This article is of interest to multiple 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 High‑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. High This article has been rated as High-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. 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.

	This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Wikipedia has attempted to cover the subject in a professional manner. In this case there are far more questions than there are answers. Those answers should have long been available and they still are not. At this point I believe the only reliable answers we are going to get would take a grand jury and I do not see that coming probably for the same reasons we do not have the answers. Let this be a site to list all the unanswered questions which should really be answered under oath before a grand jury.

1. Where are the videos known to be in existance?

2. Where are the supposedly hundreds of photographs supposedly taken?

3. Why did all the original report state that two hand guns were used, one a 9mm (.357cal.) and a 40 cal. semi automatics and a Colt type semi automatic rifle was found on the back seat of his mother's white sedan pictured in the parking lot? The "official" story being told today is supposed perpetrator arrived in a black sedan pictured in the non-mainstream media including the licience plate number as belonging to another identified person, a known sexual predator and a shot gun is also pictured in a after dark seen being unloaded in the opened trunk of the vehicle.

4. Why do we not have the name of the adult wounded?

5. Who were the two persons dressed similarly apprehended outside the school and video recorded including the apprehension of one and both in handcuffs?

6. Why were two girls listed as dead and one shows up with Obama on television and the other is now recognized as not a student at Sandy Hook?

7. Is not the supposed Conn. State's Coroner capable telling the public the caliber used when the difference between a .223 cal. .55 gain rifle bullet, originally a varmint bullet before being adopted by the military to "inflict casualties no kill the enemeys" vs. hand gun ammunition usually weighting 2.5 to almost 4.0 times that weight designed to kill, not wound and many time the area direct impacted type of wound? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.50.51 (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based on what has appeared in reliable sources. These questions cannot be addressed here unless they can be sourced to the reliable media, not blogs etc. The question about the handguns is addressed in FAQ Q4 at the top of the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate way to handle this is to address it in the article and say that from the beginning, there was a lot of discrepancy in the official reports, witnesses were instructed not to talk to the media, evidence was sealed, etc. USchick (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since only mainstream media is accepted as a reliable source, how about we take video showing Robbie Parker the father of one of the supposedly slain children and the most publicized person in this event, smiling a day after and appearing to change to a sad crying stance just before he gets on camera, and then posing smiling with obama for a photo op and then setting up a donations page on facebook the day after the shootings? Is any of that natural? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.44.158 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about this here. Implying that Sandy Hook families have lied to promote a hoax has clear WP:BLP issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say conspiracy theorist's Cherry picking at it's best I have no other explain why people still think Sandy Hook or Aurora was a hoax and those "Victims" are living out of country now... Fox2k11 (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article all done then?

173.121.90.172 (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's in your judgement. You can help improve the article, but remember there is no deadline. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

70.194.134.152 points out some obvious improvements. Anyone else want to chime in? 2001:4800:780E:510:EA9:3A93:FF04:8DE3 (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are verifiable, reliable sources listed here. 70.194.128.68 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the number of students. Unless there's a credible source bringing attention to the discrepancy, I'm afraid it's WP:SYNTH. This is just one of many discrepancies. I would support a section in the article addressing the discrepancies. There are many reliable sources to support it and I have listed them before, but will be happy to do it again if there is interest. USchick (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to better word the opening, but this is confusing:

"The incident is the second deadliest shooting in American history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It is the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the 1927 Bath School bombings in Michigan."

The meaning is "The only shooting with more dead was the Virginia Tech massacre. The only deadlier mass-murder at an elementary school was the Bath School bombings."

At first, I read it as if the second sentence was saying that it was the second-deadliest shooting, same as the first sentence but more specific. That would be contradictory. Gatonom Nyan 05:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This incident is both a mass-murder and a shooting. The Virginia Tech massacre was not a murder, but was the deadliest shooting in American history. The 1927 Bath School bombings was not a shooting, but was the deadliest mass murder at an elementary school in American history. This incident is the second deadliest in both catagories in American history. I hope that clears it up for you. All that said, the only purpose I see for the paragraph is to say: "What you are about to read about is really really really baaaaaad!". Perhaps we should remove it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is FAQ Q2 at the top of the talk page. When the article was created, some people insisted on mentioning the 1927 Bath School bombings in the lead, even though it is not directly comparable to a shooting incident. The current wording seems clear enough, as the Sandy Hook incident was a shooting, and the Michigan incident a bombing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The media has gone rampant with the misinformatino that an AR-15 rifle was used in the shootings, when on December 15 many sources indicated that he only used 4 pistols which were recovered in the school. Source: http://www.today.com/video/today/50208495#50208495 -- start about 25 seconds in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.90.137 (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's old (and incorrect) news. Please see Question Four (Q4) in the FAQ at the top of this page for more information. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From context, perhaps this sentence could read that the 30-round magazine was recovered attached to the rifle. More clear might be: The rifle was recovered with one 30-round magazine attached. The way the article is now, it appears as if over twenty people were killed with a single 30-round magazine, but other sentences imply that he removed some magazines from the rifle before all of the rounds were expended. I may fix this sentence in a few days, but really, these sentences should be gathered together a bit better in my opinion. Fotoguzzi (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best sourcing on the magazines is here. Lanza was carrying several magazines and reloaded frequently, which is mentioned in the Shooting section. This source gives the number of shots fired as around 150, in contrast to the 50-100 in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add this clearer photo http://www.chillnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/adam-lanza-photo-new.jpg of Lanza to the article? The photo that is currently up is somewhat grainy. I'm not sure how to add pictures or if this photo passes Wikipedia standards so can someone help me with this? 24.193.117.119 (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible, but someone might complain about WP:NFCC#3 if both pictures were used. The current photo is the one most widely used immediately after the shooting in December, while the linked photo was one that was used in the PBS documentary in February.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

plus the Picture might be copyrighted and Fairuse may not apply here because it's not from a media-outlet but I Agree it's a better picture then the other one! --Fox2k11 (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I considered being WP:BOLD and adding this but did not want to set off reverts. The copyright holder on this image is unclear. Before changing the image there should be a consensus. What do other users think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I considered also WP:BOLD but not if the copyright is in question once the copyright has been cleared this can be cropped and replace the current version I Guess --Fox2k11 (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is originally cited to an anonymous source in the New York Daily News.[2] It fits in with previous off the record briefings that police are considering the theory that Adam Lanza was trying to outdo previous killings and run up a video game-style "high score". The problem is that this is not sourced on the record and Lt. Paul Vance, who is leading the investigation, has declined to comment and warned against speculation about a motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a problem at all, we don't go by what some "police investigator" says. We don't live in a police state and the mere suggestion at thinking that way goes contrary to most Americans at least. He's a WP:PRIMARY, we go by WP:Secondary sources that are RS. The media is starting to do their job and getting the story. It's WP:RS and we should add to the story. Remember the police are authorized to lie in pursuit of their case. We need to start building the motive section and it does seem that it will be a section by the time we're done. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably true that police are considering this theory, but the official report may not be published for some time. Violent video games are being lined up as a convenient whipping boy by some politicians. Let's hope that Lanza did not compile the spreadsheet from List of rampage killers, which would be a handy reference source in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't care about "official reports" really - or rather, we don't like official documents because they are primary documents. We prefer WP:RS Secondary sources and those are coming out. We have RS sources talking about the spreadsheet and it's contents and about motive. We'll publish that in an NPOV fashion. Sadly, we were dealing with a very sick individual. To me at least, Video games are not to blame here anymore than guns are to blame here. One thing is clear, we should not train mentally ill people in firearm tactics through violent video games and we should not take insane people to the shooting range and teach them how to shoot. And yes, politicians are exploiting this tragic event to pass gun control laws and I'm sure another group will line up to say, "see I told you so, it's those bloody video games." It's largely irrelevant to us. We publish WP:RS sources and let the politicians debase themselves as they wish. The motive is emerging as very clear. This guy was completely nuts and he never should've been allowed near guns or video games and probably he should've been committed a long time ago. That is the true failure here, a failure treat this individual properly (obviously firearms training and violent video games in a dark room for years with access to the internet and violent killer histories is not the correct protocol!) We paid a very heavy price for our mistakes. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this where critical facts and figures are only privy to a few people (the investigators), we do rely on them as primary sources to give us the correct details and assume that supposed facts that suddenly appear from others are likely to be questionable and should be avoided until the primary source affirms it. Or to put it another way, while there may be third-party sources that look like secondary sources because they claim to be asserting what a primary source said, but give no clue to the identify or reliability of this source, they really aren't reliable sources in this particular instance. Particularly on points that press a specific unsourced POV (here, the implication that Lanza was actively seeking out a mass killing spree, which has yet to be validated). --MASEM (t) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's contary to the policy Masem. Lt. Vance is WP:Primary and he's not reliable (he's a cop - no disrespect to police, it's just the nature of their job, they just can't be and aren't forthright with all the facts). The records are sealed from the court. There are hundreds of RS citing the spreadsheet matter now regarding the spreadsheet by very reputable RS. I guess we would've kept Bob Woodward's Watergate article out because his source was protected going only the name Deep Throat?-Justanonymous (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If WP were around at the time of the Watergate scandal, we would not likely be treating Woodward's as a RS at the onset, but only after the matters started proving true by primary sources. In this case, while you're claiming hundreds of sources, I believe they're all copying from the one anon source that you have linked (that's how modern press works), and as such is simply repeating hearsay for lack of any other details. And you are misreading our policy on RS. Primary sources can be reliable - nothing about being primary excludes them from usage. In certain situations, of course, primary sources can be biased or promotional or the like, and hence, for concepts like notability, we don't consider primary sources. But for pure factual information, particularly by an officer of the law, there is no reason to doubt his statements as truthful unless you can prove otherwise. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I'm not misreading anything. I've used primary sources but very carefully like sworn testimony, court rulines, etc. Police statements are a far cry from sworn testimony and rank amond some of the worst kind of unreliable primaries. That said, this is WP:RS and it's not for you or for me to claim that it is heresay (a legal term not a term used by journalists - who use different words like "sources", "whistleblowers" etc - let's use the language of the profession not of a court). A reputable journalist did his job, convinced his management and got his story printed - it's WP:RS, per the policy. It's also very material and merits inclusion without obstruction. We're in no rush but at the same time, we shouldn't block for other reasons, people will begin to think that we have an agenda to suppress here.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only ppl that have authority (both legal and knowledge-wise) are the investigators, since Lanza's dead. The anonymous source about the spreadsheet may be with the authorities, but we have no knowledge of that. Ergo, we have to consider any story that rests its weight on that as suspicious since it is a weighted stated against Lanza. (And while one may argue BLP does not apply to dead people, this is still close enough to his death that despite being the culprit, we cannot go slandering his name). Just because the source is normally an RS does not make everything they publish an RS; it just means that we know they normally have good editorial standards that we don't have to refute the reputation of the work. But we can and do consider articles on case-by-case as to their appropriateness, and this is a case we should not be including this information unless the authorities on the case state this. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:V says: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The origin of the information in question is an article published in the New York Daily News, so the first thing we should assess is the reliability of said newspaper. If the NYDN can be considered reliable then I think it is not our duty to check if the information is true, or if its source is genuine, because we must assume that the newspaper staff already did so. If the police officer was present at the meeting where the info was presented, (and the journalist certainly thinks he was) he is not a secondary source anymore, since he has witnessed first hand the presentation of the investigators' findings (and I suppose we can safely assume that the attendees of that presentation weren't deliberately lied to). So, as long as no one involved in the investigation flat out denies that any of that information is true, I'd say it can be included, as long as it is phrased carefully enough.

After all, the contested information in this case is merely Lanza's spreadsheet. That spreadsheet either exists, or it does not, and we have (probably reliable) secondary sources reporting its existence, so what makes anybody believe this is a hoax? The speculation about his possible intention to outdo other mass murderers may be something different, but even then, it has been reported more than once in the last couple of months, so in all probability there is something to it, and maybe we should include it simply because the media is repeating it again and again. So, a sentence like "According to ... Lanza may have attempted to ..." should be unproblematic. Should it turn out to be wrong we can change it into something like "Despite frequent reports that Lanza tried to ... investigators stated that this was not true, but ..."

Regarding Watergate, Woodward may not have been a reliable source, but the newspapers reporting about the scandal were, and since it was a major story it would've been covered by Wikipedia no matter what. Had it turned out to be a hoax, or had it remained unconfirmed by those involved, a different title for the article may have been chosen, but an article would've been created anyway.

Finally a little side note, maybe we shouldn't forget that police also has to rely heavily on second and third-party sources, since Lanza and his mother are dead. So they will have to puzzle together much of what was going on in Lanza's mind and his home from statements that often start with "Nancy Lanza told me that ...", or "I've heard that ..." and in the end nobody will be able to say, if the picture they come up with is anywhere close to the truth. If we'd go by the reliabilty standards people want to apply here anything could be questioned and Wikipedia articles would become a lot shorter overall. Just take as an example the article about the Syrian civil war. The whole affair is a propaganda nightmare and the only thing we know with some certainty is who is fighting whom, but that didn't stop the article from becoming quite expansive. (Thusz (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I see no reason why we can't wait for the official report. Unless, of course, the rumors themselves become notable. I don't think that's the case, yet. Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I see no reason to wait for the official report, when- or if ever it will be released. After all, NYDN is citing a source that has been at a meeting, where the investigators presented their findings. Don't you think the journalist demanded some evidence to make sure the source can be trusted? What is it that makes you doubt its reliability? What makes you believe that police officer or the reporter may have lied or told something that may not be true? (Thusz (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Agree with Thusz, we are not here to create policy. We have a WP:RS source. This is significant and material and should be added with the proper caveats. The police are not the only sources here and we should not expect them to feed us. Very bad precedent and not the way things are done in the country where this occurred. Lt Vance from a very early date said they had gathered some good evidence, it is beyond me why they hadn't released it yet (except for politics). No, we have WP:RS, it's definitely meets Notability it's Objective, we should add. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By saying "it's significant and material" you are already stating the POV nature of this supposed evidence (the implication being that because he had a huge spreadsheet of past mass murderers, he was seeking to do one just as large as those), and that's good reason to not include it until we have affirmation from the primary sources - the investigators. It's similar to the previous discussions about including the mental health aspects; initially it would seem inclusion was pointing to blaming common mental health problems, and thus was excluded until it was shown that the investigators are considering those factors in their study but don't believe them to be the reason for the shooting.

To a point Thusz made, just because the investigators didn't comment on the existence of the spreadsheet is not affirmation that it exists; they may be sworn to confidentiality until the investigation is complete. So no, that's not affirmation. Yes, with the NYDN, I'm reasonably certain their information is correct, but from a WPian editor viewpoint, including it now without near 100% certainity would be putting undue weight on that point when there's no other justification yet to include it. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if we merely state that Lanza did have a huge spreadsheet of mass murderers it would not implicate that he committed his crime to outdo them all, nor does any statement about him having Asperger's automatically implicate that it was the reason for the shooting. If that is what you are interpreting into such a statement, then it's just that, your interpretation, even though it is not supported by the presented facts. And your POV regarding RS seems to be a little off. We do have RS saying Lanza has created said spreadsheet and we have no information contesting it, so we must assume it is true, no matter if any investigators have confirmed it, or not. Only when RS report that the investigators have denied its existence can we here on Wikipedia say, he has not created it. It is the duty of us Wikipedians to assess the reliability of a source, but not what the source is saying, except if there is evidence casting the information into doubt. But in this case there is nothing that could make us believe anything to the contrary of what NYDN has written. Now, if NYDN would refer to somebody who had wiped the room's floor five minutes after the meeting had ended, I would say ok, it's not trustworthy, and shame on the newspaper for reporting it, but it ain't so. (Thusz (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

What????? We all have to ascertain "Notability". Your claim is that I am POV pushing because I find the work Notable? That's ludicrous and I expect better from an experienced editor. We have never done this before where wikipedia editors seek to validate a WP:RS source???!!! When did that start? Show me the policy please Masem. Your contention on weight it not consistent, weren't you the guy who wanted the dna test included a couple of hours after some journalist made the claim? and without you verifying with near 100% certainty of a primary source? why the double standard? You don't have an agenda do you? -Justanonymous (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the investigators said they were doing DNA testing to try to determine any mental issues though didn't expected it to necessary yield results came from the investigators. There's no issue with that.

Here's the problem with the 7-foot spreadsheet: so what? Did he compile it himself? Did he get it from the internet (like say, from Wikipedia?) What did he do with it? Simple possession of a list is not a criminal act, and while the implication is there that he was planning a mass murder, we cannot assert that fact yet - only the official conclusion from the investigators can postulate that (and that's the only conclusion we can work from). Hence why it is, at this stage, on the borders of rumor mongering to keep the story in the news and why we should wait until we have clarification of what that evidence means. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be serious and let's not start having to build the castle all the way from the foundation - if the investigators found a spreadsheet that they could find laying around the internet just anywhere it would likely be a contributing piece of information but not significant enough to merit the kind of attention it is getting - they did say PHD thesis level so don't give us too much credit here ;-) If Lanza created this then he was very dedicated crazy guy but it could also point to an outside influence - a group of people out there planning to outdo each other in the real world or it could indicate a group of people that might have driven this guy over the edge or encouraged him to do this. I'm certainly not advocating the addition of conjecture but it does seem a bit irresponsible for someone in any law enforcement capacity to leak this to a reporter when the ramifications can be extremely serious....unless the leak is on purpose! The police could be looking for someone and that someone might be at the veritable paper shredder right now destroying their online identies and taking a defibrilator to his hard drives. This is crucial insight into the mind of a very dedicated crazy guy or it could be a thread to some crazy cult of sleeper glory killers. That is very likely why the courts have kept everything sealed. The investigation is ongoing and the police suspect that there might be criminals still uncaught. That's the justanonymous analysis that has no place in the article but the WP:RS source is valid and it meets notability. I hope that answers your so what?-Justanonymous (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, speculation? Again, we have no firm identity on the source, beyond "anonymous". This is not to say the NYDN is not a tabloid and go rushing off to publish unsubstantiated rumors, but the fact it was an anonymous source speaking outside official investigator channels, and that the information is of potential POV nature means we shouldn't include it until better clarity is found for it. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not speculation, rationale for notability. I merely shared a line of thinking and I'm certainly not advocating putting any conjecture - I'm just proving how significant this could be. It's not normal for people to have wall charts of historical mass murders and it's especially notable when a mass killer and avid gamer has his own home-made poster of kills. Journalists have won pulitzers and gone to jail to protect their sources. It's an integrity thing and it should in no way diminish the fact that the newspaper is a Reliable Source. Why do you have an issue with Reliable Sources all of a sudden Masem? Am I having an exchange with the same Masem who was adding stuff earlier? Stuff that turned out to be wrong like Nancy Lanza working at the school. That was ok to add but now this is not? What happened? If it turns out to be an elaborate hoax we remove it. It's one itty bitty little entry.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

could is speculation. You're showing a bias already by your statement alone for pushing for inclusion. I'm trying to look at this at this way: we have no idea why the crime was committed, only the how. Anything that suggests the "why" can only come from the investigation team. An anonymous source that heard it at a police briefly telling it to the NYDN (which has a reputation of being somewhat sensationist even if they are an RS) just screams highly questionable. If the source was an anonymous person on the team telling the NYDN the same, I'd be less hesitant to include, but we're three steps removed (Between the investigators and the NYDN) here. The fact that NYDN makes the statement "Lanza planned it for years" when nothing of the sort has been said by the investigators throws question into their neutrality of coverage. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This goes against policy. You're going well beyond the policy for your rationales. and you're claiming POV where there is none. You have no policy basis for your position other than you don't want to add it which itself implies POV - sorry. It think we can stop and let others add their viewpoints. But without some kind of policy position, your arguments are beyond weak. Thusz makes a great argument on how to approach this. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there was no "crazy cult of sleeper glory killers" simply because there aren't too many people interested in the subject and Lanza apparently was a recluse with no friends or much contact to the outside world, and from what we know, the spreadsheet included only information about the number of people killed and the weapons used in each mass murder, which can be easily compiled from List of rampage killers.

@Masem: The fact that the source was not named in the article does not make it unreliable, since its name apparently was known to the journalist who wrote the article. If NYDN can be considered a reliable source, there is no reason to assume that they have neglected their journalistic duty to check the police officers credibility. The burden of proof lies with anyone who thinks otherwise. And how it would make the story any more believable, if it had included the name of the officer I do not know. It seems pretty clear how they got their information.

Again I have to ask you how a statement like "According to reports a spreadsheet was recovered by police in the Lanza home listing about 500 mass murders, including information about number of people killed and weapons used" would implicate anything about the motive for the shooting. It is either a fact, or not, and any connection between Lanza's motive and such a statement forms only in your head, but it certainly is not in the text. And regarding Lanza planning the shooting for many years, I think it is also in the NYDN article that a photo was found, showing Lanza armed with several weapons and pointing a gun to his head. That photo was said to have been two years old, so they draw the conclusion, probbly correctly, that Lanza had already considered committing a mass shooting at that time. Also, you don't create such an extensive spreadsheet in a couple of weeks. So the conclusion that the thought of mass murder was in his mind for quite some time is pretty obvious. (Thusz (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I looked at your profile Masem, you're addicted to video games. That answers a lot and why you resist so forcefully the inclusion of this WP:RS source from being included. Sorry man, that type of obstruction is not professional and has no place on the wiki. You're probably doing a tactical reload right now. It's categorically unfair for you to object to inclusion of a WP:RS source based on your very personal reasons. It's WP:RS. It merits inclusion. Just step away from this now,it'll be ok. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's refrain from commenting on editors and instead comment on content and proposed edits. If there is an edit to the article that someone wants to propose, please set it forth so that everyone can re-orient their efforts on whether or not they believe the material warrants inclusion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Uh, what? What does that have to do with anything? You're attacking the editor, which can be a violation of civility.

As to the points above, I point out that WP:RS policy does say that we consider articles, even from RS, on a case-by-case basis per WP:NEWSORG. In this case, we have information that is three-times removed that includes an anonymous person that claims to have been at a briefing event (has anyone else mentioned this event?) relating a possible fact that is being included in an article that is written in a highly sensationalism way to make it sound like Lanza was at work for "years". That screams all sorts of bad sourcing for a sensitive issue that is not coming directly from the investigation team. I am not claiming that the existence of the spreadsheet is patently false, but the means by saying this existed is highly questionable and fails our reliable sourcing policy at the present time. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize Masem I just didn't realize why you were so illogical when in the past you were reasonable and I tried honestly to articulate the rationale and the policy. Other sensible editors just added the comment on the article itself. Please don't revert it. I think the consensus is clear here, we add the very logical WP:RS source. Please don't revert the article. I won't engage with you on video game entries on here again, sorry.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at what was added. I am going to rewrite it because this is a better approach to saying that the info the NYPD news got was leaked before the investigators could tell victims families per Lt. Vance. That's more fundamental to the investigation and now we can at least say "As part of this leaked information included the claims that a giant spreadsheet..." --MASEM (t) 20:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions look fine enough for me. Though I am not really sure, why it makes that much of a difference, if NBC reports these findings, instead of NYDN. Yes, it had some additional info, but the original news came from NYDN nonetheless. Anyway, if it stays the way it is, I don't see any need for further discussion. (Thusz (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

NBC's article discusses the police reaction to this leak. That's different. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but you want to tell us that you think that the New York Daily News is not a reliable source, their journalists are not doing their job properly, or are at least failing to make sure their sources are credible, don't you? Well, in the respective Wikipedia article there does not seem to be anything that indicates the NYDN is an overly sensationalist newspaper with a lack of journalistic rigor, but I'm not too familiar with it, so I am not able to ascertain its reliabilty. Anyway, several newspapers and news stations have picked up the story, including the Detroit Free Press, the Hartford Courant, Fox News, NBC, CBS, and Salon, so at least a couple of other notable news outlets of the not-too-unreliable kind apparently came to the conclusion that the source is trustworthy enough. So, Masem, may you elaborate, why we should go by your judgement?

And can you explain to me, why it is notable that the information was leaked before the victim's families were notified? What has that to do with anything? (Thusz (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

No, I'm not saying that the NYDN is not reliable, but that in the case of this particular article the way the information it provides is very sensationalism. It is written to evoke an emotional and hateful response. I'm not trying to make Lanza look like a saint, but it's one thing to report on the news, and the other to villianize a person (even a dead one) beyond what is readily known. That said, when I looked at the sources used and what they relied on, I found that Lt. Vance and others are saying "this information shouldn't be out there, it was leaked". Now, I mentioned earlier that a non-statement by the police is a tenacious thing to prove something true, but with the written quotes by Vance, it's clear that they (the CT police) are spinning to try to correct this leak, and that's being covered by numerous sources as well. As long as we tie the spreadsheet factor along where that info came from (the meeting last week), who leaked it (an anonymous law enforcement official), to whom (Mike Lupina at NYDN), and the police's reaction to it, it compromises a neutral statement on this facet of the investigation. This includes the findings of the spreadsheet, but does not elevate that factor to villainizing Lanza more than what the investigation otherwise has said. And of course, because its an anon source to the NYDN, we add "purportedly" to thus clear WP in case this actually proofs wrong. The POV issue I had with just talking about the spreadsheet and the report just coming from the NYDN are resolved with my rewrite. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before but the New York Daily News [3] article on March 18 is somewhat sensationalist and gives excessive weight to the views of politicians who want a crackdown on video games. It has to be repeated that investigators have made no public link with video games and have declined to comment on a motive. Mentioning video games at this stage could be seen as attempting to pre-empt the investigation in a way that has WP:V issues. There is nothing unusual about 20-year-olds playing Call of Duty, but most of them do not massacre schoolchildren.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that I set up a video game section on the Reactions page. I completely agree on this page the link is tenacious, but there has been moving in the video game area as a result of the shootings so it is proper to cover it there. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was reliably sourced within a few days of the shooting that Adam Lanza had a large collection of video games, many of them (unsurprisingly) of the first-person shooter variety. This type of game is controversial and not to everyone's tastes, but attempting to blame them for mass shooting incidents is reminiscent of blaming Hollywood films, eg List of alleged Natural Born Killers copycat crimes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's not about blame. It's a fact and it's being sourced reliably by RS sources. I fully acknowledge that playing first person shooter video games don't make you a mass murderer any more than owning a firearm does. However, in this context we really don't know the impact of violent video games on the mentally ill. Certainly formal firearms training is likely not a good protocol to for homicidally Ill people but perhaps neither should first person shooter games. This is relevant, well sourced and I hope others agree and that it finds it's way back into the article in an NPOV fashion.congressmen are calling for hearings after the whole 7x4 foot scoresheet thing. It's relevant here although you two have a bias against. Justanonymous (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until the investigators say "we blame video games", or even affirm that (hypothetical) he used video games to hone his skills, it's not appropriate. (I know that there were comparisons with the spreadsheet and video games, but that was a weak link). But again, I do stress that in the arena of video games, there has been political movement - regardless of how unfunded the concerns were - to do something about violent video games. As such, it is appropriate as a Reaction, and thus information can go there. But yea, right now on this page, it's an extremely tenacious link. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Violent video games, which even mentions that he has $1000s of violent video games. Again, the statements by politicans can go there, but shouldn't be on the case itself until its affirmed as a root cause by the investigators. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the official investigation concludes that Lanza's state of mind was influenced by video games, then fine, it can go in the article. At the moment it looks too much like routine "let's find something to blame" speculation, as there is no clear sourcing for a link. All we know is that Lanza owned plenty of video games, which is not unusual for someone his age.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the standard for RS. They found guns and guns were reported but they found violent video games and that doesn't get included. Senators are having hearings on violent video games in direct reaction to Sandy Hook but you two block? Very unreasonable. This is the headline from NYDaily News "News' report on Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza's video-game-style slaughter score sheet inspires calls in D.C. to stiffen regulation of violent games" and we have two Senators Grassley and Rockefeller. If this doesn't go in the investigation it most certainly goes in the Reactions section. We have Senators taking action. It merits inclusion. Revert me if you will on the record and then we can get some attention to this very important aspect which has been blocked to this day.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and that's why I'm pointing you to the Reactions page (not section). I'm actually considering pulling the gun control section from this page and putting on the Reactions page, though hesitant as there's a firm connection between guns and the shooting. But possessing video games is not a crime. The fact that he had video games like this has spurred action, so its perfectly fine at the Reactions page, just not part of the incident/investigation page. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out again that it does not really matter what the investigators say, nor does it matter if video games had anything to do with the massacre, or not. The only thing that matters for us is, if there is a serious amount of discussion in reliable sources about the subject, so that we can come to the conclusion that it passes WP:FRINGE. Connections between violent video games and mass shootings are regularily drawn by the media, by politicians and also by experts studying them, so it wouldn't be something terribly out of the norm to add a note about Lanza's media consumption.

Again, to make this clear, if we had a month long discussion in the media and by politicians, if Lanza had been abducted by aliens we would have to include it in the relevant article or section, for no other reason than being a major part of the story. No matter how nonsensical they may appear sometimes, we must not ignore such discussions, simply because we think they are stupid – and that we don't do it you can see in the equally ridiculous discussions about climate change or evolution. We here on Wikipedia do not judge, we simply chronicle these events, and be it just to give future generations something to laugh about. (Thusz (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

There's no question that video games have been discussed politically and in a negative light due to Lanza's shootings and the initial findings. But, the point is that these are reactions to the shooting, and yet proven or claimed as a cause for it. It is perfect as a Reaction to the shootings, but as we have a separate page that details Reactions, it is appropriate there. (If there was only one page relating to the shooting with one Reaction section, I would not be opposing its inclusion under that.) This is different from the spreadsheet/leak issue which was part of the ongoing investigation. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We've discussed and included the DNA thing as well as a purported link to mental illness while trying to not tick off the pysch community along with anyone with an actual mental deficiency. But mentioning the video game "theory", and it is just a theory and not even a reaction because its far from new, in any more than a tacit or innocuous way seems to be pushing it. Yes, we should chronicle the events and aftermath, but we all lack the perspective for likely years to know whats important or not. Thugz has it right, we might get laughed at in the future, but that's the risk we take.

• For the record, the entertainment industry has been under scrutiny about its "violent content" and its affect on the population since the Kennedy Assassination. So what suddenly make Lanza's atrocity notable in this sense escapes me. We just seem to keep trying to connect too many dots together hoping for a particular outcome.

• Violent video games ± mental illness ± firearm ownership ± bad parenting ≠ violet behavior

• While we're at it, Porn ± violent behavior ± being "Male" ≠ rape. Getting off the soap box now... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed for the 2nd time this passage...

Because of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2005, the maker of the weapon used in the shootings cannot be sued for negligence, as occurred after the 2002 Beltway sniper shootings.^[1]

The article it references makes the point that the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting cannot sue gun manufacturers because of a law that protects them. This is also true of the Aurora, CO shooting and any others that have occurred since the law's passage.

The question I pose to the group at large is, "So what? How is this factoid WP:DUE?" --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "So what?" is that most folks who read the article would want to know, "Why not?". We live in a litigious society. This law is unique in the American legal system. Whether you agree with the law or not, it needs to be understood that this is the law.

I note that the paragraph in question was present for ten days (March 9 to March 19) before this particular editor deleted it, so other editors did not object during that interval. --Zeamays (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, whether someone agrees with the law or not, they need to understand that this is the law, as those who disagree with the laws are still bound to observe them. However, that doesn't seem like a "reason" per se why this fact (or observation, to be more accurate) needs to be in this article. The article is about the shooting itself, and to some proximate degree the reactions to it; it seems speculative to point out that the victims can't sue, and there is no material in the article about victims suing to begin with. Maybe we should just leave this out, and bring it back if it becomes relevant if/when lawsuits start happening? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is better suited to Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as it has WP:TOPIC issues in this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the article where this was placed is "Reactions" and this mention is relevant to that section. The article from the New Haven Register I cited for reference expressly states that people in Sandy Hook wanted to sue. Therefore it is relevant. Maybe you would like to nominate a different section in which to place this piece? --Zeamays (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the topic of the other article cited above, Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, is about reactions by the outside world, not reactions by the parents or the school board, who were the people who were surprised that they cannot sue. --Zeamays (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm I'm tryin to get this straight there is a law that hinders people to sue company's for "negligence" because of the Mis-use of their products by a third party??? Really there has to be a LAW for that? that explains a lot about why America is called "sue happy" do you sue the Car Company for "negligence" 'cuz of a wrong-way driver??? I don't get it... Fox2k11 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fox2k11, to understand this debate please read the article about the law itself. We're discussing mentioning the law in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article, not the merits of the law or of American lawsuits. --Zeamays (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence says that the mother had four gunshot wounds to her head: "Investigators later found her [Nancy Lanza's] body, clad in pajamas, in her bed with four gunshot wounds to her head." The source cited, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/16/governor-gunman-shot-self-first-responders-closed/?page=all#pagebreak, mentions no particular number of times that she was shot in the head, only multiple. I move to either amend this sentence to say she was shot twice in the head as reported in the following link: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article3632863.ece, or to remove it altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinHoak (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too hard to find sources confirming Lanza killed his mother with four shots to the head, so deleting the sentence is in my eyes not only the wrong thing to do, but also the laziest way to deal with the problem, since a ten second google-search is enough to prove the truth behind the statement.

• Killer’s Mother Was Shot 4 Times, Official Says, The New York Times (December 18, 2012)
• How Sandy Hook killer shot his devoted mother four times in the face, Daily Mail (December 15, 2012)
• Authorities believe he killed his mother as she slept in her bed. She was shot four times in the head..., CNN (December 21, 2012)
• On Friday morning, Lanza shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, four times in the head, authorities said., Fox News (December 16, 2012)
• Mrs. Lanza (...) was the first of 27 people killed in the Newtown massacre Friday — shot by her son four times in the head ..., The Washington Times (December 17, 2012)

(Thusz (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note that "unnamed sources" should be ignored IMHO. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/28/warrants-to-be-released-in-newtown-investigation/?test=latestnews - there are other news stories on this event but some are sort of hard to read through, thought this one was more point-by-point. Still absolutely nothing known/released officially about motive or what is on the smashed hard drives. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good deal of coverage, eg here in the New York Times. Most importantly, the sources state clearly that the Bushmaster rifle was the main weapon used at the school. I doubt if we have heard the last of FAQ Q4, though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently police was able to reconstruct one of the two hard drives. As it says here:

The spreadsheet was still in one of the computers, whose damaged hard drive was reconstructed by technicians.

Nothing on the motive yet, though the recovered journals they are speaking of may hold some clues. But even if the investigators should come up with a reason behind the shooting, people should not expect too much. I am pretty sure there was not one clear cut motive, but a wide variety of things that drove him to commit it, and even Lanza himself may not've been fully aware of everything that led him to do such a thing. In many, maybe even most cases a rampage killing is the end point of a long path that can be traced back years, or decades. It's the result of many intertwining factors such as personality, parents, peers etc., so to nail it down to one or two outstanding events in Lanza's life may be impossible. (Thusz (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Unnamed sources, though, Thusz - I am only referring to official released information. Now that stuff may all be accurate but it has not been stated officially and these "investigators" have already been shown to supposedly leak stuff that didn't pan out. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article (http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Cache-of-weapons-found-in-Newtown-gunman-s-home-4390470.php), about documents released today (3/28/2013), notes that "the NRA said Lanza and his mother were not members," but it also says that, among documents found in the Lanza home, was "an NRA certificate that belonged to Adam Lanza."

What would this NRA certificate be? Maybe a certificate he earned from completing a gun safety course? Chisme (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]