police rescued 7 students still hiding in Ms. Soto's classroom.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
I propose expanding on this sentence:
As reported by his parents, a six-year-old boy in Soto's class fled with a group of his classmates, and the children escaped through the door when Lanza shot their teacher.
Let's include the following reports and write something like this:
As reported by his parents, their six-year-old son from Ms. Soto's class helped a group escape by holding the door when Lanza shot their teacher, including a girl named Emma, and another boy. A woman picked them up in her van and took them to police station.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[A 1]
[A 2]
Meanwhile, another mother drove directly to the firehouse to search for her son immediately upon getting phonecalls and knocks on her door. She saw 5 other students of Ms. Soto's at the firehouse, and learned that her son and 4 more of Ms. Soto's students had been taken to Newtown police station by "two moms".
[16]
It turns out that CT Rep. John H. Frey's sister Tricia Gogliettino picked up "5 1st graders".
[17]
[18]
[19]
70.194.134.152 (
talk)
16:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
In reply to the above requests, there is too much detail already and adding more would be undue weight. WP:UNDUE USchick ( talk) 01:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
So the article couldn't use any of it? 208.54.90.141 ( talk) 03:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
References
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Various interesting new information in this article from the Hartford Courant. Lanza was found dead wearing earplugs, and is described as "wearing all black clothes under a drab olive green utility vest with pockets filled with 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster." He is not described as wearing a mask, which tends to confirm the view that this was an early mistake.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is "Adam Lanza" not hyperlinked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.212.115 ( talk) 05:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The father is mentioned in the article but not by name. Should the father be mentioned by name?
We have in the section titled Perpetrator:
And we have in the section titled Reactions:
"Our hearts go out to the families and friends who lost loved ones and to all those who were injured. Our family is grieving along with all those who have been affected by this enormous tragedy. No words can truly express how heartbroken we are. We are in a state of disbelief and trying to find whatever answers we can. We too are asking why. We have cooperated fully with law enforcement and will continue to do so. Like so many of you, we are saddened, but struggling to make sense of what has transpired."
This question is addressed in this thread in Talk page archives. It is also addressed in this thread which I initiated on the WP:BLPN. Bus stop ( talk) 16:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
specifically covered by Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names. The name does not add significant value. should not be included. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
How is Wikipedia dealing with corrections which were made to the original, official story claiming that Ryan Lanza was the killer? Because Wikipedia is based on citing reliable sources, and these reliable sources claimed that Ryan was the killer before making changes to the story. Are we no longer citing the reliable source claims that Ryan was the killer simply because reliable sources have published a reversion of that claim themselves?
I ask because, although reliable sources first reported that Lanza stole his mother's black Honda civic and drove it to the scene, since the police background check of the car was released, we can hear them say that the car, with the license plate 872-YEO, was registered to (Redacted). It could be that Lanza's mom purchased the car from (Redacted), or that Adam Lanza somehow obtained access to this car, which did not belong to his mom. Both are conjecture. In any case, are we simply reporting that the car belonged to Lanza's mom because the press did not revert its original story like it did with the Ryan Lanza report?
Here are our two sources, dated December 14, the day of the incident:
But since then the audio tape where police run a background check on the car has been released.-- Nonono2222 ( talk) 07:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Both the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech tragedies have Wikipedia articles which refer to them as "massacres". Since the circumstances surrounding this shooting were very similar to those two shootings, and the number of victims was even greater than the number of victims at Columbine, why in the world is it so controversial to retitle this article "Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre"? That's what it freaking was, a freaking massacre!!! Get over your silly issues and call it that already! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.44.248 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 January 2013
I couldn't agree more that this page should be titled massacre rather than shooting because it well fits the definition of massacre:
The definition of 'massacre': http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/massacre 1. The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the norms of civilized people.
The definition of 'shooting': http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shooting 1. An instance of shooting (a person) with a gun. Police are hunting the people who carried out the shootings last week.
What happened at Sandy Hook School better fits the definition of a massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.13.205 ( talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to go on record saying I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the quasi-statistical sports-themed scoreboard box. This looks like nothing less than glorifying and highlighting individual aspects of the shooting completely liberated from the terrible nature of the crime. This is the same format used to highlight reasons to be proud of or impressed by athletes and other high achievers, and I think it actually feeds into encouraging this behavior as somehow normative. There's a long-standing, hateful meme about "high scores" and gun spree killers that is widely circulated. Additionally, this presence of this scoreboard box could well be traumatizing for relations and victims of these events. Is there some discussion or justification about using this design element that has taken place? If not, I am going to remove it as highly inappropriate, hurtful, possibly to be seen as an endorsement of this kind of behavior, and it adds very little of value to the article in any case. None of the information presented is tabulated or aggregated in any useful fashion to the best of my knowledge, so why put it out there as if it represents a valid body of statistical data when it does not? 146.115.156.66 ( talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind a list of victims. I'm talking about the pull out box at the top right that lists facts about the event, like "Attack type" and "Weapon(s)" used. Its ghastly to portray this information as if this mass shooting was a golf tournament or a shoot-em-up video game. Not only is it a shock to the conscience, it's a poor way to represent the information. As I said before, this information is being presented as if it were pulled from a body of statistical data; and it isn't. Can we replace this scorecard box with a short, factual blurb that summarizes the information and doesn't literally look like the level summary screen from a violent video game? 146.115.156.66 ( talk) 19:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose merging Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories with this per WP:FORK, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE p b p 00:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps some mention in the article could be made of the conspiracy theorists who are now claiming that this tragedy was in fact staged or created by Obama in order to further his gun control policies?
"(SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL) A communication professor known for conspiracy theories has stirred controversy at Florida Atlantic University with claims that last month’s Newtown, Conn., school shootings did not happen as reported — or may not have happened at all.
Moreover, James Tracy asserts in radio interviews and on his memoryholeblog.com. that trained “crisis actors” may have been employed by the Obama administration in an effort to shape public opinion in favor of the event’s true purpose: gun control."
Here are some other links: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/08/florida-professor-questions-newtown-shooting-massacre-calls-for-more/#ixzz2HPUHuNSg http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/01/absolute-proof-sandy-hook-massacre-was-staged-2447514.html http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/01/theater-shooter-actors-linked-to-sandy-hook-actors-exposed-as-a-fraud-video-2530994.html http://www.catholicintl.com/index.php/latest-news/1129--further-evidence-shows-sandy-hook-was-staged http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/professor-obama-staged-sandy-hook-massacre/#cQClK1b3Y1drVLEk.99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.208.202 ( talk) 03:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
No.
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Time (in the summary box) of the shootings listed is the time of the response, not the shootings. Why is the wrong time listed? 76.21.107.221 ( talk) 17:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I found this personal detail about the injuries associated with a name to be unnecessary: "and at least one victim, six-year-old Noah Pozner, 11 times." While it is true those details were given in the references I wonder if such details could be cut from this article. Personally I don't see how the number of times they were shot or where they were shot are of any importance unless they formed a pattern of some significance. The fact that the details were published elsewhere may not be good reason to post it here. Zedshort ( talk) 17:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and written Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. As press coverage of these theories continues, the topic is more solidly meets WP:GNG with every passing day. However, since the issue has caused controversy before on this talk page, I wanted to build consensus before forcing it into the article. I was thinking a very short section with a {{ main}}, but it may also be appropriate to name some of the more prominent theories. What do you think? -- BDD ( talk) 23:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The current lede has several deficiencies, an obvious problem is the irrelevant mention of his age in the lede, but the whole structure of the lede is an issue as well. Proseline is problematic in any part of an article, but in the first part of the lede starting off with "on x date" and never giving a formal name for the subject makes the article seem more like a journal entry or news timeline than an encyclopedic work. Additionally, while the editor restoring the status-quo and the little note on the page cites MOS:BOLDTITLE, by keeping the current version we are ignoring several more important aspects of WP:LEDE. The first sentence does not name the actual subject and it does not explain why this event is notable. As such I would suggest the following change:
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, also called the Newtown massacre, was the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history and the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school. It occurred on December 14, 2012, when Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members and wounded two at the elementary school in Sandy Hook, Newtown, Connecticut. Before driving to the school, Lanza had shot and killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.
While there is some redundancy, it is not even close to the extent of that provided in the example on the guideline page. I do not believe the redundancy is distracting in this case and it helps distinguish aspects of the event's notability. Please suggest any changes, but I think we can easily incorporate the article title into the first sentence of the lede and have it read well at the same time. There is no reason to keep reverting back to the old lede.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" does a pretty good job of describing the event and where it occurred.
It doesn't give the date, but there is no need to give a date for an event in the first sentence of the lede and it would be in the sentence right after that.
Also, while it isn't the formal name, it is definitely a common name that was being used right from the start, though sometimes leaving out the word "school".
Nothing you have mentioned is of such importance as to demand keeping the current the version.
I took a moment to look at when that note was first added and located it. Funny thing is, that editor seems to be saying "I've seen this elsewhere so adding it here",
and I also noticed that in every article I could find on this sort of killing, the only other times such a note or style occurs on these major articles is when you have been there shoving it into the article.
This is just MOS POV-pushing, and I also see that you have been repeatedly forcing this style of lede, and the note, into this article: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. At that time you reverted five times to an identical version based on your own personal preference, four of those reverts being within four hours.
Yet you had the gall to warn me of edit-warring, absolutely absurd.
We should keep the who/what/where/when information in the first sentence. Comparative/editorial content needs to come after that, as you have to be able to define what you are talking about to compare it to something else. No comment on if any particular version are POV pushing Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, also called the Newtown massacre, took place on December 14, 2012, when Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members and wounded two at the school in the village of Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut.
Is there a reason the age should be omitted? I've restored it. Can we discuss this? Bus stop ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Watched a conspiracy vid, and though geeze, this is crap, but i decided to try to debunk it myself. I found: https://www.facebook.com/VictoriaSotoCausePag/info and https://www.facebook.com/pages/RIP-Victoria-Soto/331085463672239?sk=info The second link actually says "Test Event Webpage" in the description! Really? How did they know she was going to die 4 days ahead of schedule? Now I am starting to wonder if there is something behind the conspiracy theory after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.229.193 ( talk) 07:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Adding this to discuss terminology. In President Obama's statement in the reaction section, originally there was an entry calling the actions "slaughter" I changed it to "murder" and then it was changed to "killing" The notion is that murder requires maliceaforethought, mensrea. I reverted killing to murder per WP:BRD - let's discuss - I think it's pretty clear that these acts were murderous. The alleged criminal destroyed a hard drive, killed his mother, drove to the school, put on earplugs, and went on a shooting spree. the word kill seems like it could be innocent without fault while slaughter seems like something that is done to animals not humans. What say you all? - Justanonymous ( talk) 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the first line of the second paragraph under the "shootings" heading. The rifle was found locked in the trunk of the car and was never used at the school. Incidentally, the rifle was not even a Bushmaster. The way it is currently written is not true. I respect Wikipedia and use it often for research. I am troubled to find such a glaring lie on your website.
69.10.216.9 ( talk) 02:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is incomplete without a thorough listing of the specific crimes committed in this horrific event. I respectfully request that this information be added by local experts in law enforcement and/or the judicial system. Without this information, we are unable to have reasonable and objective discussions about changing existing laws or adding new laws to try to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.114.167 ( talk) 03:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
In investigations like this, where the lone perpetrator is dead and the details are straightforward, it's not usual for a state to seek to seal records sealed for additional time and to keep details from the general public unless they're just having a hard time making heads or tails of the evidence or if there is too much evidence to piece together in the time they've had. The statement that the state's interest outweighs the release and that the release of details could affect the outcome of the investigation means that the state is still conducting their investigation - they might be chasing a loose end, something or someone (but we don't know and we should not conjecture on the wiki). I think it's noteworthy to add a one liner indicating that the state sought and won a request to keep the records sealed for an additional 90 days as their investigation continues.- Justanonymous ( talk) 13:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently reverted some (good faith) additions of polling information. I do not think we have consensus for such information, but if we do, we certainly must include the ragnge of reliable polling information in an WP:NPOV manner, not just 1 or 2 poll results that support a particular POV.
Here are some additional reliable/major polls that would need to be incorporated into a balanced view.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add interwiki link please: ur:سینڈی ہک ایلمینٹری سکول فائرنگ Fmc47 ( talk) 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Snopes has a new article looking at conspiracy theories surrounding the shooting. [15] It also debunks the claim that the man CR was the owner of the black Honda in which Lanza drove to the school. [16]-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update on my request per Gwickwire's suggestion: Please change the first line of the second paragraph under the "shootings" heading. The rifle was found locked in the trunk of the car and was never used at the school. Incidentally, the rifle was not even a Bushmaster. The way it is currently written is not true. Here is my source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iGn4o1Lb6L0 This is a link to the NBC news video. [1]
69.10.216.9 ( talk) 05:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove all notice of Adam Lanza using an AR-15 assault rifle, NBC news reported on Jan 14th that te AR was found in the car in the parking lot. and not used in the shootings and that there is validiity to the "conspiracy theorists" becasue their is so much contradicitng information.
71.36.9.212 ( talk) 05:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Scroll-up and see the answer to the previous request and then please check the Talk archive for the previous 3 or 4 answers to the same question.-- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 06:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Contrary to NBC News, NO rifles were used. My source is NBC Today Show news, which aired at a later date than the footnotes about the Bushmaster in the article, therefore NBC had updated news about the weapons used. NBC aired this on Jan 17, 2013. In the future I'd like to see the actual coroner report instead of links to news articles. The news got every detail about this shooting wrong multiple times. A coroner report would settle this most significant detail, and stop bad information from being spread further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGn4o1Lb6L0&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelava22 ( talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He did not use an assault rifle. He did not use a bushmaster, He used handguns. Get your facts straight. 76.22.152.245 ( talk) 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
"Under Connecticut law,[74] the 20-year-old Lanza was old enough to carry a long gun,[75]"
"Carry" has common meaning in conversations surrounding US gun law, inconsistent with the sentence's intended meaning and the content of the cited source. Specifically, with regard to carrying of handguns on one's person. Recommend replacement sentence... perhaps something like, "the 20-year-old Lanza would have met the minimum age requirement for purchase of a long gun [...]". Though that might imply it is the only requirement, which it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveD-0101 ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It is misleading to imply anything he did with the guns was legal. He didn't legally acquire them. He couldn't legally take them to the school, he couldn't legally carry them. All of this should be made clear. Promontoriumispromontorium ( talk) 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am questioning if we can say for certain the long gun that was used to kill the children was an XM-15. See this CNN article and they say it was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon" and "Police didn't offer details about the specific model of the rifle Lanza used." I've seem other articles say authorities said the Bushmaster XM-15 was use, but is that a direct quote from authorities or supposition on the part of some journalist. Maybe the news outlets are just quoting Wikipedia. Do we have a direct quote or better yet a press release? See Bushmaster's product page for XM-15s, MOE and Carbon 15. You can see the all look based on the AR-15 and thats just what they are selling now. They may have had other products in the past. Do we know what he used? Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Just for referance this is where XM-15 entered the article as a link and here as a visable name. here the editor mentions the rational for adding it, however the article he references no longer says anything about the rifle. It may have been changed. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 21:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the 'Investigation' portion of the article, in the first paragraph, the usage of the word "clips" is incorrect. It should read "magazines" instead. A clip is not used on AR-platform rifles. While not an urgent revision, it can simply be seen as a mirror towards the media's ignorance. 99.187.145.247 ( talk) 05:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was Saiga-12? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiga-12
Spelled "canta" if you try to read the cyrillic as english.
Niberto ( talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
As this has been removed twice from the "Investigation" section, we should probably have a discussion as to whether or not we should retain the words "high capacity" in the sentence "A 30 round high capacity magazine was recovered with the rifle" or if we should delete those two words so that it simply reads "A 30 round magazine was recovered with the rifle." The source citation is to the Connecticut State Police press release dated 18 January 2013, which says that seized inside the school was a "Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine".
One could argue that a 50-round or 100-round drum magazine is high capacity, hence a 30-round banana magazine shouldn't be. Conversely, they also make 10-round and 20-round magazines for AR-15 style rifles, in which case you might argue 30 rounds is high capacity. I'm not sure if there is a definitive definition of "high capacity", but with regard to the source citation before us, the State Police described it as "high capacity", hence I think we should stick with what the source says. Others may have a different opinion, so please share them here and we'll sort this out. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
A month and half after the incident the autism diagnosis is not confirmed by a psychiatrist or past medical records? may be rumors only, but the article states it as a fact. Kiatdd ( talk) 17:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
This statement, "The other was an unidentified adult.[6]" regarding the wounded sent to the hospital seems to be remedied in the section above that names the teacher being shot in an arm and a leg. Anyone care to update this? Or is this too ambiguous (i.e. WP:SYNTH? Rklawton ( talk) 19:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't know how best to say it but I saw on NBC news that the AR-15 was not used in the shootings. In the shooting section of this article t is stated that it was used to go into the school then it intimates that it was used throughout. The citations for those statements are either nebulous 'sources say he changed magazines a lot' or were reported, incorrectly, in the flurry of activity immediately after the shooting. More up-to-date and wholly different information is now available and should, in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, be substituted for the earlier and inaccurate statements. 99.88.195.58 ( talk) 00:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please addend "alleged" where relevant. I.e.throughout the ENTIRE post. No investigation has been completed. Godxkiller ( talk) 05:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up that one of the child victims was made into a seperate article which is now up for AfD. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Social Security Death Index (SSDI) Death Record states that Adam P. Lanza died on Thursday December 13, 2012. That is the day before the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident.
http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/ssdi/doc/ssdi/v1:143EB37C71A1FA78
Slorri ( talk) 19:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Also Ancestry.com is reporting the same date of death, Thursday December 13, 2012. Both these sites get their data from Social Security Administration (SSA). One need to be registered to get all of the date from ancestry.com http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=ROOT_CATEGORY&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_f-2_s&gsfn=Adam&gsln=Lanza&mswpn__ftp=Newtown%2C+Fairfield%2C+Connecticut%2C+USA&mswpn=71&mswpn_PInfo=8-%7C0%7C1652393%7C0%7C2%7C3242%7C9%7C0%7C1000%7C71%7C0%7C&uidh=000
I suppose that Social Security Administration (SSA) is a RS. Slorri ( talk) 22:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
There was conflicting information and inconsistent reports about the event. I request a section talking about the inconsistencies. The name and identity of the shooter was wrong, the car was reported belonging to someone else, number of shooters, etc. Media coverage of the the event is relevant to what happened. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] USchick ( talk) 16:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
According to anonymous reports, authorities were investigating whether Lanza attempted to buy a rifle at a sporting goods store in Danbury, Connecticut, two days before the massacre. Anonymous sources claimed Lanza was turned down because he did not want to undergo a background check or abide by the state's waiting period for gun sales.
Can you expand the lead section to include info on the school shooting's background (or what happened before the shooting) and its aftermath, legacy and impact (like its impact on gun control for example), please. Thanx. 67.172.190.101 ( talk) 06:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This edit was reverted, but it is worth taking a brief look at it. The inventive people in the blogs have claimed that the words "Aurora" and "Sandy Hook" appear in the film The Dark Knight Rises. This article takes a look at the claim. It is surprising how much conspiracy material the shooting is generating, but cherry picking is not new and can be used to prove almost anything. A famous example is the article Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Fully aware that we have been keeping most of the speculative issues out of this article, I've been looking at the Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article - one that I would normally consider for deletion - as a way to describe in neutrally as possible the impact on gun control, mental health, and video games - among others - that came from the shooting, that we are purposely avoiding here to avoid bias/unsubstantiated claims.
Take the area of video games, where no, there is no connection outside of Lanza playing some of the more violent ones. That said, we can talk about how the media pointed figures there, a few new bills that have come about to restrict sale of violent games, the whole mess with Senator Lee of California, and a bunch of sourcable details of what has happened in the VG arena due to the shooting. As long as we start off : "Some politicians and media journalists have suggested that the presence of violent video games contributed to the shooting", we are not affirming or condoning this theory, and thus stay NPOV, particularly since I know for the VG industry we can talk both sides of the issue.
I can believe we can do the same with the mental health aspects, pointing out that Lanza's conditions has been suggested by others (providing such links) to be tied to the event and the reactions from various mental health experts on why and why not that would be possible.
Obviously gun control is easy to do this as well - we effectively have it, but I would support moving what we have to the Reactions page to strengthen that one. We can leave summaries here, until such a time where the reactions become more significant - eg say that we eventually get the "Victoria Soto Gun Control Law" passed in Congress (just an example), we can describe that since it will become more tightly connected to the topic at hand.
There may be other theories that otherwise fall outside of FRINGE territory (eg: we are not going to mention the Westboro BC's theory that gay marriage was at fault). As long as the issue can be approached on either side as with the three mentioned above, it should be good to include there. This would also alleviate some of the points we've got in the FAQ about why X isn't mentioned - I think having it on the separate page helps to break any implication we (as WPian editors) may unintentionally make here and would make it easier to keep the sections there unbiased. -- MASEM ( t) 16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of paragraph/sentence that says "She often took her two sons to a local shooting range.[100]", just above the section entitled "Reactions", please add.
"During an interview with Connecticut State Police, it was said Nancy Lanza's guns were not secured. "They weren't under lock and key," the friend said. "She kept her stuff all together in a closet."
Chris87654321 ( talk) 19:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Newtown Sides with NRA: Votes for Armed Guards In Schools
Should this be incorporated into the article?
If so, how should it be incorporated (Reactions section presumably)? -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 00:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Having scanned the FAQ and the Talk archives (and the page itself) it seems that these findings or reports or ... have not yet been released. There have been officials having press conferences, but not the "official" findings. Correct? (Asked because I'm getting tired of people asking me where they are and I thought there would be a link here, if anywhere.) htom ( talk) 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This section stems from a discussion above here on the talk page the question being do we really need an eye catching list that in my opinion goes against WP:NOTMEMORIAL in the article? So what I am going to do is form a consensus on it, please choose one of the following proposals, and place your opinion on it.
Please voice your opinion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Oxymoron alert! "Consensus poll" makes no sense. If we're going to get this right, let's at least demonstrate that we can use language correctly here. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and removed the list, if you wish to revert or reinclude it please state a reason on why you feel it should be kept, keep in mind that the names of the victims are already included in the article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that including a list of the victims in the article is in bad taste. However, it can be justified for either side. I don't think it would belong in an infobox, but maybe a list within the article, if it is determined by consensus to include it. There is no standard, the Virginia Tech Massacre contains the names of the individuals killed, but in something like the Oklahoma City Bombing, the victims are not mentioned. Aneah| talk to me 23:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems odd to me to acknowledge the shooter, and not the victims, particularly as other mass shootings Wiki entries acknowledge the victims (e.g. Aurora, Wisconsin Sikh Temple, and others already given). If Sandy Hook is to be an exception, what is some of the reasoning for delisting the victims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.100.15 ( talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that a list of the victims is quite appropriate and its removal is a bit absurd. This is a deadly shooting, which is most essentially one person killing others. The killer has an entire section and picture. The people killed can at least be listed. This is quite in line with nearly every other similar article. Bath School disaster. Virginia Tech massacre. 2012 Aurora shooting. 2011 Norway attacks. In Aménas hostage crisis. Kandahar massacre. University of Texas clock tower massacre. Waco Siege. All of these articles appropriately have separate lists of victims. Rock Springs massacre, a featured article, appropriatly lists victims. I read WP:NOTMEMORIAL to ban articles about these people unless they are independently noteworthy, and limit excessive description. Something like "Victim Smith, age 6, was a loving young boy who liked playing with his pet dog Fido, building forts with his brother Sam and sister Betsy, and reading Dr. Seuss books. His parents called him the 'light of our life.' ..." has WP:NOTMEMORIAL problems. Merely "Victim Smith, age 6" is not problematic. Erudy ( talk) 14:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Since WP:MEMORIAL has been cited in regards to the list of victims, I thought I would take a look at what that policy actually states.
so, there are two operative/important words here, the first of which is "Subject" and the second of which is "memorialize".
In my opinion, a list of the victims as verified from multiple, independent reliable sources should be included, especially in its previous incarnation of only stating the verifiable facts...names, ages and not including any of the life-details one would normally find in an obituary or on a memorial site. Shearonink ( talk) 20:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Super Goku V ( talk) 06:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[...] It should be noted that the fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial does not proclude covering those who died in notable events- merely that people should not be included merely as a memorial. The overwhelming consensus was that these people were collectively notable as a result of the circumstances of their deaths. [...] (emphasis added)
— User:WjBscribe 125316593
I think there's a consensus (below) to put in the list back in. I'm going to be bold and do so. Erudy ( talk) 18:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
There hasn't been much discussion on this for a few days; let me try to summarize, with the obvious caveat that I'm on record as in favor of having a list.
Masem and Mobushgu strongly believe there should be no list of individuals, due to WP:NOTMEM concerns. Knowledgekid87 has similar concerns, perhaps more particularly about a "oversized" list rather than in-text exposition.
Aneah finds an infobox to be in bad taste, although perhaps justifiable; would prefer in-text exposition. RedSoxFan2434 similarly suggests that a list is OK, although would prefer integration with text so as not to be an "eyecatcher".
Scalhotrod, Dream Focus, Coretheapple, Manipande, GabrielF, Fox2k11, Shearonink, Super Goku V, (and, of course, myself, Erudy) variously think the list is innocuous, helpful, and appropriate.
I think that WP:NOTMEM is an important policy to keep in mind, especially for tragedies such as this one. But I think getting rid of the list entirely goes too far. Let me propose that we keep the list, with certain modifications to reduce its visual signature. Hopefully this will reduce the NOTMEM concerns (although I assume that it won't completely satisfy Masem), partly meet concerns about an "eye-catching" list, but still follow what I propose is the weight of opinion expressed so far.
In the proposal at right, I've removed the bolding of the names, put some of the notes in italics to soften their impact, and slightly reduced the text size. Are we willing to put this compromise back in the article? Erudy ( talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
[...] It should be noted that the fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial does not proclude covering those who died in notable events- merely that people should not be included merely as a memorial. The overwhelming consensus was that these people were collectively notable as a result of the circumstances of their deaths. [...] (emphasis added)
— WjBscribe, 125316593
While I don't have an opinion on whether to include the list or not, I have reverted my edit on the page. While the list looks pretty, it has way too much markup. If it stays, it should be rewritten with more maintainable markup per MOS:MARKUP. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I heard the recent news about the Aurora shooting victims' families being harassed by conspiracy theorists, and wondered if we this was an issue with the Sandy Hook victims, and if this should be something to consider when discussing changes to this article Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 18:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two paragraphs under the heading Shootings are in slight conflict with each other.
The first passage cites an early, less accurate report.
I propose changing the passage,
In a first-grade classroom, Lauren Rousseau, a substitute teacher, was shot in the face and killed. Fifteen of the sixteen students in her class were killed; a six-year-old girl was the sole survivor. ... Sanchez, Raf (December 17, 2012).
"Connecticut school shooting: six-year-old stayed alive by playing dead". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved December 18, 2012.
He shot mostly in two first-grade classrooms near the entrance of the school, killing fourteen in one room and six in the other.
"Sandy Hook shooting: What happened?". CNN. Retrieved January 8, 2013.
70.194.64.168 (
talk)
10:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Page cannot be edited. But this sentence is wrong: "Police ... began evacuating the survivors room-by-room." It should be "room by room" (with spaces). Hyphens are only used to form an adjective, e.g. "a room-by-room evacuation". Consider "they hate dogs" vs. "dog-hating people". 86.174.188.81 ( talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This article needs to be edited to show that the AR-15 style Assault Rifle was NOT actually used in the shooting. The Medical Examiner has determined that all victims were actually shot with Handguns and NOT the AR-15. In the discussion area, there have been Multiple links. This NEEDS to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagsc7 ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The coroner was being questioned by the media the day after the shootings when all the results were preliminary. It's unlikely that bullets recovered from the bodies had been matched to any barrels yet as that requires sending the recovered projectiles and weapons to a criminal forensics lab for regimented testing. Carver already knew at this point, however, that the injuries and wounds were caused by a rifle, and he knew what the police had found inside the school (two handguns and the XM15). Hence, he knew in his mind subjectively and with a high degree of certainty that the kids in the school were killed by the Bushmaster, but experts in his position are trained not to answer the question that way, as it can get you in trouble later in court if you've overstepped what you know and what you think you know. This is why he was being evasive with the reporters who were pressing him to identify the weapon that was used; he knows the wounds were caused by a long weapon and he knows that the police found the rifle, but he couldn't say for sure that the wounds were caused by that particular rifle yet, without having done the science first. Re-watch the video with the volume turned up so that you can hear both the reporters questions and his responses in this context, and the reason for him avoiding putting out the information that way becomes clear. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 03:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I have removed material from this article that I believe contributes nothing in the way of insight and is more of prurient interest.
Prurient: : marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire
While WP requires the material added to the article should be from a reliable source as a necessary condition, but that is not a sufficient condition. The inclusion of material that appeals to our baser instincts should not be added and if added should be removed. It is interesting to know that some reliable source provided the original information but it does not follow that it must be used and if not of genuine use in enlightening or too far off topic it should not be included. We do not need to know that some victim was shot in the face, nor do we need to know that a particular child ran from the school covered in blood, nor do we need to know what part of the body Lanza shot himself. Those details have no genuine value and I have removed them as they contribute nothing to the article. I have the impression that there are more than a few people editing such articles as this, who have an rather unwholesome interest in providing such gory and useless material and I urge you to delete it whenever you find it just as I will. Zedshort ( talk) 02:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The gruesome details of a persons wounds and suffering are not of value to the article. Such details provide no insight, nor does it put the subject into perspective. I see the reporting of such details as something that belongs to a rag that is attempting to garner readers by including racy material that causes the gut to stir and does nothing for the task of informing. In addition, I think the feelings of the families and even friends of the victims should be considered. Again, simply because some reliable source made the mistake of reporting the details originally it does not follow that it should be taken up and repeated here. We can be better than they are. Zedshort ( talk) 05:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
At the top of the Edit Page of the article is a warning about such articles involving Biographies of Living Persons and states: "This policy also applies to the recently deceased out of concern for any living relatives and other persons closely connected to them. Contentious or questionable material should be removed from both the article and its talk page." Material providing the morbid details of the suffering and death and the trauma of the living has no place in an encyclopedic article. This is not a newspaper that simply gathers snipits of articles from many sources. And once again, not inserting material or removing material does not constitute censorship of an article. The material should be necessary and provide insight into the subject not just be kinda interesting.
Just FYI, none of these details are of "prurient interest", since they do not evoke sexual interest. I think what was meant was "morbid interest". It is similar but not quite the same thing.-- Auric talk 01:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Please note the the absolute terms in which it was expressed by the last sentence. It strikes me as a bit closeminded. Zedshort ( talk) 01:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
inquest = court case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquest
1) I know people are in a state of frenzy but to say Adam Lanza is the one responsible is a bit premature. No Ruling except in the public media has said Adam Lanza is responsible. So I feel we should wait until the court rules he was guilty as we should in all law cases even if it seems obvious. We can always change the page later
2) Why is President Obama in this page??
Popular Press: Lanza was described as a bright but painfully awkward student. Lanza subsequently was home-schooled by his mother, and earned a GED. Adam Lanza: Skinny outcast who became a mass killer. Lanza, who friends and officials said suffered from Asperger’s syndrome or a personality disorder, had a tortured mind. Lanza avoided public attention and had few, if any, friends, though he was a member of the high-school tech club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinky2013 ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The latest stuff to hit the news media this morning about the shooter's motive concerning the Norwegian mass-murderer has been denied as mere speculation:
I don't think this stuff should be added? It's just more of the same. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 11:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Page cannot be edited. The word "publicly" is misspelled on the page as "pubicly" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiks ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Done.--
♦IanMacM♦
(talk to me)
16:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Reference 100 is some Template:Cite_weblast%3DGoodwin&action=edit&redlink=1 template???? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 19:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Re this edit: The photos of Adam Lanza in this article are new, the claims about Lanza having sensory integration disorder and Asperger syndrome are not. Locals told the media and investigators these things in the first few days after the shooting. Unless they are confirmed by a medical professional or a public comment from the investigators, they are not reliably sourced.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
“ | Lanza's brother told law enforcement that Adam was believed to have a personality disorder and was "somewhat autistic".[100] An anonymous law enforcement official[101] and friends of Nancy Lanza[102] reported that Adam had been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome.[103][104][105] According to the Hartford Courant and Frontline, Lanza was diagnosed with sensory integration disorder when he was about 6.[10] | ” |
One aspect to keep in mind - until we figure out (we haven't) if we should have a separate page for Lanza (my suggestion is still "no" at this point w/ what we know), this page is serving as his bio. Thus, even if the relationship to the shooting is tenancious or even off-topic but a normal facet that 1) meets RS/(BLP-ish) type sourcing requirements and 2) would normally be included in a bio article about a person, that should be included here. We just have to make sure that in writing about material that could be taken as a tie/cause for the shooting, that we don't create any implication about that. We've done a good job so far in writing as neutrally as possible about Lanza's mental health and disconnecting it as a factor in the shooting, but reporting on it since this has been a major factor in reliable (not sensational) news reports. -- MASEM ( t) 16:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen of the court, I bring to your attention this statement:
"The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, and a proposal for new legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic weapons and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition"
This statement is, verbatim, a polar opposite to the argument that the new gun legislation infringes on the Second Amendment, and in the theory of argumentation, embracing such a belief is called bias. When it is portrayed without a counter argument, it becomes a universal truth about it. Therefore, I recommend removing it or by adding this phrase:
"Critics warn that they may unfairly be at risk of being victims of prejudicial behavior in terms of the Federal Government adopting new, untested policies [9] concerning enforcement of new laws (New York Safe Act), and groundbreaking medical research (DSM-5) in the field of mental health."
The new paragraph being represented as:
"The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, and a proposal for new legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic weapons and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition [10]. Critics warn that they may unfairly be at risk of being victims of prejudicial behavior in terms of the Federal Government adopting new, untested policies [11] concerning enforcement of new laws (New York Safe Act), and groundbreaking medical research (DSM-5) in the field of mental health."
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.104.241 ( talk) 22:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
References
abcvictims
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).courant1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).cbslocal1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Victim Rachel D'Avino
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Connecticut shooting: Services for Katonah native Anne Marie Murphy set
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Police: Second person injured in Connecticut school shooting survived
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).If you read this article, you see that the term is controversial and that Lanza better satisfies criteria of " rampage" or " mass murder" - all deaths committed within short period of time, in small geographic range. It wasn't as if he had been driving around the state, killing people at multiple locations over a period of days. His mother was the only person he killed outside the school, and he killed himself before his identity was even known - more characteristic of mass murder than spree killing. Parkwells ( talk) 17:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
...and Ms. Soto's class picture shows 15 students.
These reports mention 16.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
"19 children you protected" Jillian Soto:
[5]
There were 3 first-grade classes
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
Kaitlyn Roig's class was spared. All but one of Mrs. Rousseau's class perished. Where did the extra students come from?
70.194.134.152 (
talk)
17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
References
She ran from the school, and was the first child to escape the building.
I propose expanding on that with
Newtown Middle School resource officer Leonard Penna found the student in Rousseau's class who survived standing alone. He grabbed the uninjured girl by the arm and ran with her out to a triage area set up in the parking lot.
[1]
Six surviving children from Soto's class crawled out of the cupboards after the shooting and fled the school. They and a school bus driver took refuge at a nearby home.
[2]
The cited article only says "...he is unsure how the students escaped the school...".
I propose replacing that sentence with
One group of 4 girls and 2 boys from Ms. Soto's class fled the school. They, along with a school bus driver, were brought in to a nearby home.
[3]
[4]
[5] Police rescued 7 students still hiding in Ms. Soto's classroom.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
I propose expanding on this sentence:
As reported by his parents, a six-year-old boy in Soto's class fled with a group of his classmates, and the children escaped through the door when Lanza shot their teacher.
Let's include the following reports and write something like this:
As reported by his parents, their six-year-old son from Ms. Soto's class helped a group escape by holding the door when Lanza shot their teacher, including a girl named Emma, and another boy. A woman picked them up in her van and took them to police station.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[A 1]
[A 2]
Meanwhile, another mother drove directly to the firehouse to search for her son immediately upon getting phonecalls and knocks on her door. She saw 5 other students of Ms. Soto's at the firehouse, and learned that her son and 4 more of Ms. Soto's students had been taken to Newtown police station by "two moms".
[16]
It turns out that CT Rep. John H. Frey's sister Tricia Gogliettino picked up "5 1st graders".
[17]
[18]
[19]
70.194.134.152 (
talk)
16:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
In reply to the above requests, there is too much detail already and adding more would be undue weight. WP:UNDUE USchick ( talk) 01:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
So the article couldn't use any of it? 208.54.90.141 ( talk) 03:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
References