This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Connecticut C‑class Mid‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph of many requests from Article Feedback be added to this article. Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Schools C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-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 C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States C‑class Low‑importance 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Now that things are a little calmer, I think we should re-consider whether the assertions by Huckabee, Fischer and others (that their God had abandoned the schools because children are no longer forced to worship Him by government teachers) belong in the article, properly sourced and without the POV my sarcasm conveys. I would say that the political backlash indicates that it is notable; certainly far more so than some pro sports team's "tribute". --Orange Mike | Talk 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are (as individuals) by themselves not related/notable to the incident (such as CT politicians etc). Their views themselves are WP:FRINGE, and the "backlash" against those particular statements seems very temporary - the stories have moved on. I don't think it is notable enough for inclusion in this article, but if we develop a larger spin-off "reactions" article with a lower bar for entry, then it would be appropriate there. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should, at least not now. Their statements lack substance and have no demonstrable impact on public policy. Contrariwise, I do think that the reactions/statements from the NRA are significant.

I appreciated the comment in your edit summary when you removed the sports team tribute. Much better than what I was about to write. - MrX 21:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like the WBC whackos, wouldn't support putting this in wouldn't add to knowledge of the article. Just more talking heads yadda-yadda. Btw don't really think you are summarizing what he said accurately.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am summarizing what I hear; but then, I'm an evangelical Quaker historian who has observed that mandatory, government-imposed generic acts of surface piety seems to work as an innoculation (on the "killed virus" model) against any actual religious impulse. My God is not that petty: He never left the schools; sorry about theirs. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say yes, probably based on similar thoughts as have led OM to propose it. But tempting as it is, the typical preemptive rightwing backlash has no place in the article unless this is being discussed somewhere above the gossosphere. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local and state official response...yes. Media hounds...no.```Buster Seven Talk 22:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing else, in your opinion? Only "media hounds" and "official sources"? I'd say an article or two in higher-profile news outlets would perfectly suffice in my book. And even the media hounds from Salon come pretty close. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate article? Fine. Here? Not so fine. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ideological response, not an encyclopedic one. If the rightwing nutbag remarks are being prominently discussed in connection with the shooting, we will mention them in the article. Even if you don't like it. --87.78.22.14 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huckabee's ignorance-and-superstition-based comments have absolutely no relevance. And in fact, the kids had just finished doing the Pledge of Allegiance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason Huckabee and similar "religious" pundits have shut up is the revelation that Lanza went to a Catholic middle school. Abductive (reasoning) 20:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the discussion above, I would imagine a new article will be created about the aftermath, and think it is best to wait and add it there. There is going to be so much grandstanding that if we put it all here, even the stuff with lots of sources, it will dwarf the rest of the article. By the first of the year, I'm guessing some experienced editor will have a copy in their user space ready to serve as a start (that was a hint...) where it would be within the scope, appropriate, and much easier to balance the POV. Mixing it with the horror that was the actual event is undue and too soon as the aftermath is just getting started. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has clear rules on what belongs in an article and what doesn't. The main rules are WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Those rules say that viewpoints must be included in the article in proportion to their coverage in WP:RSs. If WP:RSs repeatedly quote Huckabee, Fischer, etc. (or anybody) in stories on the incident, then this article must include those viewpoints.

This isn't up to the discretion or consensus of WP editors; WP:NPOV is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS of Wikipedia. "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." (Emphasis added.)

Putting reactions into a separate, later article also violate WP policy. WP:POVFORK "This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." --Nbauman (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rules-schmul- I meant, hear, hear! --87.79.131.226 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more

There have been reactions like, (a) higher gun sales (b) schools ought to be provided with guns, with staff trained in their use (c) Divine retribution (d) too many women in the school allowed the incident to happen. (e) the incident is not as serious as the many abortions that happen in USA each day... These reactions have come from notable persons, people's representatives, and other public persons. The exclusion of such reactions from the article makes this article unbalanced. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comments of various publicity-seeking figures have no relevance at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Iran's state-run news service now claims that Israel was behind the shooting. A harebrained and offensive conspiracy theory for sure, but considering that it's actually a foreign government making the claim (and a very prominent one in the region at that), does that make it notable or worth mentioning? LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh, this falls into "normal and expected". Perhaps in an aftermath article, but it isn't really related to the event. With all due respect to the Iranian government, is anyone here surprised at this proclamation? No different than Westboro Baptist Church....typical response so not notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the OP - If you read the Press TV article the source of this claim is "Michael Harris" who is described in the Press TV article as "a former Republican candidate for governor of Arizona and GOP campaign finance chairman." The Michael Harris article on Wikipedia is a disambiguation page with none of the people listed seeming to match the Michael Harris we are interested in.

A check on Google News finds that apparently only the Iranians were able to detect Mr. Harris's "internationally televised news broadcast."

Shalom Life has a rebuttal to the Iranians. They describe Harris in less flattering terms as "The journalist, Michael Harris, is the financial editor at Veterans Today a website known more for its anti-Semitic and anti-Israel conspiracy theories, than journalism of any kind."

Michael Harris is probably Mike Harris who is listed as a Financial Editor, one of the Speakers Bureau, and one of the Radio Hosts for Veterans Today.^[2] I learned that Veterans Today banned links to Wikipedia last year which is probably why they needed to shake the Press TV tree to get our attention.^[3] --Marc Kupper|talk 01:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy talk with a political motive from an irrational, brutal regime. No relevance to the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Iran said "We feel your pain and want to help rebuild the school", that would be unexpected and notewothy. Again, in an article on the aftermath, which is very likely to happen in a couple of weeks, this would probably fit it, but not on the article for the event itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common rhetoric from Iran. Really no need to include the trivial statement. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:37, 19 December 2012

(UTC)

There is a tradition of including international reactions to dramatic events when there are, so putting it in a section dedicated to such reactions would seem reasonable. — SniperMaské (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the purpose of such inclusion is to demonstrate that Iran is being run by lunatics, then it could fit. However, this article is not really about Iranian lunatics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be on the look out. The latest claim is that Adam "snapped" because he learned that his mother was about to commit him to a psych ward. See: School gunman Adam Lanza may have snapped over fears mother was going to send him to psychiatric facility. If/when it gets reported by reliable sources, it offers good information on "motive" for this article. Also, there is some info in there about Adam resenting the school kids because his mom "loved them more than she loved him", evidenced (in his mind, at least) by the fact that she was about to commit him. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be careful if this were to be considered. Keep in mind, the media has screwed the pooch with this event many times, so it would been to be covered in at least a couple of very reliable sources to even be considered, and only if it was from some authority, not just speculation that this was the cause. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looking that article from the Post, I wouldn't publish that here. The son of the local preacher is the source? Not an authority. They are filling column inches. Speculation at this point. If it was from the police, etc. it would be different but this is too thin for an encyclopedia at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But it does mention that a court petition was filed. So, if that does indeed exist, it will be easy enough to find. Also, the source is not only the son of the local preacher, but he also claims to be a family friend of the Lanza's. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nypost.com article cited by the OP mentions Fox News. Fear of being committed may have caused Connecticut gunman to snap seems to be the Fox News article. It looks like Fox attempted to confirm the court filing but was unable to do so. They report confirming with law enforcement that "Lanza's anger at his mother over plans" was one of the things they are looking at.

The article also shows a recent connection between the Lanzas and the school. Most interesting, particularly if you consider the possibility that Adam was spying on his mother's e-mails. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the key, verification. We need to be extraordinarily careful. You have to remember that the media is being fast and loose with their claims, we don't have that luxury. If we had a confirmation that the paperwork was filed, then that would be worth exploring, but we still need to be careful to not be too absolute in our statement. I know this sounds a little paranoid, but real people's lives, not just the deceased, are affected so we are obligated to be very careful. If it was filed, I would imagine we will have something that really verifies this soon, and something to source it properly with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this more and agree with Dennis. Fox New's source is a single person and that they have not been able to corroborate any of that person's claims. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, There is nothing we can do about human nature and this topic exposure will be milked by every opportunistic little person across the map. In fact I just stumbled upon on a "scoop" from some tin foil hat crazy that calims that this was a kill squad.(I wonder how much time it will take someone to post it as fact) So I suggest to wait for confirmation for various claims and exclusives, especially from controversial sources, after all wikipedia is not a tabloid. --Mor2 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this POVish statement from the Illinois State Rifle Association, as well as the sentence immediately after it which is no longer true:

Content such as this risks taking this article about the shooting in a very political direction. I think it would be better for a content fork article that discusses the array of reactions that arise from this shooting. - MrX 01:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC) - MrX 01:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NRA's statement is appropriate; this one is definitely not. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one guy's opinion, so it doesn't really belong. He's not wrong, though. I saw someone on The View the other day, obviously a liberal-leaning show, and the guy (I think it was a Cuomo) said that schools need to arm themselves to keep these characters away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many pro-gun politicians have said that the massacre could have been prevented if teachers and other bystanders had been armed, and it's been reported in many WP:RSs. (Slate.com for example has had several stories about that.) According to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, if something on the subject of the article is reported by many WP:RSs, it belongs in the article.

This article has a WP:NPOV problem, because many pro-gun sources have been making that argument, as quoted in WP:RSs, and we haven't included it in the article.

POV forks as MrX suggests actually violate WP policy. WP:POVFORK "This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." --Nbauman (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "pro-gun" pov should be represented, IF we hare presenting the anti-gun POV, however, the we have many choice (on both sides) of who to include, and we should include either the most notable/influential quotes, or most relevant (proximity/relationship to the event). The Illinois NRA fails both criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to rein in Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs), who in my opinion is adding way too much detail that does not pertain to the development of the shooting. I'll say it again: not every person's actions during the events needs to be tracked. See my reverts here and here. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. We don't need this to turn into the Columbine article, which is like a doctoral dissertation of everything that happened. Go Phightins! 03:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu. Perhaps some polite notices should be placed on some editor's talk pages since they don't seem to be reading this talk page. - MrX 03:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave a note (hopefully a polite one) mentioning this discussion; I'll do so again. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm copying this from the talk page of David Levy (talk · contribs). I'd like a quick consensus on whether or not we should include in the list of victims that Hammond was a lead teacher rather than just a teacher. David (correct me if I summarize incorrectly) says it's a minor detail that messes with the layout, the IP thinks that it's an important enough detail--and for now I tend to agree with them.

From David Levy's talk page

Hi David--I'm going to undo this one. Column width is important, but she is more important. Plus, she just got the promotion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. It isn't a big deal either way, but I believe that our goal is to describe the staff members' basic roles. I don't doubt that "lead teacher" is a promotion over "teacher", but I don't see how the distinction is relevant to the shooting.

I'd never heard of the title before, and from the information that I was able to find, a lead teacher is simply a teacher with a few additional administrative responsibilities that one would associate with a vice principal anyway. So I don't see how including "lead" enhances readers' understanding of her job functions. Regardless, we mention it in the article's body. —David Levy 02:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She recently got promoted from teacher to lead teacher.[4][5][6] Actually, all four of the elementary schools in the district have a Lead Teacher. It's an administrative role and you're right that they're associated like vice principals, even though they actually are not vice principals. If you hover on the Parents tab for any of the those four schools, you'll see a link to the Lead Teacher page. But I'm sure that however the two of you decide to deal with this in the article will be great. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was asked to look into it and I wouldn't have thought much of it (I'm not in secondary ed) if it weren't for the article (linked above) that points out that she just got the position. Tell you what--I'm going to copy this to the talk page, we can get a quick consensus one way or the other. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Yeah, each of the four elementary schools have a principal and a lead teacher. No vice princpals, even though they're treated like vice principals. I'll stay out of that discussion and allow the two of you to make the call. You're the experts. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no vice principals, why is she described as one? Perhaps that's what should be removed. —David Levy 03:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is very valid, David. I agree with you that vice principal should simply be removed. The lead teachers at the four schools are the 2nd in command and so are looked at and thought of as vice principals, so there's no doubt that's how it ended up in some sources. But there are actually no VPs. Btw, the Danbury News-Times cite I included above is the local major newspaper for the Sandy Hook/Newtown area, and it's one of the ones that verifies her title of lead teacher and specifies that she was recently promoted.Here it is again. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that she was promoted, and I'm sure that it was a significant career achievement. I just don't believe that it's relevant to the shooting or that its inclusion enhances readers' understanding of her role at the school. (Because the additional responsibilities are of the same sort that one would associate with a vice principal, we convey little about her job functions that isn't already conveyed by that title's inclusion.) —David Levy 03:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses welcome

• May as well include that she was the lead teacher in my opinion. My elementary school had a lead teacher who pretty much acted like a vice principal. I don't see how including the factoid hurts, and it could help...I honestly could go either way, but it does no harm to include it, and it could help someone better understand her role. Go Phightins! 03:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Listing the roles are OK I guess. But vice principal/lead teacher? Let's choose one. The table has excess white space because of that one entry. While we're at it, we should move the three footnote citations that are next to the table's title to the very bottom of the table, as we do with some infoboxes. - MrX 03:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the above discussion, it appears that the school has no vice principal (and that Hammond has been referred to as such because it's more or less the same as lead teacher), so that title should be removed instead. —David Levy 03:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It should appear as lead teacher, but I think it's a de facto V.P. Go Phightins! 03:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that seems to be the case. So "vice principal" is redundant. —David Levy 03:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, it should just say she was the lead teacher. Go Phightins! 03:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the lead teachers are treated like, and act like, vice principals since they are the second-in-command at their schools, but they are not actually vice principals. If one cite is going to be used, I strongly suggest using this one from the Danbury Sun-Times because it's the local major newspaper for the Sandy Hook/Newtown area and even specifies that she was recently promoted to the position. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As someone who has worked in public schools, I think the designation "lead teacher" *is* a telling one. Both rhetorically and institutionally, that title foregrounds the role of "teacher" in ways that a duties-based description ("assists the principal", eg) of a position does not. One might expect a "principal" to assume responsibility for all that goes on in a school, but I don't think that assumption holds true for a "lead teacher". We'll never know the thinking that took place at Sandy Hook that morning, but to me it seems logical that a "principal" might feel (and act out of) a different set of responsibilities and expectations than those that motivate a "lead teacher". So to me, the specificity of the title "lead teacher" certainly IS worth preserving. And for me, "recently elected" or "newly appointed" seems less materially relevant to a neutral POV. --Kurt B. Drtheuth (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, just say lead teacher once, and do not mention that she was promoted recently. `Abductive (reasoning) 19:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that people pushing to get an article for the shooter, but I would like to reaffirm my request to trim down the Perpetrator section here. I find the current state, where we have 4 lines about the victims, mostly about the process of their identification and bodies. While the shooter get his "sad" life story memorized here, insulting.--Mor2 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if we have the shooter picture, I'll appreciate if someone can upload one for the victims. Maybe something like this[7] --Mor2 (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as sad as it may be, there are good reasons for why the one gets more attention than the others, pace Morgan Freeman. It's the gunman's actions, history, background that led to these events, not the actions and lives of the victims. It's in that sense also that his actions etc. are relevant here and worth explaining. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Perps get attention because of the criminal psychology of the act and to try to understand how to prevent or predict in the future. While it is sad for the victims, from an encyclopedic stand point we cannot "glorify" them any further. --MASEM (t) 04:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet this exactly a MEMORIAL. This article is about the shooting, not about the shooter. When we get more information, about his motives we can open a section about that with professional commentary, but all the current life story is irrelevant to the shooting.("His parents had married on June 6, 1981" - so what?!)--Mor2 (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is anticipated (outlined in other sections) that Andy's bio will be moved to a separate article, we are only waiting until the reporting dust has settled and we won't be subject to misinformation. In that thought, giving Andy's history is not a memorial as is more trying to explain the lifestyle that this person had that, in light of any other information, might give the reader an idea of why the crime was committed. If that coverage started to turn sympathetic, then yes, that starts getting into MEMORIAL territory. Besides, in the cases of the teachers and staff that sacrificed themselves to cover the children, they are written in the article as "heroes" to a degree, but that also isn't a memorial. --MASEM (t) 07:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is this article, not other/future articles and I intend to trimming this section of irrelevant information for the shooting.--Mor2 (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mor2. The Victims section needs to be more informative. Photos of the victims are now published, and there is enough information "out there" to provide a very short biography aside each one. I make every attempt to view wikipedia through a non-emotional lens, and having the list of victims on the same screen as the perpetrator photo just feels wrong. He deserves mention, of course, but the victims are the story. While the artile is indeed about the shooting and one can't have a shooting without a shooter, the victims are what makes this shooting so different from all the others. The victims are the reason this is an international story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkoinonia (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a memorial. Acknowledging who the victims were in the current table is fine, but we cannot go into any more detail about them save for understanding their role in the events (eg the teachers that tried to protect the children). Instead, from an encyclopedia side, it is the shooter's history and psychology that is of importance to the criminal reasons for why this tragedy took place; that is what gets the intense study by criminologists and the like.) --MASEM (t) 17:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If one had to construct biographies of the little children from secondary sources, they would all consist of their name and age. As for trimming the perp section down, it would be best to examine each statement to see if multiple secondary sources report the same thing. Then comment out those statements that are weakly sourced. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its just another reaction, why the special heading? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like gun control is a very specific reaction. Gun Control debate should probably be it's own section with reactions related to gun control and any aftermath related to guncontrol included. Ryan Vesey 05:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the present time. One paragraph that splits off one viewpoint (which we agree should be included in some high level summary) doesn't need to be called out like that. Again, once dust settles, maybe. --MASEM (t) 05:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a specific reaction, but why should it stand out among others? Do you feel that there should be a "Mental health" section? I've heard or read no end of news reports about the perpetrator's metal state which has led to discussions of the availability of free mental health services among others. The same goes for the issue of "school security" and "parenting standards". Do these deserve separate sections as well? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control is easily the most widely discussed reaction. Mental health is up there and might deserve it's own section as well. Ryan Vesey 05:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's its widely discussed, but I'd have a hard time calling it "the most" out of the many I've heard. But now we're just comparing anecdotal experiences, not discussing what should be in the article based on verifiable facts or data. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this before. Gun control is obvious to include because, well, duh, guns were involved. The mental health angle has not been a proven connection - there's tons of speculation about this but no official or medical professional attached to the investigation has asserted that Andy's mental health was a contributing factor. Same for parental standards, school security, video games, lack of religion in schools, gay marriage, etc. etc. Gun control is presently the only reaction that is clearly not a contentious connection and that we actually have officials in high levels promising action on it. But because we don't know to what degree at this point, we shouldn't be calling it out any more than a single para in the reaction section. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, its a matter of timing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mental health angle belongs, under WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, if many WP:RSs about the shooting discuss it. And they do. --Nbauman (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources discuss it, but there's no official connection between the shooting and mental health. Any inclusion is speculation on sources, which we should not be doing. We can say that the shooter was diagnosed with mental health problems but that may have no connection to why he did what he did. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I read multiple articles in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal about the shooting, and they all discuss the mental health issue, doesn't that belong under WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV? Wikipedia guidelines don't tell us that we should decide whether something belongs because it is or isn't speculation; WP:RS and WP:NPOV say that if multiple WP:RSs say it, it goes in the article. If the New York Times and multiple WP:RSs quote psychiatrists commenting on the shooting saying that Asperger's has nothing to do with violence, shouldn't that go in? --Nbauman (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are saying it is not related, that's still not the official word, and would be FRINGEy in nature. It is better for us to wait (per DEADLINE) to get an official statement, at which point the opinion/speculation that arise from that connection can be introduced. But if we put in the "wrong" opinion, (say, that we include opinions that the shooter's mental health was a cause) and later it is asserted by officials give word that completely contradicts that, we'd have to remove it. There are likely articles where these opinion can be put in that are not strictly about this shooting, but we need to focus here only on the facts as to the cause given by those on the case, and not speculation by others. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The mental health angle has not been a proven connection etc": good point. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even the president's briefing discussed mental health as one of the options to look at. It's irrelevant if it's ultimately concluded that the shooter had mental health issues: it's being discussed so it's worth mentioning that it's being discussed. Calling discussion of mental health fringe when the NYT is reporting on it is absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to read WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If multiple WP:RSs report something, it's not a fringe view and it must go in the article. "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." Wikipedia must not restrict itself to official statements. During the runup to the Iraq war, official statements about WMDs were false. The solution to "wrong" opinions is to add "right" opinions and let the reader decide. --Nbauman (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article matures, there may be merit in notable subheadings under Reaction for Condolences, Gun Control, Access to Mental Health, and Media Coverage. Dawson College shooting is one such example. There are many sources analysing the early criticism of inaccurate journalism Poynter, BBC, NYT, Business Insider Canuckle (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: The National Rifle Association of America said it was shocked and saddened by the tragedy in Newtown, and is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again",^[3] although it has in the past strenuously fought against all such measures.^[4]

The last clause (which I have italicized in boldface) is inappropriate and inapplicable. Or, at the very least, it is not well-written to describe what it is attempting to describe. I deleted it, and the original poster reinstated it. A third editor also deleted it, and the original poster again reinstated it. Consensus on this issue? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This material that I removed is POV and unsupported by the source which says "For 138 years, the organization has fought any and all attempts -- real or perceived -- to deny Americans their Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms.'" Supporting the right to bear arms is widely different from fighting measures to keep violence from occurring. Ryan Vesey 05:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your take, it's inappropriate and inapplicable. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree-POV and draws a conclusion.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which WP policy it violates, but it seems to be inflammatory and biased given the context of the statement and article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV WP:SYNTHESIS Misrepresentation of sources (which would be borderline WP:VANDALISM, but that would involve assuming bad faith) I can't actually find a policy for misrepresentation of sources. Ryan Vesey 05:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Ryan. Drmies (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Harrybilzer it would help if you call for TP discussion if you actually discussed. :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an odd statement in the Perpetrator section about Lanza's mother. It says, "According to her sister-in-law, she belonged to the Doomsday Preppers.^[5][6]". The wikilink is to the site of a TV show called Doomsday Preppers. First, someone can not "belong to" a TV show. They could appear on the show, or be featured on the show, but they cannot belong to a show. Second, only one of the two cites even mention the term "Doomsday Prepper", but it's mentioned in a different context; it talks about Doomsday Preppers as a movement, not as a TV show. Does anyone know anything about this. Something just seems very wrong about this, particularly because it links to that TV show article even though there's no evidence that she was on the show. And the second cite says nothing about Doomsday Preppers at all, so why is it being used to support the sentence?? It just alludes to her being a survivalist. Also, are there concerns of BLP violations with this content? I noticed there's a hidden note also next to the text that says "NOTE: Marsha Lanza later changed her story and said Nancy had four guns or so and kept them for the sake of safety as a single woman." I just wanted to bring this up so some experienced editors can decide what to do with it. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't crazy about it either as it is contradictory.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that at the same time as you. I modified it to say movement and link to survivalism. I don't know what the source is for that hidden note and will leave it to some other editors to make a decision on that issue. Ryan Vesey 05:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, I think that was a good way of doing it. At least for now. But I think the second cite (CBS) needs to be removed because the sentence is claiming she's part of the Doomsday Preppers movement, but that cite does not say that at all. The first cite does. Do you think the editor who posted the sentence meant to wikilink to that TV show, or they just didn't realize where they were linking to? This is confusing. And does anyone know if the movement has anything to do with the show? In other words, is the show featuring people from that movement? I've never heard of the movement, nor is there an article about them. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd heard of survivalists before, and I've heard of them called preppers. It is most likely that the person wikilinked Doomsday Preppers without following the links, not being aware that it went to the article for the show. The wikilink Preppers goes to survivalism. Ryan Vesey 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday Preppers says the TV show is about the doomsday preppers movement. It also says the show is "the highest-rated show in the history of the National Geographic Channel." Anyway, Ryan, I think you're probably right... the editor (and the first cite) were referring only to the movement, not the TV show which features people from the movement. Whew. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prepper needs to be changed to Preppers (plural) in that sentence. The first cite says, "Doomsday Preppers movement". --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed it, I was originally going to rework it to say she was a doomsday prepper, but decided saying she was a member of the "Doomsday Preppers movement" stayed more true to the source. I forgot to restore the s. You've been helpful here, have you considered creating an account? There's some cool features for reading even like WP:POPUPS. Ryan Vesey 06:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ryan. Great job. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is ANY of this truly reliable reporting?HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the dailymail article which is the ultimate source of the claim, its full of tabloid sensational quotes all over the place. Additionally, if we are going to include that information, we should at least include the full quote, which talks about positive aspects of the Mother's life as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took this out for now. There's an awful lot of people - friends, neighbors - that news sources interviewed that say none of this survivalist stuff is accurate. She was just a legal gun owner/enthusiast, enjoyed target practice, like so many millions of other innocent Americans, according to them. Wait for an official report on this? I don't trust these rumored-stories. The press has had to eat it now on at least three occasions for this incident. We can wait a few days can we not?HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian reverted this w/o comment. Left notice on TP.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pasting - It was not a mistake; I was adding back in cited material, and I added another citation. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC) - from User TPHammerFilmFan (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rollback for a reason, to use it. All I wanted to do, and finally got to do, was to add back in two citations that were removed and to add in a third citation. If you want to add back in the text, with "allegedly", I don't care either way. All I wanted to do was to add in a good citation, period. I kept getting interrupted. I just think that good citations should not be removed w/o a good reason. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the reason is that this stuff has been highly disputed. I suppose I could cite the video links but was hoping we could just hold off for a while. Tomorrow the State Police may tell us "yes, she was stocking up for the big war" or they may say "no evidence to suggest she was anything but a legal gun collector." From what people are saying this was a mom who worked very hard with a difficult child. Shrugs.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've asked him to explain, as I can't figure why he would do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best thing is wait for tomorrow, to see if we get another news conf, and take some sort of consensus vote on this?HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly clear, if you see my final edit, you can see that all I wanted to do was to add back in the three citations, not the text! Bearian (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will be my last comment on this as to keep the drama to a minimum, but you don't seem to feel you did anything wrong with using rollback for something that was not clear vandalism and your admin tools to your advantage as an editor. I would feel far more comfortable if I saw you actually understand the point. Do you not see what others are saying? Don't you believe you made a mistake with both tools? If you can say you will never do it again, why not just admit that you were not using these properly in hindsight?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be some credible accounts in reliable sources [8] that Nancy was preparing for an economic collapse at the very least. My only contribution was that the link should be to the article Apocalypticism (the philosophy), not one about the various methods of destruction. So if we are waiting until tomorrow, and someone else adds that content back, please consider this. Greg Bard (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, I'm doing that! This economy is abysmal. Does that make me an Apoc'o?  :-) But to be serious, I don't trust the sis-in-law. She hasn't even seen them in 17 yrs by her own acct. She was asked by the family not to speak to the press but felt she had to be the "Lanza spokesman" - ok, whatever, but she's backtracked on at least one of her statements. IMHO, the neighbors who regularly interacted with her are more reliable. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To whomever added the headings to the list (Perpetrator's mother, School staff, Students)... nice job. It looks good and makes sense. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I think looks bad is that for two of the children, the age is sandwiched between two cites (Madeleine Hsu and Ana Marquez-Greene). See below. That should be fixed so that the two cites are at the end, after the age.

• Madeleine Hsu,^[7] 6^[8]
• Ana Marquez-Greene,^[9] 6^[10]

--76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks again! Ryan Vesey 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why we have two citations for those two actually? Ryan Vesey 06:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ryan (again)! You're on a roll. Looks like they are articles that feature those particular children, which I think is appropriate if that's the case. But if it's just two cites that show a list of all the names, then only one would be needed. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Madeline, it was the same ref twice. Ryan Vesey 06:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch! Yeah, it was the exact same page but from different newspapers, Greenwich Time and Connecticut Post (sister newspapers). --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before but in the archives, but I think there's general agreement we don't need excessive detail on the specifics / minute-by-minute movement within the event. We can let other resources provide those answers, but that is not ours to give in that much detail. (Those that might jump to the Columbine article should recognize that we also agree that one is far far far too details as well, and should not be used as an example). This again is maybe where Wikinews would be better to spell this out, and we can certainly link to that. --MASEM (t) 06:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this was discussed earlier, but do we have a policy related to this issue? I'm of the opinion that we should provide as much information as we can on the event and that minute by minute material is both informative and encyclopedic. If nothing else, we need to provide a link to a page that has a minute by minute breakdown. Ryan Vesey 06:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ryan (above). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia is a tertiary work meant to summarize others - not a primary or secondary source work; just as we don't go into detailed plot summaries of fictional works, we should not go into detailed accounts of actual events. Basically, it starts putting undue coverage on the actual event when this article should cover all aspects, include responses and aftermath (the more important factors here). Again, Wikinews is well suited for the detailed accounts if someone wants to rewrite them there. --MASEM (t) 07:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Our duty is to summarize events. Once an official timeline is released, we can link to it. But it hasn't been, so the material is suspect, even if it wasn't inappropriate for the primary article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that if there is particular relevance to some portion of the timeline, that portion should be included. For example, although it may still be premature at this point to edit the article to specify how long it took police to arrive at the scene, there are media reports that it took some 20 minutes from the first 911 call, and there is unconfirmed information that the police station is only 2.3 miles away from the school. If this information is true, it might raise questions about police performance that is directly relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopkins200 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence of the Perpetrator section, can someone move the cite so it's not sandwiched in between the city and state. See below. The problem is that two wikilinks are being used (one for city and one for state), instead of just using one for both (Exeter, New Hampshire). So can someone move the cite so it's after New Hampshire? Thanks.

Exeter,^[11] New Hampshire

--76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. I just used one wikilink ([[Exeter, New Hampshire]]). Ryan Vesey 07:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ryan. You're welcome. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a feedback suggestion [9] and thought I'd bring it up here. If someone was willing to put together a collage, would it meet our non-free image requirements as identification of the victims? Ryan Vesey 07:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we kept to the children and teachers (26) that would be 26 non-free images even if you put them into a collage. Massive NFC failure, as well as failing WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Looks like the media is now stating Nancy Lanza was shot 4 times while she slept. 2. Did Marsh Lanza really "change her story" about Nancy keeping the guns simply for safety, or was she misquoted in the earlier news reports? After all, she says she had not seen the family since the shooter was 3 years old. CNN had a video with several neighbors who also say any of these survivalist stories are bunk, and she was a responsible gun-owner and a good mother, friendly, just a normal mom with a troubled child whom she worked hard to help. Anyway, if there is no basis for the "change of story" note on the reference, it should be removed ASAP.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I heard on the radio. I don't know where, and I don't know where they'll go permanently, but it's time to at least say the kids are back in school.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source to start with, although I'm sure some of you can do better. This is just a newspaper I see as part of my normal routine.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, that says other schools in town ... it's still a development.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Conn. gov' stated last week that classes for the students would resume today.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a bit surprising that the kids would be put into school this early following such a horrific tragedy, it must be hard on them.

The Wikipedia article still says nothing, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. I don't want to start the "aftermath" section myself, especially since we seem to be short on details. Or at least I haven't found anything.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is a misquote or something similar. It appears that all of the schools in the district, except for Sandy Hook, are currently open and running, as stated here: [10] In addition, it seems that it will be in January when the replacement school will be open for the remaining students. [11] Super Goku V (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse the students returning to class Wed (which they did, at another school - as the Governor said, the law required this) with opening of Sandy Hook - the State Police say it's still a crime scene.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should certainly say that. Is Huffington Post considered reliable?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HammerFilmFan inserted a response to what I said earlier, and as you can see from the time, I didn't respond to this person, until now. What's the source for that and can it go in the article?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the small pgph under the Victims heading and the float-right list of victims, the picture of Lanza takes visual focus on the page. What is the consensus of the group to change the format of the long thin list into a columnar table inside the Victims heading and floating the image of Lanza. Should the image be scaled down? Bill D (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is appropriately sized (it is roughly equal in area to the other images), but a 4-column table for the victims would help. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a proposal for a horizontal table, which has now been archived here: Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_3#Do we really need a table to list the victims? I don't think there was consensus to change it. The Lanza photo could be moved down a few paragraphs, allowing the text to flow around it, and making it a little less prominent. - MrX 19:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like there was a consensus to change it, because it matched the style of the other school shootings. However, the point still stands that the right-float is very distracting, especially alongside of the detail of the crime. It's as if, editorially, the lost lives are collateral damage to the details of the story. It's very hard to read. I will move the Lanza img down a bit. Further discussions? Bill D (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed layout: User:Billdanbury/sandbox_sandy_hook_victims Bill D (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I looked at the archived talk and it seems there was at least a consensus to change it. However, it appears that the proposed changes were reconsidered by someone who was not logged in at the time. So, I think that it depends on if we want it to be brought back up or not. Super Goku V (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – by Writ Keeper, and I'm laughing too hard to trout you.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to revert the moves made to the archived talk pages (they were moved, without discussion, to Talk:2012 Newtown school shooting/Archive x) and I screwed one of them up--I moved Archive 3 to Archive 4. I feel an acute heart attack coming up (metaphorically) and I can't wrap my feeble brain around what I messed up and how to straighten it out. Your immediate help is appreciated--with the archives, that is; I'll be fine. With my apologies, and a private rant for whoever started renaming archived pages. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK Drmies. Breath. =) See, I just assumed I screwed it up as its usually my fault ;) (I kid myself)--Amadscientist (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources support the claim that a shotgun was found in the trunk of Lanza's car. Jaybeee3 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are unfortunately retroactively editing their articles, and this particular item is complicated as it was originally reported that the bushmaster was found in the trunk. The following search shows several sources discussing the gun found in the trunk though.

[12]

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to list other killers thought to have had Autism/Aspergers syndrome? This seems to promote the idea that there's a link between Autism/Aspergers and violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.196.252 (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section has already been deleted as original research. Shearonink (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, there is evidence that Autism/Aspergers has made up an aspect of the total psychological makeup of some spree killers (an already small group of people). And the fact that they were spree killers, not serial killers, etc, is significant (for researchers). After this attack, the killers thought to come within the "autism-spectrum" (or whatever their name happens to be this particular decade) will certainly come in for closer scrutiny & study as a sub-group within the larger spree killer group. TreMinty (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jon Lapook, the medical director for CBS News, said they checked with experts around the world to see if there is a connection between Asperger's and violent behavior. He said that although not a lot of studies have been done, there is no evidence of a link between the two.[13] --76.189.123.142 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TreMinty - do you have Reliable Sources to cite? (notice put on this newly created User's TP)HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But this isn't relevant here, likely ever. Maybe in an article on the broader subject, but not this event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a terrible idea, however saying which shooters had Asperger's is very subjective and usually not based on scientific study. For instance some people say that the Virginia Tech shooter had Asperger's some don't, some people even say that the Dark Knight shooter had it, others don't. So as you can see there is no unanimous agreement on who had it and who didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote above says it all "There is no evidence of a link between the two" - therefore there is no reason to make them a "See also". Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, coherently makes some decent arguments for both sides that might be useful for a NPOV presentation of the issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/18/a-better-target-for-gun-control/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control is -> that way. This article is about the shooting. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as an aside, that article is far from balanced. It's the washpo's blog and it's an opinion piece written by Ezra Klein. The gist of the entire piece is that all the called for restrictions wouldn't have helped, but we should have them anyway, and then a few other comments all from gun-control advocates. It's the antithesis of an example of an NPOV source. It could be useful in describing some of the arguments made, but it's certainly not "decent arguments for both sides." Shadowjams (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That has been the battle during this edit cycle, keeping out irrelevant material. Once an article on the aftermath is started in a week or two, it would apply there, or in the gun control article, as Todd has pointed out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new report that Adam Lanza was taking the drug Fanapt (Iloperidone). See: The Antipsychotic Prescribed To Adam Lanza Has A Troubled History All Its Own. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Which came from this story - http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/aspergers-is-a-red-herring-to-explain-newtown.html - very interesting, if true. The press has had to retract so much about this whole incident that I'm nervous about using this kind of thing until it gets some more solid confirmation. So the uncle reported this? HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Diagnosing Adam Lanza Is a Problem is also worth reading. Many claims and counterclaims have been made, but authorities have yet to make any public statement on a motive for the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the key. We don't have the luxury of speculating here, which means we shouldn't publish anything until we know it is reliably sourced fact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed this from the Fanapt page: "Fanapt was revealed to have been the medication prescribed to Sandy Hook mass murderer, Adam Lanza." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the teacher shot in the classroom in which the first-grader led his friends out the door?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.7.211 (talk • contribs)

If I am understanding your grammar, I believe you are asking about Mrs. Soto.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ms. Soto's room had a few survivors – the five or six children who came out of hiding from the closets and cupboards in order to escape the building. The other classroom had no survivors at all (except for the one child who "played dead" amongst the other bodies). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My heart goes out to that child. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. And to all involved. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if that was Soto, then I (humbly) think the editor should either -- 1)mention her name where he describes the heroic act of the first-grader, or 2) move that sentence back, to the earlier account of Soto's encounter with the shooter. I understand my initial question wasn't worded well ("teacher shot in the classroom, etc.") and I wasn't careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.7.211 (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

There is a slight inconsistency in these two sentences regarding the weapons used:

At home, Lanza "had access" to three more firearms: a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle, but it is not clear where these weapons were. Lanza used the .22 Marlin rifle to kill his mother, but did not bring that weapon to the school.

Specifically, I think the .22 Marlin should be dropped from the first sentence since we do have information from the CT medical examiner (sourced to the Hartford Courant) about the .22 Marlin.GabrielF (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be better to just drop the words ", but it is not clear where these weapons were". Then you end up with

At home, Lanza "had access" to three more firearms: a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle. Lanza used the .22 Marlin rifle to kill his mother, but did not bring that weapon to the school.

How's that? AzureCitizen (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. GabrielF (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is conflicting reports regarding the weapons used. NBC reported this morning that 4 handguns were used by shooter and that the ar-15 wasn't used and was found in the vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.205.239 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to revisit adding the information about Cerberus' decision to sell Freedom Group, maker of the Bushmaster rifle used (and also the Marlin rifle, although I haven't seen that in the press). Of (arguably) the three most important American newspapers, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post, the Journal and the Post carried the story on page 1[14], [15] and the NYTimes carried the story on page 1 of the business section.[16].

This is clearly important, as we can see from its coverage in secondary sources, and it is directly linked by the company to this event. It warrants a few sentences. GabrielF (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

? Wasn't this already covered and closed? Oppose for this article. (dang edit conflicts)HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with GabrielF here but this is not yet the time to fight over it. BTW, Effects of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting would be a much more encyclopedic article than International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and one awaits Dream Focus's National reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting by US state and county. There is a difference between "effect" and "reaction": reactions are usually words. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles along those lines would be the proper place. Hopefully noting (cynically) that the bottom line is what drove the decision - fear of an assault weapons ban in 2013 and having a white elephant on the books.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an article on the effect, reaction or impact to the Sandy Hook shooting is both desirable and overdue. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a suggestion at the International reaction page and would suggest the same if one wants to a national reaction, that as long as these are just statements or events and not actually contributing towards resolve of the shooting or issues that caused it, that such articles are great candidates to be developed at Wikinews and then linked in here. We don't lose information but we also avoid making WP a news source. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can understand the "reactions" page, but the "aftermath" page is too soon, per drmies and all my previous comments. It will probably start soon enough, but right now, it would be more original research than fact. The key to an "aftermath" page being proper is not starting it until "after" the event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just limit this to items that are directly about the topic, not items that are just somehow related to the topic? For an active prominent article like this, the latter is a bottomless pit coatrack. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is always debate about what is "about" and what is "related". Better to just consider the reader, who is here to find out about the event and the people involved in it. Abductive (reasoning) 20:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We always consider the reader first, but in doing so, our first obligation is accuracy, verification and relevance. We have had to trim back the article several times, and likely will again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This only reformulates the already existing problem: What belongs in here and what doesn't? I'm against such vague let's-draw-a-line-and-get-tough-on-crime-zero-tolerance slogans. What exactly is being proposed here? Be precise. What is "about", what is "related"? See also Nbauman's comments here and here. --87.79.131.226 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Clackamas Town Center shooting article mentions this event in a respectable manner. Is there still consensus that the Clackamas Town Center shooting should not be mentioned or linked within this article? Many sources mention both events, especially in the context of the ongoing debate over gun control. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how, as they aren't remotely related. Again, maybe in an aftermath article, but this article focuses on the fact surrounding this event, and Clackamas wasn't a reason or factor here. You start getting into original research or synthesis when you try to blend different subject matters like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violently oppose inclusion. :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would make sense to include the stabbing in China, but not the Oregon shooting.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 21:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead horse about the China incident.

Is there a reason why Victoria Soto is the only name without a cite on the Killed list (besides Lanza's mother)? I thought there used to be one. There have been many stories about her in reliable sources, including this one from today's New York Times. Just wanted to point this out in case it needs addressed. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of dead

Should there be a list of all those who lost their life? I can see a yes and a no. Please discuss and decide.

Yes: Part of history. No: Excessive list of non-notable people.

I lean toward yes, inclusion. Auchansa (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very interesting article in today's The News-Times, (Danbury News-Times) - the major newspaper for the Newtown/Sandy Hook area - about how the Newtown school district is going to essentially replicate Sandy Hook elementary at a nearby vacant school, down to the smallest details. NBC News said that 98% of the furniture, equipment, and supplies will be moved to the new school. I'm not sure if there's anything in the story that's worthy of inclusion in this article, but I just wanted to point it out. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need 30 references? Do we really need a footnote after each name, replicated 30 times? I assume that we can find one cite that lists all names ... and just cite that one source one time (at the top or bottom of the list). No? Having 30 different footnotes is unnecessary, distracting, and unaesthetic. Any thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a single reference that does that all, yes by all means use it as long as it is a reliable source. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the victim list with full names in the first place? I don't really see what that adds to the article. --Conti|✉ 21:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "full names"? What are you proposing ... just using the first initial and last name? If so, why? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think those cites should stay. For almost all of them, each cite links to a story featuring that victim only. Obviously, we can't have detailed content within the article about each victim, but providing one cite for each person seems very appropriate and does not violate Memorial since they're all relevant to the article's subject. Also, the list was developed very carefully over several days among very experienced editors and administrators. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did that once. Then I got reverted. I had a CNN source that had the names of the killed and stories about each one. But someone didn't like that. Here's the link for it, and here's the article form of it (I can't find it right now, and if I leave this open I'll EC, so I'll look again later). gwickwire^talk_edits 22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue with Conti that the victim list isn't really helpful and probably edging against NOT#MEMORIAL - those people that are known to have certain roles in trying to protect the students and others in the shooting are listed appropriately. I doubt that view will get traction and am find with the list. But separate sites for each victim is definitely getting into the MEMORIAL area. I am sure there has to be a source that groups these all together that can be used instead. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Columbine and other similar articles, most have victim list. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's not always that the old stuff is "right" (case in point, the breakdown of the events in Columbine is being noted as overkill, in light of using that article as a basis here). That said, I'm voicing that I think it's a problem but by no means to get into a debate over trying to remove it now. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is wrong with gwickwire's edit? Namely, using this source: Remembering the Sandy Hook Elementary victims. It seems to address both issues. It offers one comprehensive cite, thereby eliminating 20 plus unnecessary footnotes ... and ... it offers a bio for each victim. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great the way it is and therefore should not be changed. Many editors spent a lot of time discussing the matter and getting the list to where it is now. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the issue raised. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Previously, see archive.

Here is an image of the Bushmaster semi-auto used in the shooting. Any objection to putting this image in the article where the weapons are described? Chisme (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a similar weapon but not the actual weapon used.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We had a previous discussion on this with other images. Unless it is the exact gun, or can be verified that the image and the gun have the same modifications, it would be original research and misleading. People can click over and see the Bushmaster if they want to see something similar, but we shouldn't put in the article if it isn't verified as accurate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Deaths" field in the infobox should simply show the number of deaths and indicate parenthetically if the perpetrator(s) is included. It was "28 (including perpetrator)" for a long time, but I just noticed it's been changed to the extremely bulky "27 at the school (including the perpetrator), plus Nancy Lanza (killed at home); 28 total". This should be changed back. All those extra details are in the article and are inappropriate for the infobox. It should just say "28 (including perpetrator)" Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff that shows when it was changed (14:59, 19 December 2012‎). When it's reverted, the word "the" isn't needed in the parentheses. It should just be "(including perpetrator)", not "(including the perpetrator)". --76.189.123.142 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... a thread on the talk page of the editor who made the change shows a brief discussion about the number of deaths issue. The changing editor said, "I think it's important for Wikipedia to strive for accuracy, and reporting the death toll as 28 struck me as very misleading. After all the debate, I've updated the verbiage on the page to show both 27 and 28 near each other, so both death tolls are clearly stated now." The reasoning is misguided. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The {{infobox civilian attack}} docs for that field say, "fatalities – Number of people killed during attack(s); optionally, you can split this into different types of people (i.e. 121 passengers, 21 crew or 3 soldiers, 1 civilian)". IMO, any number given here in this case needs clarification regarding what fatalities are and are not represented by that number. The clarification could be provided in a footnote, but I don't find the amount of clarification currently provided inline in the infobox to be objectionably long. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says can be split into different types of people, not should be or must be. And there was wide agreement on how it was. For this article, the breakdown is clearly stated both in the body of the article and on the Killed/Wounded list. There was wide agreement on having "28 (including perpetrator)", which is the way it's been until it was changed earlier today with no discussion. And even if the extensive content would stay, it certainly should not say "Nancy Lanza"; it should say "perpetrator's mother". After all, it says "perpetrator", not "Adam Lanza" in that field. In any case, it was "28 (including perpetrator)" for a long time. That's what was settled on and it went unreverted for all this time, until now. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care which wording is used, but I'll note that your above claims are inaccurate. As clearly indicated in the summary, the edit to which you linked undid a reversion from earlier in the day (mislabeled "minor"). I performed the original edit on 17 December at 21:03 (UTC), per Joseph A. Spadaro's suggestion in a talk page discussion. As I noted at the time, I didn't feel that the previous version was problematic, but this seemed like a sensible means of addressing the concerns. —David Levy 03:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a very long discussion on this Talk Page, about this exact issue. I assume that it is now in the Talk Page archives. An editor objected to having a simple statement such as "28 (including perpetrator)" in the info box. He felt that such a notation would mislead readers to believe that 28 people died at the school. Furthering the confusion is the fact that all other outside sources list 27 deaths at the school. So, he felt that the additional death (bringing the number to 28) needed clarification. He felt that, since the title of the article is "S. H. Elementary School shooting", the 28 number is misleading to readers, without some parenthetical clarifying information. I agree that the current wording is bulky and impedes the aesthetics of the info box. But I agree with the prior editor that simply listing "28" as a death toll is misleading, given the (current) name of the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it did not say "28". It said, and has said for a long time, "28 (including perpetrator)". And the article, and especially the Killed/Wounded list, very clearly gives the breakdown by group. Many, many experienced editors and admins were involved in the way that content was ultimately displayed. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant discussion: Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 4#Article about school shooting and listing mother as victim of this incident. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree that the prior version said "28 (including perpetrator)". The problem is this. The article itself (and the info box) is about Lanza's entire December 14 killing spree. However, the title of the article refers only to the school killings. That is the main problem. And the other editor made a good point about simply listing "28 (including perpetrator)". That (previous) info box left the reader with the impression that 28 died at the school. So, some clarification was needed. The above linked discussion was pretty lengthy, thorough, and involved quite a few editors. There were no objections in that discussion. And, in fact, the current listing in the info box was the solution we all agreed on (consensus) to the problem. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you're missing the point regarding the article title. The article title is about the entire incident, which includes the mother's murder at home. In other words, it's about the entire spree. Obviously, the article title reflects where almost all the killings took place, but the mother's killing is fully part of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting incident. This was clearly explained in that discussion. The way the Deaths field has been changed is way overboard. That field is simply asking how many deaths there were in the incident. Answer: 28 (including perpetrator). The article and the Killed box gives all the details of how those 28 deaths happened. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are re-inventing the wheel. I fully know and understand that the article is about the whole spree. But, the current title does not reflect the whole spree. That is the source of the problem. And that is what was very thoroughly covered in that prior discussion. We agreed that, at some point, it will be appropriate to consider renaming the article. But, right now, it is too soon. So, that other editor made a valid point. While the 28 reflects the whole spree, it does not reflect the deaths at the school Therefore, regardless of the text/prose of the full article, the info box gave the misleading impression that 28 died at the school. Once again, because the title refers only to the school, and not to the whole spree. As I said, this is re-inventing the wheel. I know that this article is about the spree, and not the school. But, the title does not reflect that. That is the main issue and problem with listing 27 versus 28 in the info box. And with having or not having parentheticals. This was thoroughly discussed at that above link. The consensus solution was the present info box, with all that parenthetical "stuff". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the title does reflect the whole spree. This is just a matter of semantics. That is the title that was determined to be most appropriate for the incident as a whole, even though (obviously) all the killings did not happen at the school. By your logic, there should be no mention at all of Nancy Lanza. But she is a victim of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting incident, just like all the others. I appreciate all your feedback, though. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title clearly does not reflect the entire spree. If it did, it would be called "2012 Newtown murder spree" or some such. A reader with no knowledge of this event, simply looking at your proposed info box, would easily think that 28 people died at the school (not in the spree). So, again, the misleading title is the issue. And we have all agreed that a rename is premature. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Regardless of the title, the article is obviously about the entire incident, which started at home and ended at school. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the prose and text of the article are indeed about the whole spree. I have stated that umpteen times. The info box, however, is misleading (i.e., if one looks at the info box, without reading the entire article). And that is the whole point of the info box ... to give a snap shot of information, without the reader having to delve into all the prose. Furthermore, to the casual reader – or, to any reader, for that matter – the title is of critical importance to providing some direction about what the article entails. You are being dismissive about the importance of the title to the reader's understanding of the topic. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article is not "obviously" about the whole spree ... unless one actually reads the entire article. Or, at least, digs through it for the relevant portions. The purpose of the info box is to allow the reader to avoid doing precisely that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your point. I just disagree. Again, I think it's semantics. IMO, saying that the subject involves 28 deaths including the perpetrator is a perfectly accurate summary for the infobox. The Deaths field is not supposed to indicate location(s) or names. Now we can see what others think below. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's semantics. Semantics is precisely what is the issue here. If the article were entitled "2012 Newtown murder spree" (as opposed to "S. H. School shooting"), we would not be having this debate at all. So, of course, it's semantics! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, we agree it's semantics. Now we can see what other editors think. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One quick note. You indicated that the purpose of the infobox is to allow the reader get a summary of the entire article.[17] Actually, that is not true at all. The infobox is merely to present some important facts and statistics, not at all to summarize the content of the article. And of course infoboxes are not required for articles, so many do not even have one. It is actually the lead that serves to summarize the article's most important aspects. So the detailed breakdown of the 28 deaths should be obtained from the lead (and body), not the infobox. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just more semantics. You say that the "infobox is merely to present some important facts and statistics". Correct. But, clearly, it should present correct, accurate, non-misleading facts and statistics. I doubt that this is a point of contention. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"28 (including perpetrator)" is correct, accurate and not misleading at all. The infobox is not meant for going into the specific details about content; that's what the lead is for. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. I disagree with it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which content should be in the Deaths field in the infobox?

See discussion above. Please indicate below which content you prefer to be in the Deaths field in the infobox (A, B or C).

• (A) "28 (including perpetrator)"
• (B) "27 at the school (including the perpetrator), plus Nancy Lanza (killed at home); 28 total"
• (C) "28 (27 including perpetrator at school, plus perpetrator's mother at home)"

--76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we are voting, I vote for "B" or "C" (which are variants of the same thing). Definitely not "A". I will withdraw my "vote", as my opinion is made clear in the above discussion. And User 76.189 and I have agreed to stay out of this vote, and let other editors provide input. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B Keep it the way it is, I dont see an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A People can figure what 27+1 is and the details are given in the lead. Skullers (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Choice "A" does not say "27 + 1" ... it says, simply, 28. There's a difference. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, I would respectfully ask that you please not comment in this polling. We agreed to stay out of this !vote.[18] And Skullers did not say it says 27 + 1. His point was that readers can easily figure out that 28 including perp = 27 + 1. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed to stay out of the comment/vote, with my own comment/vote. I think it's highly appropriate for me (or you) to comment on the posts of others. That, indeed, is what a discussion is! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want to keep your word and stay out of this !vote, that's your choice. But I will keep to the spirit of our agreement, which was to stay out of this. You and I have made our views very clear (above). --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again ... I agreed to stay out of the comment/vote, with my own comment/vote. I think it's highly appropriate for me (or you) to comment on the posts of others. That, indeed, is what a discussion is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the needless clutter in (B) "27 plus mother; 28 total" and (C) "28 (27 plus mother)". Other details are already in the first paragraph. Skullers (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Perpetrator section, the article currently includes the following:

Several medical experts have stated that there is no link between violence and either Asperger's or autism in general.

While this assertion is backed up by sources, the question nonetheless remains, why is this statement in the article in the first place? To "balance" the "POV" of the preceding assertion that Lanza had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome? That's clearcut soapboxing then, and the extraneous assertion about "no link to violence" should be removed. We shouldn't "balance" what readers might read into neutral and verifiable assertions. --87.78.22.162 (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. That sentence does not belong in the article. The only way that it would belong is if there were some prior statement in the article along the lines of "a lot of people suspect that Lanza's Asperger's or his autism led to his shooting spree". Which is not the case. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well; I'm inclined to remove it provided there are no objections. Anyone? Go Phightins! 02:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is plenty of speculation all over the world (just not in our article) about the connection; in that sense, keeping that sentence in is possibly warranted, even without the explicit link being drawn. I have no objection to it; mind you, I'm one of the ones who trimmed it down from a much longer set of statements. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another situation where we may just need to wait. We still don't know what's going to come of this, but if there's a discussion on mental health, which I would assume there will be, there'll likely be several quotes from leaders in the field we can include. Go Phightins! 02:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, we can put (back) in the above statement if and when we include those other mental health discussions. Right now, that above statement is hanging, naked and bare, with no context (other than reader's assumptions). It is a non sequitur. Right now, it should be removed, until it makes sense, until it has a context, or until it is warranted. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the ARS has a term for that--something like "deletion by attrition". I don't really mind its removal; at some point there will have to be a more fully fleshed out section that discusses the speculation about mental health here and in general, and the real-world effects of the shooting on the discussion and on policy; it's part, after all, of Biden's honey-do list. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your deletion by attrition is exactly the issue, and a problem with this type of busy and contentious article. Removing for now until the proper time to add a section that can be balanced is best. I am not looking forward to xmas vacation break for schools, which will happen at the same time this article will likely be expanding with some of these details. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is still in the article and it is still a non sequitur I thought it was going to be removed? It seems to be a clear cut case of soapboxing.76.227.77.243 (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you (?) mark the request as answered? [19] --87.79.128.82 (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the consensus above, the statement

Several medical experts have stated that there is no link between violence and either Asperger's or autism in general.

is still in the article. Please remove it, thank you. --87.79.128.82 (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something needs to appear eventually to address this. I found...

...most children with AS want to be social, but fail to socialize successfully, which can lead to later withdrawal and asocial behavior...

...on the Asperger's page. And while someone found some supporting references that magically and irrevocably disconnect Asperger's from violence, I'm sure there are references to support the diminished capability for empathy leading up to anti-social behaviors including violence. --Digitpuppet (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you wrote is in the least bit relevant. Here's my reasoning from above: While this assertion is backup by sources, the question nonetheless remains, why is this statement in the article in the first place? To "balance" the "POV" of the preceding assertion that Lanza had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome? That's clearcut soapboxing then, and the extraneous assertion about "no link to violence" should be removed. We shouldn't "balance" what readers might read into neutral and verifiable assertions. -- That is the reason that statement needs to go. Not because "it might actually be true that Asperger's is connected with violence", but because the article does not make that connection in the first place, and it is clearcut soapboxing to "counterbalance" what biased readers may read into a neutral and verifiable assertion (namely that people, including a police officer off the record, said Lanza was diagnosed with Asperger's). Mind you, what you wrote is not only offensive, but also verifably wrong. And stupid. Very stupid. Just don't edit Wikipedia. --87.79.128.82 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Incivility. I don't support either side of the Asperger's/Violence debate. That wasn't the point of my edit. My point was that nearly any side of any argument can be supported by external references. That makes your claim -- "While this assertion is backup[sic] by sources..." -- less meaningful. I'm sorry that you were offended. If you have more to say, log in to avoid any appearance of sockpuppetry. And with that, I walk away. --Digitpuppet (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry... says the person with the brand new account. --87.78.239.56 (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mdann52 (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 2 sentences with references about autism to add context. Otherwise by simply stating that he may have had these conditions, readers will be lead to conclude that they are relevant and possible causes of his motivation. I missed this section on the talk page prior to adding the text. Am open to edits that improve it but do not think it should be completely removed or will result in misleading the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckle (talk • contribs) 21:00, 20 December 2012‎

That's still the exact same thing then: SOAPBOXING. We don't do public service announcements here! or will result in misleading the reader -- It won't mislead the reader. It only misleads you. --87.79.131.226 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for having to do this a third time, but Canuckle's unilateral policy- and consensus-violating edit made it necessary. I stand by the same reasoning from above, which the majority of people (not including Canuckle) appear to broadly agree with, based on WP:SOAPBOX. There is little else to say, except that Canuckle's rewording is proverbial lipstick on the proverbial pig. It changes nothing, these sentences need to go:

Due to concerns that published descriptions of Lanza's autism could result in a backlash against others with the condition, autism advocates campaigned to clarify that autism is a brain-related developmental problem and not a mental illness. Commentators also cautioned the public that the predatory aggression demonstrated in the shooting is generally not seen in the autistic population.'

After doing the edit, please {{archive}} this section to deter future disruption. Thank you. --87.79.131.226 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree with User 87.79.131.226. SOAPBOXING refers to Advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, editor opinion pieces, scandal mongering, self-promotion or advertising. My intent was none of those. Rather, as SOAPBOXING directs Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. While the article does not draw an overt line of cause-and-effect between his condition and the shooting, journalists' experience according to reliable sources indicates that simply leaving the condition stated as a fact without the appropriate encyclopedic context will be viewed as inaccurate and will mislead some readers. I have made positive contributions to other sensitive school shooting articles in the past. I am not an autism advocate and if the wording is perceived as not being neutral, I would welcome suggestions for improvement. Canuckle (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want to use this article for what amounts to a public service annoncement. That is and remains entirely unacceptable -- from an encyclopedic point of view. I firmly believe that things like that are broadly covered by WP:SOAPBOX and they are very much in the spirit of other, similar policies, e.g. WP:NOT#HOWTO.

Also, Canuckle, please spare me the "respect" if your respect means unilaterally overturning this edit because you do not understand the difference between Wikipedia and your local store's blackboard. --87.78.239.56 (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your speculation about my want for this encyclopedia is incorrect. WP:NOT#HOWTO not relevant as this is nowhere near a video game manual, textbook, etc. Your blackboard comparison is personal, meaningless and not even close to humour. Note that the reliable sources used as references for this brief mention of his condition feature the important context that is too early to draw a conclusion about a connection. To not accurately reflect what the reference says is unencyclopedic. Canuckle (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Canuckle. That's quite encyclopedic, but I don't think that a "backlash against others with the condition" is quite the concern. I think that it's more of a concern that the link is being put in place without the benefit of rational, methodical analysis of the entire situation and all the data that will come from the investigation. The Time article cited claims "people with autism are finding themselves the focus of misunderstanding and more than a little scrutiny." However, the scrutiny seems to be all unorganized anecdotal connections. (Unless someone can find a source that overtly makes the claim that Aspberger Syndrome was involved.) This press release is clearly soapboxing in the form of advocacy as are the dozen or so articles that I found that have been written to combat the Aspberger/violence anecdote that formed the moment Aspberger Syndrome was mentioned. So, IMHO, the overwhelming majority of relevant source material is heavily one-sided in the form of advocacy materials. However, those dozen articles are significant in that they demonstrate a measurable response to an unorganized conclusion that a layman may reach regarding this issue. And that (again IMHO) is historically relevant and worthy of encyclopedic mention. I'd also like to see a link to Sociological_and_cultural_aspects_of_autism#Social_impact or Asperger_syndrome#Social_interaction added possibly to direct curious readers to a more relevant entry specific to this issue. How about this?

Due to concerns that published descriptions of Lanza's autism could result in scrutiny of others with the condition, autism advocates campaigned to caution the public that the predatory aggression demonstrated in the shooting is generally not seen in the autistic population.' --Digitpuppet (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a little while ago that the Victim's section actually only comprises two new sentences, one saying that the bodies were removed and identified during the night, the other saying that a State Trooper had been assigned to each family to support them. The sentence about multiple gun shot wounds to each victim is already covered in the Investigation section. Since the two victim sentences themselves actually fit well into the Investigation section, I tried a WP:BOLD edit to see what would happen if we simply incorporated the sentences there, which has the added advantage of moving the Victim's list (it floats at page right) up and away from the Perpetrator section, which I've never liked because the previous section ended up listing out all the names alongside Lanza's biographic section. Take a look and judge for yourself. I was being bold here, so feel free to revert me if you feel I've made things worse by doing this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. That separate little section wasn't needed. I like the edit. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good edit. Thanks for being bold. - MrX 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: "Some time before 9:30 a.m. (1430 UTC) on December 14, 2012, Adam Peter Lanza ...". Is the UTC time supposed to have a colon, like the regular, standard time? Or is the colon deliberately left out? In other words, should it be listed as 1430 UTC, or 14:30 UTC? I looked at the UTC article, but it was of no help. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be naive here, but I don't think the lack of colon's standard. The lack of one is used in scientific and military applications, but I think that's a space/stylistic concern. Most published UTC times have a colon, by say scientific press releases. Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I removed the UTC statement, after all. There are many specific time references within the article. I think that they either all should be converted to UTC, or none should (for consistency). I think "none" is the better option. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a mention of the possibility that Lanza was misdiagnosed? This columnist (Robert Stacy McCain) has suggested Lanza actually had childhood onset schizophrenia, which fits better with what we know about him (as well as with the shooting; there's a known connection between schizophrenia and violence while there isn't one for Asperger's). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expect tied to the investigation - talking head and opinion. No. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know, for sure, that he even was diagnosed? (Let alone, misdiagnosed.) I have not seen that he was "officially" diagnosed with Asperger's. Was he? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Why Diagnosing Adam Lanza Is a Problem. No opinion from an expert in the media who never met Lanza counts as a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And we can all be patient and wait to hear some official reports on all these matters. Encyc, not a newspaper/tabloid.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor deleted all the cited-refs for the children in the 'Killed Infobox', but left a massive amount of redlinks in the wake of that edit. I am trying to fix it now. Shearonink (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed now. Just wanted to make it clear why I ended up doing that series of edits. I thought my commenting out of a malformed orphaned reference had caused a cascade of redlinked references. All fixed now. Shearonink (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding mortality numbers requires context. The media often fails to provide it, but we can. Underlying Cause of Death, 1999-2010 (aka "Detailed Mortality (2010)") on CDC WONDER is a source.

Some US numbers: 2010 US deaths age 6 (466) and 7 (461) were 927. Of which 359 were non-disease (ICD-10 Codes V01-Y89 (External causes)), of which 166 were transport accidents, and 40 assault. Ages 5-9, US, 2010, were 2,330 total, 919 non-disease, 108 assault. Some CT numbers: 2008-2010 CT deaths (3 years) were 22, or 7.3 per year. 2000-2010 CT non-disease deaths (11 years) were 23. Ages 5-9, CT, 1999-2010 (12 years) were 278 total, 85 non-disease, 10 assault.

Analysis. So for the US, 20 deaths ages 6 and 7, represent 8 days of average US mortality for ages 6-7, 20 days of non-disease, and half a year of assault. Or 3 days of average for ages 5-9, 8 days of non-disease, and 68 days of assault. But CT is a small state (1% of US population). So the deaths represent three years of average CT mortality for ages 6-7, more than a decade of non-disease, and several decades of assault. Or a year of average mortality for ages 5-9, three years of non-disease, and decades of assault.

Writer notebook. Saying "more children than" is problematic, because infant mortality is high. "more children this age than" is ambiguous in age range, but if the comparison is imprecise enough, it can be correct regardless.

So what are some lines that might be added to the article to provide context? ... more children this age than CT usually loses in a year; loses to accidents in a years; loses to assault in decades. ... is a big part of the children this age lost to assault this year in the US; was only a small part of all children this age who died this year in the US.

Disclaimer: It's late, and I didn't double check the work. Someone else will have to take on any edits.

Re WP:NOR, I suggest this was routine calculation plus wordsmithing, but at some point, the selection of numbers from a database starts looking like synthesis of non-explicit conclusion, and what would a cite look like, so... I don't know how to call it. 76.24.26.198 (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that twenty children killed in a mass shooting at a school is unprecedented. Other causes of death are off topic in this context.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most people care about the homicide factor... and how to stop murders. Most people could care less about the method. But the IP seems to be comparing accidental deaths, etc., which is obviously irrelevant and "context" in that sense is not appropriate in the article. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, context is already provided in the lead by comparison with other school shootings. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – There is so much editing going on, it is hard to keep up and may have to get put in again down the road. The consensus was/is that the "had" belongs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion I've put the "had" back in. The last time it was removed without discussion; it would be nice to see it being given some thought this time. DBaK (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A nice opportunity to point to James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started to read that article, then my head exploded. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes, that! DBaK (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that made your head explode, try reading Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. LOL! Ok...let consensus decide the "had", but I kinda support the usage.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I do wonder if this edit was not a mistake. Yes, it does put the lead into chronological order, which is what I was thinking about with the "had", but it does seem to place an unbalanced emphasis when really the primary key thing, as in all the previous versions of the lead, was the murders at the school, which we used to read about as the first thing in the account. This is not of course to say that the murder of his mother was insignificant. Just that it's not the first thought you have when contemplating this massacre. I am not up for a fistfight over this so I am not going to change anything right now, but I do think editors should consider reverting to a structure similar to that before the edit, which used order to emphasize the school murders, and tense to put the chronology right. DBaK (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deaths at the school are first and foremost on this topic, and should be explained first (particularly since it is likely this article will be named based on the school given what it's being called in sources). --MASEM (t) 16:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The school component should be listed first; the murder at home, second. Even though that is reverse chronological order, it makes sense in this article. The school component is clearly the "big story". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defintely. I was appalled at how it was worded and am glad it was fixed. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. So, yes, as a start I have gone back to the other form of words, and I do think it makes sense to see the deaths at the school first. I'd welcome further comment here though. Thanks DBaK (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: The massacre is the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Another editor wants to change it to: The massacre is the second-deadliest shooting in an educational institution in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Any consensus? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be "school". There is no reason for the verbose "educational institution". Furthermore, the Wikipedia link is to "list of school shootings in the US". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it doesn't make the biggest difference, but "educational institution" might be needlessly verbose. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me 'school' is better, also more succinct than 'educational institution'. Shearonink (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But none of those reasons address the issue that school is confusing to many readers. Please at least try to address that issue otherwise we'll going to get no where. Dpmuk (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"School shooting" should be treated as a single term, not just "shooting at a school". It could also refer to someone fishing with a howitzer (beans), but I don't think anyone is that confused. Skullers (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with the general idea of what you're saying in that the context is important and makes it obvious we're not referring to shooting fish with a howitzer. However even in context school is still confusing as from the context an English person (or many others) would still think school was referring to a pre-18 institution. Dpmuk (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School is a common word in the English language for at least a couple of centuries now. How anyone could be confused .... HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read our school article where it states quite clearly that in much of the world school is not used to refer to a university. Hence for non-Americans it would be quite easy to get confused. Dpmuk (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an Englishman who came to America in 1974 and became a citizen, and lived in Australia for three years (on assignment,) and having spent a great deal of time in Canada, I can assure you "school" will not be confusing to readers of the ENGLISH version of Wikipedia. To me this just a tempest in a teapot.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an international encyclopaedia and as explained at school the term "school" does not refer to a university in most of the English speaking world. As such this sentence as it stands is confusing to many readers. I'm not particularly bothered by the choice of words as long as it's not potentially confusing as "school" is. One of guidelines, WP:COMMONALITY, states "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia" and "Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences (rather than alternate, use alternative or alternating depending on which sense is intended)" and to me that makes it pretty clear that school should not be used. As for the title of the linked article that's essentially a WP:OSE argument and I think that title needs changing as well. To put it simply I'd rather be verbose than confusing. Dpmuk (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of where this article is being read, this incident happened in the USA. "School" is an everyday, common word that is familiar to everyone. The word "school" is hardly confusing (to anyone, much less to "many people"). The title of the article is Sandy Hook School. Should we change that, also? Should that be changed to "Sandy Hook Educational Institution", so as not to confuse some people? I really don't see the problem. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, universities aren't formally labeled "schools" in the United States either. But they comprise schools and sometimes are referred to as "schools" informally, so in American usage, the term "school shooting" encompasses all shootings at educational institutions.

I strongly support WP:COMMONALITY, but "shooting in an educational institution" probably would confuse many American readers. Sadly, we're so accustomed to "school shootings" (and mentions thereof) that we would wonder what distinction this unusual wording was intended to draw.

Because this is an American topic, if no suitable English variety-neutral wording is possible, we default to American terminology. Of course, if there is an alternative that makes sense to Americans and non-Americans alike, that would be ideal. —David Levy 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David Levy on all points. "School shooting" is common parlance in the USA. And using "educational institution" is awkward, clunkish, confusing, and unfamiliar to many here in the USA. Without better alternatives, as David Levy states, the USA "preference" trumps any other, as this is a USA event. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I originally tried "school or university" but that got reverted (in a very round about way) but I also think that's clunky. Obviously we don't want to confuse Americans either and I tried not to - I got the term "educational institution" from the school article to try to avoid this. As I'm currently living in America I'm aware that school also refers to university here so and so if we invoke TIES then I'd agree school is fine. In this instance I don't think we can simply invoke TIES or COMMONALITY as there are phrases we could use but they do have disadvantages so instead we have to weigh both. In my opinion this clearly comes down on the side of not using school. I'd be more willing to invoke TIES if this was an article that seemed likely was mainly going to be read by people from the US but this had a worldwide impact so many non-Americans will be reading this as well. Dpmuk (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONALITY, with which I strongly agree, advises us that "universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms" and that we should "use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences".

The problem is that no "universally used term" or "commonly understood word or phrase" has been suggested. All of the options presented are potentially confusing to either Americans or non-Americans. How, in your view, does this "clearly [come] down on the side of not using school" (i.e. not using the terminology that's standard in the country in which the event occurred)? —David Levy 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Americans can't understand "educational institution"? Want to just say outright, "Americans are stupid"? I don't buy that argument at all. (Lest there be any confusion about it, I'm an American.) LadyofShalott 03:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't I'm saying at all. (Lest there be any confusion about it, I'm American too.)

Did you read what I wrote above? I'll copy and paste it:

Sadly, we're so accustomed to "school shootings" (and mentions thereof) that we would wonder what distinction this unusual wording was intended to draw.

"School shooting" is the standard term in the United States, so substituting the highly unusual "shooting in an educational institution" would cause confusion. The problem isn't that Americans wouldn't understand what the words mean; it's that they wouldn't understand the reason behind their use instead of the phrase "school shooting" (and whether some difference should be inferred).

Likewise, we refer to a car's "trunk" or "boot" (depending on what English variety is in use). We don't substitute "outdoor-access storage compartment". —David Levy 04:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you are saying. I don't necessarily agree, but I get the idea. However, the article is not written only for American readers. "Educational institution" is still less clunky than something like "school (including university)" which is what would be needed to make the meaning clear to the non-American readers unfamiliar with that general a usage of "school". LadyofShalott 04:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't replace standard terminology with constructed descriptions or insert awkward (and in the above case, inaccurate) qualifiers. We do our best to write for an international readership, but it isn't always possible to accommodate everyone perfectly. —David Levy 04:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was inaccurate? We are talking about schools ranging from elementary to university level. LadyofShalott 04:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "school (including university)" seems to imply that universities, in American usage, are "schools" (as opposed to comprising them). Of course, you weren't advocating that wording's use. —David Levy 04:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – It is resolved. Or was resolved. Or something.

The article currently states: The massacre is the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It is also the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the Bath School bombings of 1927. Another editor wants it to read: The massacre was the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It was also the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the Bath School bombings of 1927. Any consensus? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This massacre currently holds those "titles" or positions or rankings or whatever word you want to use. So, the present tense "is" is appropriate, not the past tense "was". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's reasonable. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sentence should read in the present tense (because even though the event happened in the past, the sad 'deadliest' record is an ongoing occurrence). Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these shootings/massacres/tragedies (et. al.) are already included in the lists that are referenced here, why should these stand out or receive special attention? User GabrielF mentions with regard to the addition of the Cleveland link in the Edit summary that "add event that the NYTimes identified as relevant in a front page article today". OK, assuming we take GabrielF's word for it since there's no citation, one writer at the Times made mention of a similar event, how does this make it worthy of special status? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose linking. Separate, unrelated events. The New York Times is also left-leaning in its editorial policy, and this may start to give the article a POV if we go down the road of following what they and other papers see as relevant. There will be plenty of time for more somber assessments of this tragedy as time passes..HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I added the Cleveland school but the Dunblane incident was already there. My rationale was that the lists are very long and include things that aren't particularly relevant (shootings at colleges by students for instance, or even the Boston Massacre) so I thought it would be valuable to highlight one event that was more closely related (occurred at a primary school by an adult who didn't seem to have much of a connection with the school and had a similar impact). You can't really put a citation in an edit summary, but the specific citation is here[20].GabrielF (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose the links at all. Furthermore, contrary to an above post, "see also" items do not have to be "directly related" to the main article. In other words, it is irrelevant if the items are "separate, unrelated events", as HammerFilmFan points out. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the MOS: The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me of the errors of my ways. See below for a real link we need to add! HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im the one who added the Dunblane shootings as the attack has alot similar to this one sources also are pointing this out: [21], [22] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, back to my original query, why are these two events getting special attention? I'm not saying that they are unrelated, but at the very least highlighting them is redundant and would appear to violate NPOV by adding undue emphasis. Per the MOS:, the existing lists are more than adequate enabling readers to explore tangentially related topics.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Because they were both mass gun killings at elementary schools. I'm not so wedded to the US one, but the Dunblane shooting not only gives non-US perspective but was instrumental in the enactment of the UK's incredibly strict gun laws, which given the current reactions in the US, makes it very relevant. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed I keep getting reverted though with some editors not even bothering to comment here to get a consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just removed thees two links not knowing they were being discussed on the talk page. I do not see why these two events in particular should be mentioned. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know about the Cleveland shootings but sources have brought up the Dunblane shootings when referring to Sandy Hook (See above). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet BOTH are included in the lengthy lists that are already linked in the section. The "See also" section is NOT to give perspective, per Joseph A. Spadaro's comment, "one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." This is from, [[23]]. I'm not disputing this, but no one is willing to address what makes these two events stand out above and beyond the inclusive lists that are already linked.

Their inclusion is redundant and places undue weight in a section that was not meant to be used in this manner. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have already explained why they believe the Dunblane killings especially are relevant here. There are currently some 7,000 Google News hits linking the two. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not disputing its relevance. Again, I'm not disputing its relevance. I'm disputing its particular uniqueness and why it should stand out above and beyond the other attacks on this list List of school shootings in the United States, for example. There are lots of Google hits on many of the other school shootings, but I fail to see how that is justification for special status in the "See also" section. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how many of those news stories about "other school shootings" are actually linking the two events for the reasons given above? And I have no idea what your link to WP:NOT means. Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the number matter? I'll readily concede that the events are related, very similar, and worthy of comparison in the press. BUT, I still see no reason or credible argument based on Wikipedia policy or even common sense as to why it deserves special attention above any other shooting incident in an article on Wikipedia.

As for my link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, take your pick from this section... Wikipedia:Encyclopedic#Content I couldn't agree more with Joseph A. Spadaro that the "See also" section is enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

If there are 7,000 Google News hits linking the two events, then the links we are discussing are unnecessary. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of your argument here. After all, our articles, per WP:N and WP:V, are based on non-primary sources and if those sources are linking the two events, we should reflect that; if the press are commenting that there are that many links between the two events, that suggests the link should (at the very least) be in the "See Also" section. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure why you are pushing so hard against this, the events are relevent per WP:MOS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing hard against, I'm asking for it to be removed until someone explains why the Dunblane shooting deserves special status. Black Kite cites that there are 7000 Google News hits linking the two. Obviously the press is free to link the events all they want, but that is not WP's purpose. Furthermore, Notability and Verifiability are irrelevant in the context of the "See also" section. Linked articles wouldn't exist on WP if they weren't and their presence does not validate linking to them.

The inclusion of the link still puts undue weight on the Dunblane shooting and creates bias within the Sandy Hook article. Let readers decide for themselves from the inclusive lists that are already linked.

Conversely, if its as significant as you and other editors have indicated, then I suggest that you work it into the Lead of the article. In the meantime, I am still of the opinion that it does not belong in the "see also" section until convinced otherwise. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that we should be very careful about what goes into the seealso section, and would rather go with less for NOW and then revisit later. --Malerooster (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dunblane shooting in 1996 is the only event directly comparable to the Sandy Hook shooting. It is worth including it as one of the See also links for this reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/20/man-arrested-after-police-say-brought-2-x-4-with-high-power-rifle-written-on-it/

A Virginia man was arrested Wednesday after police say he brought a 2-by-4-foot board with the words 'High Powered Rifle' written on its side into Sandy Hook Elementary School in the town of Strasburg.

Wow. Interesting, but not relevant, in my opinion. Go Phightins! 20:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this is a direct link to the shooting - this (probably) disturbed person is acting on what happened, and chose a school with the same name. I hope this is the last of such "copycats" and that the presiding judge will not be amused. But that's neither here nor there.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's off topic. But what exactly is illegal about carrying a piece of wood (the 2 by 4)? Or did I miss something? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this would fall under 'communicating a threat' or causing a threatening presence on the grounds of a school. The writing on the wood would seem to be the key.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess the threat angle ... not to mention, probably, trespass into the school. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go - from a local paper there: "According to Sheriff's Office rep Major Scott Proctor, the school's resource officer was on the scene within seconds and Johnson was arrested for disorderly conduct." HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I don't see the direct link. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this has been discussed in the past, but I was thinking that the time may have come to revisit whether this should be called the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre." The term massacre is utilized in the Columbine article, Columbine High School massacre, even though a smaller number of children were killed. I realize that "massacre" is an emotionally fraught word, but perhaps we could take a poll or otherwise get a sense of the people following this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, massacre means the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder. I think that most would agree that this killing was unnecessary, it killed a large number of humans, and it was for revenge on his mother (at least that seems to be the present motive theory). Again, this will need to be discussed at a later date, as we still don't know what name will stick. For now, I think massacre is all right. Go Phightins! 20:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The past being a few hours ago. Consensus is to wait for later for this decision, is it not?HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is that will need to use what the sources use as a title. The WP:COMMONNAME. This is why we wait for the media to hash that out, and eventually center around a common name that they all use. We don't create that name, we just document it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, what I think Coretheapple was saying is that massacre might not be, by definition, an appropriate word. I disagree with that, and provided the def as backup. The name I'm hearing most in the media is "Sandy Hook Massacre"...I watch ABC News in the morning and NBC at night, and I'm pretty sure that's what they've been using. Anyway, by January we'll have a clear name, I would think. Until then, I think we can hold off with what we've got now. Go Phightins! 20:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We use "massacre" for most school tragedies, as pointed out above. I believe that terminology is appropriate, as it doesn't arbitrarily discriminate between the method of attack. There have been a few move discussions before that have been prematurely shut down. I believe a thorough WP:RM discussion is appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is waiting until a couple of weeks have passed so bad? Let the dust settle on this issue. ^Dennis pointed out why.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I've argued with Dennis, I don't see why an arbitrary "dust settle" time is necessary for getting the name right. The precedent seems quite clear. It'd be bizarre if we somehow broke convention with every other school tragedy of this type with this particular one. Even more bothersome is the idea that a discussion is inappropriate. I'm not going to do it soon, but if someone else starts a RM and someone involved shuts it down prematurely under that pretense, I'll undo it. Shadowjams (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I've argued with Dennis, I don't see why an arbitrary "dust settle" time is necessary for getting the name right.

We base our articles' titles on the names used by reliable sources, which have not yet settled on one for this event. Therefore, we have no means of determining what the "right" name will be.

The precedent seems quite clear.

Indeed, the precedent of waiting for a name to predominate among reliable sources is quite clear.

It'd be bizarre if we somehow broke convention with every other school tragedy of this type with this particular one.

You don't seem to understand. We aren't in a position to break convention. It isn't up to us.

Even more bothersome is the idea that a discussion is inappropriate.

Discussion is fine. Only a formal move request is premature.

Did you happen to notice that a different title is suggested whenever someone raises the issue? This illustrates the current uncertainty. Do you honestly believe that engaging in multiple concurrent/consecutive move requests (all while lacking the most important piece of information, as discussed above) would be constructive?

I'm not going to do it soon, but if someone else starts a RM and someone involved shuts it down prematurely under that pretense, I'll undo it.

You'll unilaterally overrule a consensus-backed closure instead of contesting it at Wikipedia:Move review? —David Levy 02:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letting the preponderance of sources settle on a name and then moving to that name would be far preferable to the mess of moves I remember happening at Ipswich serial murders (or whatever name finally was chosen). Waiting hurts nothing. LadyofShalott 04:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else find the first section heading under Shootings, The first killings to be a little awkward? Especially since the next section heading is Classroom slayings. Shouldn't we be more consistent and use either shootings, killings or slayings, not all three? I'm not sure the first sub-section even needs a heading. - MrX 20:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very. I'm not sure splitting them up is the best approach anyway, but if they are split, it needs a different heading. Shadowjams (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I never liked the splitting up of the murders in sections anyway.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, awkward. I don't even understand why there are subsections. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "Classroom slayings"? I think the sub sections are un-needed and should be removed - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did that aeons (a few days) ago. I was thinking of readability, to make this tragedy more digestible for the reader. The crime did seem to be divided into distinct phases but I'd not weep bitter tears if the subheads were removed by majority will. Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remove the headings for now, since multiple contributors are in agreement here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have better titles you can use for them? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the idea of removing the sub-headings. I think it would be an improvement to the article and as a bonus, it would result in a more dignified treatment of the subject. - MrX 22:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a mistake to remove the sub-headings. This was a major crime, larger than the Columbine massacre which indeed received step-by-step treatment such as we are attempting to do here. Like it or not, this is a defining event of our age that is being and will be studied minutely for years to come. Coretheapple (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Columbine page is not a good example, as previously discussed. It is far too much detail for an encyclopedia article. The length of the section here - barring any new revelations in the event timeline, is just edging being too much detail. The headers are absolutely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed as to whether or not the Columbine page has far too much detail for an encyclopedia article. No conclusion, however, was reached. I think the Columbine article is fine; it was a "featured article" at one point; and it has withstood 14 years of editing and scrutiny. It's pretty presumptuous of editors on this page – all of the sudden, out of the blue, in 2012 – to start complaining about the past 14 years of edits to the Columbine article. Columbine was a huge event, and I am sure that many, many editors were involved with it, over the past 14 years. I am sure that there were (and are) plenty of eyes of Wiki editors watching that major event and its article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it was only created in 2003, it's a bit hard to say its had 14 years of scrutiny. But there's a reason why it was demoted from a featured article status. That implies we definitely should not be using it as a template. In contrast, the Dunblane school massacre gets the job done of saying how bad the massacre was without details or glorifying it. That's what we should be aiming for. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine happened in 1999. Do you really want to squabble over whether the article had 10 years or 13 years of editorial scrutiny? Even if the 13 number is incorrect, ten years still is a lot! No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how people editing one page can make such sweeping judgments about another page that seems to be well established. The Columbine article is long, but it seems to be fair detail considering the notoriety of the case. Speaking strictly as a consumer, not as an editor, of Wikipedia I think that the more details, the better. The reader can always disregard details that don't interest him or her. What I don't like are articles on trivia or on unimportant people that are too long. The Columbine article is an important event, really almost a part of the culture. If it was more trivial I would agree with you. What we're discussing now is not adding detail, but whether to make the article more readable and digestible for the reader. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Coretheapple whole-heartedly. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again we are an encyclopedia which purpose is to summarize topics, not detail them. If readers need more detail, we can provide them references to read more. A step by step description of the shooter's rampage is far beyond what an encyclopedia should provide. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I'm new as an editor (though not as a user) and I am viewing this through a reader prism. From that perspective, I have found that the best articles are the ones that are detailed and give me a great deal of good information, so that I don't have to look up the footnotes. Some of the articles on scholarly and historical topics do not have Internet-based references so I cannot easily look them up. I don't want to go off on a tangent into a philosophical side discussion, but I did want to point this out. Generally I think this article has been kept far too brief, and that more detail would be useful. We're actually giving short shrift to the subject, perhaps overreacting in the wrong direction. As for the Columbine article, I find it to be very good, and a good model to use. Coretheapple (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple - You must have posted while I was editing out the subheadings and trying to link the edit summary back to this thread. I'm not opposed to subheadings, but I think they they need to need to be consistent in style and tone. Any suggestions? - MrX 00:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are veering way off topic into all sort of tangents you don't need to. The question is simply how to organize the description. If it needs to be split up fine, I don't think most people have a huge objection to it, they just think it was done unartfully. The big issue was with the title, which was... awkward... if you pick a better subheading nobody would have an issue. Work on that; you guys are far afield right now though. Shadowjams (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the titles can be changed. The ones I put in were added off the top of my head. MrX, I don't have any suggestions at this point in time, but I'll return to the subject later. Coretheapple (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have figured out what happened there, based on different sources, most of which I didn't save, but could easily be found if anyone wants to add my hypothesis to the shooting timeline.

Source 1: first responders entering the classroom found the shooter just inside the door, Soto on the floor near her desk and in front of one group of dead students, and a second group of dead students in the bathroom. Some time later they found 7 students hidden in a closet.

Source 2: Aiden Licata, a boy who fled Soto's classroom stated that Ms. Soto lined him and other students up along a wall "away from the door". He also said that he saw the gunman enter the class and shoot his teacher, which caused blood to come out of her mouth. He said he and some other children then ran past the shooter, out of the classroom and out of the building. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57559513/newtown-massacre-teacher-vicki-sotos-heroics-remembered/

Source 3: neighbor found six children sitting on his lawn crying. They told him their teacher was dead. Presumably these are the same children who ran from Soto's classroom. These children did not go to the firehouse. The neighbor took them inside his house and called around until their parents were contacted and came to pick them up from the house. Aiden Licata was not one of these 6--his mother found him at a police station. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8924410

Source 4: the children hiding in the closet in Soto's classroom reported to the first responders that the gunman entered, asked Ms. Soto where the children were, and when she told him "in the auditorium" shot her. They are the ones who reported that children were shot while trying to flee. I believe that they, not being able to see the events, wrongly interpreted the simultaneous sounds of the 7 children running from the classroom and of Lanza shooting the children behind Ms. Soto. It sounds like Lanza couldn't see any of the children when he entered, but then he did? Seems odd, if they were lined up against the wall as described by Aiden Licata. Other reports said the kids were hidden, but came out and tried to flee, but it's not clear what the original source was of that info.

Source 5: Ms. Murphy was in Ms. Soto's classroom http://www.newser.com/story/159527/6-year-old-newtown-victim-died-in-arms-of-beloved-aide.html

Conclusion: it seems to me that Ms. Soto (perhaps with Ms. Murphy) made the very smart decision to split up her students in 3 or 4 locations to maximize their odds of survival. Having shut 7 in the closet, she put others more along the wall, in the bathroom and/or behind her desk. During the brief time of the shooting, 7 children got away and Lanza shot 8 other children and Ms. Murphy after first shooting Ms. Soto.

Why 8? 14 were shot in the first (Rousseau's) classroom, 2 of whom were adults. So there must have been 12 children who died there (one girl survived under their bodies), assuming the count of 14 was accurate. Total children killed was 20, which leaves 8 who must have died in the second classroom. Rwielgosz (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the whole thing is very confusing. I thought I read that the deaths (for children) numbered 14 in one room, six in another (for a total of 20). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were 16 children in Rousseau's class, judging by the school picture taken this fall that was published in the Daily Mail. Fifteen of the kids in the photo were killed and were identified in the paper; the other is presumed to be the lone survivor. One of the children, Josephine Gay, was autistic, so maybe she was receiving services in another classroom at the time? Speculation. I haven't seen any article that lists where the kids were at, but Murphy and D'Avino both worked with autistic children. Little Dylan was also autistic and Murphy tried to shield him with her body. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in mind, we shouldn't be adding it as you have stated it here. We would need a source to connect the dots, else it is likely a synthesis of sources, with unknown gaps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there are sentences with two to three refrences each. Should we begin to clear out some of these excess refrences? Trek001 (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I would say NO - the sentence may be an epitome of all three references. There's nothing wrong with multiple ref's.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Sandy hook shorting took place 1.5 miles NNW of this location

—71.185.202.44 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation or link available? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The coordinates of the school on Google Maps are 41.419721,-73.278567 [24]. This is the same as the source in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned several times the incident took place on the 14th of December, but there's no sign of what weekday it took place in (Friday), which I found a bit inconvenient having to find a calendar. Would it be adequate to have the day somewhere near the date (possibly in the infobox)? Bui (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issue with including the day of the week...Go Phightins! 03:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see "Friday" was added to the article, but since when do articles include the day of the week something happened? I've never seen that in an article before. It now says "on Friday, December 21"; I think Friday should be removed. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe the day of the week is supposed to be used with the date. Encylopedias don't use days with dates. Can an admin or other experienced editor provide guidance on this? WP:DATEFORMAT doesn't address it. And for the record, I don't understand why it would matter at all to readers what day of the week something happened, especially when the article becomes weeks, months and years old. IMO, it's irrelevant. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks might wonder what day of the week it was, and this way they can find out without having to consult a perpetual calendar. Also, the fact it was on a Friday meant a weekend of accelerated discussion on TV and elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encylopedia, not a newspaper. Encylopedias don't use days of the week with dates. I'll bet 99.9% of readers don't go to a calendar to find the day of the week when they see a date in an article, or even care. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's unencyclopedic about including the day of the week? I don't see it. It's information. This happened on Friday; September 11 was a Tuesday. These are facts that contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of an event and its reception.  ^davidiad_.:τ 05:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - for some events the day of the week may well be relevant (e.g. our article on the Attack on Pearl Harbor should surely point out that it happened on a Sunday, when the bases were at their least alert, though presently it doesn't...), and if it isn't, it is hardly either controversial, or using much article space to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about your example with Pearl Harbor because the fact that it happened on a Sunday was highly relevant for the reason you stated. Therefore, I'd consider it a rare exception where it's clearly appropriate. In this case, it has no relevance. If some admins say it's an accepted practice to include a day of the week with a date, even if it doesn't have important relevance to the event, that's fine. But pick 10, 20 or 50 random articles (that use at least several dates in them) and I'll bet you nearly 100% of them will not use the day of the week. It's simply not standard practice. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that it has no relevance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs has a point. How is Saturday relevant to Pearl Harbor? The bases don't go up or down with their alerts depending on the day of the week. That would need a source. How is Friday relevant here?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be missing my point entirely - I've seen sources that argue that the fact that the Pearl Harbor attack took place on a Sunday was significant - and our article on the subject should quite possibly point this out (assuming that it can be sourced, and isn't entirely a figment of my imagination). AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got your point....it just wasn't made very well or with any relevant facts. Bases did not lower alerts due to it being a Saturday.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday? It was a Sunday. And no, I haven't cited sources, but neither have you - and this isn't the Pearl Harbor attack article anyway - I was making a general point, not arguing about US military alertness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My take is that it's a bit dogmatic (and inaccurate) to say that Encyclopedias "NEVER" use days of the week, in articles. They have. "Black Monday"..."Black Tuesday", etc...when referring to Stock Market crashes. I don't see ANY reason why "it happened on a Friday morning" can't be included in this article, simply because it's an "Encyclopedia".

There's no rule, code, law, or actual in-stone strict protocol that says days of week can never be mentioned in an article, especially one that is supposed to be comprehensive and thorough. You'll tell me that days are never mentioned in historical accounts of wars and battles or big events?

In fact, I can show you where it is on Wikipedia.

In the "Battle of Britain Day" article.

"On Sunday, 15 September 1940, the Luftwaffe launched its largest and most concentrated attack against London in the hope of drawing out the RAF into a battle of annihilation. Around 1,500 aircraft took part in the air battles which lasted until dusk."

How about Britannica? Rarely, but it has been done. Case in point.

On Kennedy's assassination:

" On Friday, November 22, 1963, he and Jacqueline Kennedy were in an open limousine riding slowly in a motorcade through downtown Dallas."

So anyone who says (wrongly) that Encyclopedias "never" have days of weeks in their articles, well, sorry, that editor needs to know that that assertion is just not true. Granted, day of week is rarely mentioned in encyclopedias. But not "never". It depends. And for some reason, I can see it being done on this article. Regards... Gabby Merger (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from all of that, could someone just explain the relevance of the day of the wweek and how it is relevant to the subject and isn't just giving unrelated detail?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to what? The contemporary Western calender contains some redundancy, but to most of us, the day of the week has meaning - arguably more so than the day of the month. Why should we omit it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is just parsing words and does not answer the concern of an editor requesting an explanation as to why it is releveant here. Been down this road with you before Andy. Can you actually demonstrate how it has relevance?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Amadscientist. I was just about to ask the same question. Why is the day relevant (needed) in this case? Btw, comparing the use of events like Black Friday or Super Bowl Sunday with the use of the standard date format is totally apples and oranges. And of course we can find a few articles (out of tens of millions) that use the day of the week, but the overwhelming, predominant standard is not to use the day of the week unless there's significant relevance. Even Gabby has acknowledged the fact that it's rare. I initially said "never", but should have said almost never (relatively speaking). I later said almost 100%. So as Amadscientist has asked, why is the day needed in this instance? --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see that while we're here in the middle of this discussion, and waiting for admin input, Baseball Bugs has added Friday to the opening sentence of the article[25] instead of having the courtesy and patience to wait until we finish this discussion and get the admin input I've requested. His edit comment ("Friday - as per talk page") falsely implies consensus has been reached. I consider that very disruptive and request that it be reverted until a final decision is made. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't determine article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely for our against the addition, but how long a discussion should continue is generally based on the forming consensus. While no one has offered a reason it is relevant, there are clear indications that most editors agree it should go in and have given a number of differing views on why. I think it is safe to say, this is a non-controversial addition and the discussion appears to show agreement for the most part. Is this something you can live with? It seems like such a small issue really.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one has given an answer to why including the day of the week is relevant in this instance? And if a couple admins concur that the use of the day of the week is appropriate, I'm fine with it. But until then, the disruptive addition of Friday to the opening sentence, by an editor involved in this discussion, should be removed. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not entirely true I don't think (IMO). I think Baseball Bugs said something. "Also, the fact it was on a Friday meant a weekend of accelerated discussion on TV and elsewhere." Also, the point is that why not make the article more thorough and complete? Why leave out information?

You may not see this as all that "relevant", but as was pointed out, some readers WANT to know the exact day of the week this horrible thing happened (ala school day stuff), and don't like checking computer calendars or whatever, to find out...when it should (theoretically) be in this good article on this topic. Since there is precedent that "encyclopedias" HAVE on occasion included day of the week with the date (Wikipedia, Britannica, etc), and if readers like knowing these things sometimes, why not? What's the big harm? As Amadscientist made the point. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news cycle has no relevance to the shooting. "I just likie it" is not really enough. And "I don't hear you" is not a good sign when direct questions are asked on a consensus discussion. Clearly an editor disagrees with the editors above (being an admin should give no extra weight to their opinion), so I suggest taking a minute to form an argument towards why you feel it is not needed and see if you can persuade the rough consenus. Remember, if you cannot demonstrate why it is of no relevance, editors may diregard your concern.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should add the relevance I see. Friday is the traditional last day of the school week when kids this age are thinking of their weekend and the time away from school. This could probably even be sourced.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the news cycle argument has zero relevance. It's a completely hollow point. The day kids are thinking of their weekend? Seriously? What the heck does that have to do with the shooting?? How does it change anything versus if it happened any other day of the school week? Look, besides the day of the week being overwhelmingly contrary to standard practice with regard to dates of events, the day of the week in this article has no relevance to the bell ringing (or in the lead) because it had no effect on those incidents, unlike Pearl Harbor, where the day was of massive relevance because it was the day of week that the military was least prepared to defend against that attack. It wouldn't have mattered which school day the shooting happened or what day of the week the church bells rang. Show some reliable sources that indicate that the day of the week had significance in the shooting or the bell ringing. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"How does it change anything versus if it happened any other day of the school week?" How does it change anything if it happened any other day of the year? In any other school? So far, all I've seen here is unverified assertions that 'standard practice' is not to include days of the week, and "I don't like it" arguments. As it happens, I don't like the way Wikipedia contributors ignore WP:NOTNEWS and throw articles together in a rush, and if it was up to me, this article quite possibly wouldn't be here at all - but if it is, we may as well give the readers information that is verifiable, uncontroversial, and something that they might well want to know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources that indicate the day of the week had significant relevance to the shooting or bell ringing. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It isn't required, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is code for: There aren't any reliable sources that show this. By your rationale, we should add the day of the week for every date in every Wikipedia article. Reliable sources, please. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking for a reliable source that states that the shooting took place on a Friday? Since at this point you are clearly trolling, I shall refrain from commenting further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote. Or didn't understand it. So I'll say it again: "Please provide reliable sources that indicate the day of the week had significant relevance to the shooting or bell ringing." Purposely misstating what another editor said is disruptive. Now reliable sources, please. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling is disruptive. Go away, whichever already-blocked sockpuppet you are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet without reporting it SPI can get you blocked. Focus on content, not contributors. Just provide the reliable sources. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Troll elsewhere, sockpuppet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned twice and have been asked nicely to stop your personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry without filing at SPI. Focus on content, not contributors. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious troll is obvious: [26] AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no harm in mentioning the day of the week in the article, but it seemed quite out of place in the lead (which doesn't include that degree of detail). I've relocated it to the Shootings section, where it seems like a much better fit (alongside such information as the shootings' approximate times). —David Levy 07:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy knock it off please. Name calling and sock puppet accusation are disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peter Lanza. Since you had some involvement with the Peter Lanza redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, the Daily Mail article had: "The FBI are trying to piece together his smashed up hard drive to see if his online footprint will reveal any motive for the killing, but they strongly believe he made use of devil-worshiping and suicide sites and boasted of his murder plans on message forums." WHERE ELSE has the FBI made ANY public statement on what the killer's motive was? Now, this article is going to get many drive-by edits , but hopefully editors will stop and think about what the media makes hay of and will use some good judgement before adding material in this vein.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I don't want to start a row but it is probably worth noting that the Daily Mail is perhaps an example of a source that should sometimes be approached with some caution. DBaK (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In paragraph 3 under the "Shootings" section:

"A 9-year-old boy in the gymnasium also reported hearing the shooter say "Put your..." Why also, when there is not a prior similar comment or to an earlier reporting....? I think that word "also" could be deleted to make the sentence make better sense. It is unclear in context. The boy also.... reported, or the boy... also reported. Either way, removing that word fixes it, I think. Fix?: The ... boy in... gymnasium reported hearing... Bengalexfx (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a slight conflict of information regarding the school intercom system. Was it on normally, or did Hochsprung turn it on? It seems the urgent activity outside the faculty meeting and the immediate attendance to the disturbance by Hochsprung and her and her fellow attendee being shot, how likely is it that she had some ability to access the school intercom system to turn it on when there was life threatening activity in full and immediate play?

"Some of those present reported that initial shots were heard on the school intercom system, which was being used for morning announcements.[16"

and; "Hochsprung may have turned on the school intercom to alert others in the building."

Unless... what is the location of the school intercom switch? Was it in the facluty meeting room? Was it in the hall where she charged into? I doubt she made a detour to any other location or nearby room even in the midst of encountering Lanza and back out again after turning on this intercom. A point to ponder.

I do not know how to edit, nor do I want to do such. I want to give comments like I have been with hopes that those of you more experienced will take what is deemed appropriate and make any changes if any suggestions are helpful in any way.

I do not know what to suggest about the above 2 different approaches to the school intercom system, and yet it was on, we know that now because shots were heard over that system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengalexfx (talk • contribs) 07:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]