This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Connecticut Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Death Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Schools Stub‑class Mid‑importance This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lt. Paul Vance of CT State Police just said at a live press conference on NBCNews.com that the shootings occurred only in the school office and the kindergarten room, but there's no permalink for that yet. 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be extreme attention to this topic as there have been many new sections on this talk page whitin a few minutes.--Cotten134 (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty common around here during a breaking news story. Natalie (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pls fix the shooter ASAP, he is not named Ryan but Adam. [1][2] Tyypos (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I agree with this. We should remove Ryan's name from the article and wait on a police official report on this. 2010 SO16 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire shooting section needs to be rewritten. Ryan Lanza has been taken into custody, but is not a suspect. It might be pertinent to report that Ryan Lanza was reported incorrectly to be the shooter early on. Ryan Vesey 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed most of the "Suspect" section due to this, since it seems like a BLP violation. It may be that Adam Lanza was the shooter and Ryan Lanza the brother, but we should of course wait for official identification, since there's obviously some misidentification. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we assume for the time being that even mainstream news sources are not "reliable" regarding this point? Sancho 21:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to report on reporting. At least until we know how important those details are in the context of the larger story later on. Sancho 21:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any doubt as to the shooter's identity, I say we have to hold off per WP:BLP until the media/authorities get the right info out. If the wrong person has been identified, this is a notable aspect of the coverage which can be added later (much like during 9/11 CNN reported a car bomb going off at the Capitol, etc.) 70.72.211.35 (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:BDP deary. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was WP:BLP pertaining to the initial mistakenly identified suspect, as appears to be the case; I removed it as such. I suppose WP:BDP applies as well, but the more salient point is that Wikipedia was accusing the wrong (and still living) person of being the shooter. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The suspect in the Connecticut school shootings is Adam Lanza, 20, the son of a teacher at the school where the shootings occurred, a law enforcement official said Friday. A second law enforcement official says the boy's mother, Nancy Lanza, is presumed dead. Adam Lanza's older brother, Ryan, 24, of Hoboken, N.J., is being questioned by police, said the first official. Earlier, a law enforcement official mistakenly transposed the brothers' first names." -- http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-source-20-year-old-suspect-had-ties-school 2010 SO16 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when removing a reference to check that you aren't leaving orphan ref tags. This has happened at least three times in the last half hour or so. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I have named all unnamed refs and moved the references to the end, as we commonly do with these fast changing news articles. The general process is to regather the new references which will be inserted in the body from time to time. A useful tip is to merely comment out refs which become unused, saving time if they are required once again. Also useful is to number mutliple refs from the same source "ABC 1", "ABC 2" etc, though we have not entered that territory yet, and may not. Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your most valuable edits Rich.. And it appears that some refs have again been orphaned, and then deleted!
• The reference,<ref name="Daily Mail">{{cite web|title=Children and adults gunned down in Connecticut school . Cops quizzing kid brother|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html|publisher=Daily Mail UK|accessdate=December 14, 2012|author=Rachel Quigley|date=December 14, 2012}}</ref> used for info regarding the weapons used, seems a poor ref as it links to an index page where the title referenced no longer appears. I couldn't find a way to search for it either.
• If any one else can? Or replace with a more recent source? - 23:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any information on his motive? Pass a Method talk 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and the officials are not giving out any info yet so there is not much we can go on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the I.P. comes back to post derogotary material i suggest an admin should block . Pass a Method talk 22:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I have is that it seems to be undue to post the comments of a representative from another state. How then do we decide whether or not to post the opinion of Governor Mark Dayton or Representative Darrell Issa (randomly chosen). I think we should limit reactions to the President, Governor, senators from Connecticut, local rep, and other similar figures. The current statement from Nadler should probably be removed on those grounds. That being said, it is likely that this will bring up more comments on gun control. I believe that a section on gun control will be relevant sometime in the upcoming week. I think it's too early to report on it now, but I would disagree with the notion that it would be POV to post it later. Ryan Vesey 21:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Nadler's comments have gotten more press/attention than comments made by anyone else, sans Obama and Malloy. I can be convinced otherwise, though, but something needs to be included about the gun control issue based on the amount I'm seeing about it on the Interwebz. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to limit the comments to leaders in the State, such as governor, senators from Connecticut, local reps, and other similar figures, or national leaders in Washington, DC, such as Obama, Bohner, and Pelosi.Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if it turns out that Nadler's comment is the most visible pro-gun control comment made? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy packing, (finals finally done, going home!) can someone link to the statement in question? If Nadler's comment is included, from memory it seemed long and I suggest that it be pared down and then put into a section on gun control debate. Ryan Vesey 22:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not that long; however, I assume that a section on gun control will have enough related information that it will end up saying "A number of congresspersons have ....."22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the statement earlier but it was put back. I would see no problem that if (and my gut tells me, "when") a larger debate on gun control falls out of this specific incident, we can have a section about the gun control debate. Nadler's statement is, however, completely out of place on its own when next to those leaders paying their respects, and reads of politicizing the event. It should be pulled, at least in the short term as more typical responses come down the line. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a second murder scene at the home of the shooter and his victim mother, with at least one body. The house, per the local tax records appears to be (this is OR) located here: 41°24′32″N 73°13′40″W / 41.4090017°N 73.227745°W / 41.4090017; -73.227745. Not adding to article at this time pending better sources. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any source would be good. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been curious about that. I believe the general idea is that this is from the same shooter; however, would it be appropriate for this article? I believe we'd need to change the article to Newton, Connecticut shootings. Ryan Vesey 21:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I think not. The school shooting would remain the main subject of the article. Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The concern I have, is that the other shootings might not be considered part of the school shooting, but if others disagree, I'm certainly fine with it all being included here. It's not an issue I feel strongly on. Ryan Vesey 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably just depend on whatever name the media eventually settles on, even if that name isn't literally exact. Natalie (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are three Crime scenes, the school, a house in the town and the suspect's house in NJ. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for the NJ home being a crime scene? 2010 SO16 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the RS linke din the article metnion a body found at shooter's house. A similar issue would be the batman massacre - there was the bomb etc found at his apt. But that isn't really the notable part so it gets ignored in the name etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, can anyone just list one source HERE that mentions a body at the house? We're not all going off to look through "Several of the RS linke din the article" (sic). HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to say "It was the third-deadliest school massacre in history, after the Bath School Disaster and Virginia Tech Massacre." Would it be appropriate to use this article as a reference?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 21:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable reference. However, you might be able to get away with WP:CALC and references for the other counts - however, I would say that is also probably not acceptable, as it misses the possibility that we have missed other incidents. We need a reliable source giving the comparison. Further, I don't think the comparison itself is very important or needed in the article. Say "one of the deadliest" and leave it at that. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This WP article lists the deadliest shootings in US history, which puts it at the second most deadly (Bath School was a bombing.) Perhaps it could be used? Novalayne (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the police have not released the suspects identity. If the news is reporting that, it is through unnamed or unofficial channels. This needs to be clarified. If you watch the official news conferences the lead police officers are saying they have not released the suspects identity. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the police have not released a name yet I feel that we should withold this info until it can be confirmed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will be hard to keep out but BLP rules might apply here. The article was already wrong for many hours reporting the wrong shooter as the older brother Ryan. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to keep the info good, also there is a big diffrence between a suspect and a perp - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think we are good so long as we differentiate between unofficial/unnamed police sources, and official sources, we can report both, since that is what our secondary sources are reporting. In fact I kind of like the contrast between official and unofficial/unnamed information, something you don't see the actual press doing, which they should be. Makes us look more reliable but not so pedantic that we can't say anything. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created an Adam Lanza page. please link to it. I am looking up information on him now Bobkeyes (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of the reports have stated that his father was killed. Ryan Vesey 22:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT reports? Please link to one from here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"At least some..." Since the officials are being circumspect in what they are releasing, we should be careful what we put in an article. Beyond that, we should not be categorizing articles based on things not even in the article text. LadyofShalott 22:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't categorize it, I just gave the reason. Here's a source though [3]. They all do say reportedly, it might be a good idea to wait on the categorization. Ryan Vesey 22:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CNN just announced that the father was interviewed by the police, so obviously he's not dead and therefore this is not a patricide :-o Desdenova (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the death toll is 26, not 28. 18 kids and 6 adults killed on site. 2 children died at the hospital. 96.224.204.56 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: 2 more are the shooter himself and his mother. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the death toll should include anyone killed outside the school, if it was by the same shooter or shooters within the scope of this tragic incident. Coretheapple (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have the death toll that you described. Ryan Vesey 22:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on whether the death toll includes his father, assuming he was killed by the same gunman. The death toll should definitely include all persons killed, wherever killed. Again, this raises questions as to the title of the article, if this was a multi-state shooting spree as it appears to have been. Coretheapple (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there are confirmed: 18 children + 6 adults shot and dead at school, 2 children died at hospital, shooter himself, and shooter's father. That's 28, so that's the death toll. Unless more related murders are found outside the area (doubtful) I would expect that this would still be named for the school since the bulk of the tradegy was there. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the title is in part a stand-in until we find out if this shooting gains an established name. There's not much point in fine-tuning a stand-in in the meantime. --Kizor 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it says 200 children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, before the gunman, identified as Adam Lanza, 20,[3] fatally shot himself it should say 20 not 200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.250.141 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC) page has been corrected thanks[reply]

I see there is a discussion to delete which has been closed and refused.

I agree that this article should be kept according to the culture of Wikipedia. However, I question to whether this process loses sight of the big picture. We should ask if the big news of the day deserves a Wikipedia article.

If we ask people what the bad news of the past was, the Columbine shooting certainly qualifies. However, there are articles in Wikipedia of the murder of people, which I think do not qualify. Yet, if you read the rules, you will find that even those obscure articles pass the criteria because there are a lot of newspaper articles about them.

If you ask my opinion, I think it is not clear whether this event will be a historical event or not.

Reasonableplease (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a notability guideline for whether to include articles or not on major events, at WP:NEVENT. Normally one needs to see if there is a long-term impact of the event before making an article, but a school shooting - one in the double-digits and now confirmed to be the 3rd deadliest in US history - is pretty much going to be assured an article. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bui (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Not sure how my comment got deleted, but I'll say it again. After this dies down a bit, I think a major RfC to determine protocol and procedure for future tragic events such as this one would be prudent. As of now, our protocol is a free-for-all. Go Phightins! 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an event of such enormous significance that it's hard to fathom how it could be deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the high death toll, it's extremely unlikely to be forgotten by history. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally major breaking news stories are handled on Wikipedia in a free-for-all, ad hoc fashion, with decisions hashed out in real time in the talk page or even edit summaries. The simple fact is that this works to produce what are almost always regarded as very high quality and well balanced summary stories. The problem with proposing a more formal procedure is that breaking major news often gets several edits per minute. Not only is it impractical to coordinate such a high volume of edits among such a large number of editors, many of whom are completely new to Wikipedia and editing for the first time, but even if such coordination were possible, there is no way to inform all the editors of such a procedure. WP:TLDR: it's not broken so it doesn't need to be fixed. 2010 SO16 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we even could stop the site from covering the matter, either as an article of its own or as sections of related articles (that should probably be spun out into a standalone article anyway.) --Kizor 22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put down the stick and step away from the horse. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've spent an unreasonable amount of time on an opinion that is incorrect. --112.210.63.58 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to have the whole sentence of the mother of the shooter being killed link to matricide?

No, it is not. - 220 of ^Borg 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And has been 'fixed'. The same edit that made the link also stuffed up the ref for that statement, and that has been removed too!. - 220 of ^Borg 23:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the missing ref. <ref name="KSDK" /> - 220 of ^Borg 23:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why the various reactions are listed in a bullet list, rather than as a cohesive narrative? This seems to go against the grain of WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. - MrX 22:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think when there is obviously tons of reaction from foreign leaders, it's going to be most easily read in list form. Go Phightins! 22:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we really want every public statement from every politician on the planet. - MrX 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what precedent we have for this, but I would think reaction from at least the G8 and state, local, and national political figures from the U.S. warrant a mention. Go Phightins! 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much churn now that I doubt we can get a handle on it, but eventually I would think we would summarize some of the more duplicative statements of sorrow, support and outrage. - MrX 23:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, I think that after this debacle calms down a bit, we need a big RfC to determine some procedure and protocol on how to handle these situations other than a massive free-for-all. Go Phightins! 23:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like - MrX 23:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an RfC to realize that the French president's reaction, which was described in one word, does not add anything to this article. How do you expect him to feel, happy?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 23:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reaction is a reaction (better than nothing), im sure as time goes by there will be more of a response from world leaders. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need an RFC for things like that, I think we need one to determine how information is added, and other more procedural topics. See User talk:Dennis Brown for some more discussion on unclear items. There are factions who think no article should be created until a few days after, a week after, etc. I just think that hammering out some consensus for how to handle these might alleviate some of the "free-for-all-ness". Go Phightins! 23:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But do these reactions really need to be on this article?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 23:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to show how this is getting worldwide attention, not every single killing in the USA has this happen. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to list reactions to prove that though.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 23:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with you. Listing every reaction does not add much to the knowledge of the subject, especially when it consists mostly of cliches such as "...thoughts and prayers...deeply saddened...horrified..." - MrX 00:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To many edits made me edit conflict a lot trying to add a mother murder cide (forgot now) and I give up trying. Sorry for disruption I guess I'll stop trying. --Hinata talk 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, it's an unavoidable hazard with these levels of activity. If you want, you could comment here on the talk page to point out stuff that should be changed. --Kizor 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence should read

Twenty children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, before the gunman, identified as Adam Lanza, 20,[3] shot himself. Jpmarciano (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want change?

In my opinion, the number of dead in the first sentence should include persons killed outside of the school, if that is not already the case, and the sentence should be revised to reflect that, adding Hoboken and elsewhere in Newtown. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

28 includes the *one* death elsewhere (the father), not enough to shift this focus from Sandy Hook. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latest coverage does not mention the father, so forget about that. Jpmarciano, I appreciate your clarifying your point but you did it in a way that made my question seem idiotic. I'm sure that wasn't intentional. It would have been better if you had responded below my question. Coretheapple (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to remove weasel words like "reportedly" from this article. Since we don't do original research, absolutely everything in this article IS "reportedly", so repeatedly saying it makes no sense and slows down the reading. We already have the "current events" tag, so readers are forewarned that details will change quickly. Rklawton (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sancho 23:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Go Phightins! 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's still a lot of "reported..." in the article. I don't think the content should be about who reported what, but just plainly stating the facts, with citations to reliable sources after them all. I'd edit myself, but edits are happening too quickly. Sancho 23:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing things like "tentatively identified" and "apparently" and "most likely" and since they keep being re-inserted, well, I don't want to be accused of edit warring so I'll let others deal with that from now on. 2010 SO16 (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's take turns. If you do it again I certainly won't report you. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a collection of reactions from world leaders: http://sfy.co/fCbr Lufkens (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandy Hook massacre is not the second deadliest shooting in American history; In fact it is the third, behind the Bath School Bombings and the Virginia Tech Massacre. Awesomeness169 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bombing is not a shooting, I don't think. - filelakeshoe 23:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just say that it was the third-deadliest school massacre? It would make things less confusing.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 23:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is manifestly one of the deadlest school massacres in human history. --112.210.63.58 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In U.S. history and in recent history, yes. Compared to the mass school killings of Jews and Poles in eastern Europe by the Nazis, though, .... HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally irrelevant Hammer

We usually name school massacres like this as "massacres" and that includes the Virginia Tech and the Bath School articles. Undoubtedly this article will, in short time, be similarly renamed, because that's the convention we've adopted with respect to school-related crimes like this. I also think the mention of the deadliest shooting should, be secondary to the more relevant "massacre" piece, again because that's the subject of the article, and is what meets our typical convention. Shadowjams (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Gillard's reaction (10:06am)

• Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has published a press release, stating that the Australian people "share America’s shock at this senseless and incomprehensible act of evil. As parents and grandparents, as brothers and sisters, as friends of the American people, we mourn the loss of children, aged only five to ten years, whose futures lay before them. We mourn the loss of brave teachers who sought only to lead their students into that future but were brutally murdered in a place of refuge and learning".

121.91.69.43 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC news reporting Adam Lanza killed both his parents, so how has his father refused to comment? 86.151.162.200 (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News said that a reporter told Lanza's father about the shooting. I think we should the father out until there is more verification (preferably from sources less biased and unreliable than Fox). Abigail 00:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your teaser for this article on google has a major mistake. It gives the number 200 instead of 20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.51.110 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was due to an edit conflict, and is fixed now.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and will be irrelevant (and hence deleted) after a few days. But we have a couple of editors determined to include this detail under Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Reactions.

I don't want an edit war, but this content is just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an unsourced comment about the Red Cross been added. Can anyone discuss this stuff please? HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be there. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the local churches' extended hours not noteworthy? Shouldn't we be sensitive to the locals reading the article? It's about a local event, after all, even if it is internationally newsworthy. 2010 SO16 (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound brutal, but no, we have no responsibility to be sensitive to the locals. We are building a global encyclopaedia. As I said at the start, such content "will be irrelevant (and hence deleted) after a few days". So there's no point including it now. News for the locals about church access and Red Cross facilities belong elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence is ambiguous: "The principal and school psychologist, identified by police as Mary Sherlach, 56, were among the dead." It makes it sound as if the principal and school psychologist were one and the same person. I suggest rewording it to "The school psychologist, identified by police as Mary Sherlach, 56, and the principal were among the dead." 66.165.22.190 (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC) 66.165.22.190 (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Jim N.[reply]

Fixed by adding "the" before "school psychologist". 2010 SO16 (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated info: CNN reports the principal as Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, age 47. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-shooting-school-principal/index.html?hpt=hp_c2:

Adding. 2010 SO16 (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to various network television interviews of parents at the parking lot of the school, the authorities had someone in handcuffs wearing camouflage pants, and as they passed the crowd he looked at the parents and stated "I didn't do it." Is there a firm RELIABLE SOURCE yet of who this individual was? It would seem bizarre if the brother was just outside of the premises when the incident happened (according to the parents, he was in a wooded area adjacent to the school).HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]