Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Handguns or Bushmaster?

Per Article Feedback, this December 15th NBC report states that even though a Bushmaster was found in the Lanza car at the school, the weapons used to actually perpetrate the murders were handguns. Ae there any more recent reports that confirm or that deny that information? (And sorry, if this has been discussed before....I did search the Talk Archives first but couldn't find any posts that discussed the specific weapon/s used). Shearonink (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The medical examiner's report said that all of the school victims were shot with a "long gun" rifle [2] named elsewhere as the Bushmaster AR-15.[3] Adam Lanza reportedly killed himself with the 10mm Glock handgun, [4] but this is not in the article. This CBS news story says "Sources say Lanza had used one of the handguns, a Glock 10mm, to take his own life. The other handgun, a Sig Sauer 9mm, was found on his body, still buttoned inside a pocket." This should perhaps be mentioned in the article here, although it is qualified by "sources say" like much of the material in this incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This is new http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 It clearly states the Bushmaster was found in the car and not used in the killings, so much for the assault weapons ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.181.40 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The NBC Today report was broadcast on December 15, 2012, the day after the shooting. Connecticut's chief medical examiner H Wayne Carver II told reporters that all of the deaths at the school were caused by a "long weapon".[5]. This is what his medical examiner's report says, so the original NBC report has been superseded. The weapon found in the trunk of the car was reportedly the shotgun. People have picked up on the inconsistency in the blogs and are now trying to make it into a conspiracy theory.[6].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reiterating the actual date of the NBC Today Show broadcast in question, in my first post on this thread I also mentioned that the NBC Today Show report was from December 15th. What weapons were used to commit this crime is important. Until other credible information as reported by reliable sources is found, seems the article will have to rely on the somewhat imprecise term of 'long weapon' used by the Medical Examiner. Shearonink (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This just shows how poor reliable sources can be in rapidly developing stories. Media will sometimes rush and not verify their journalistic sources to make sure they meet their journalistic responsibility to report factual and unbiased information to the public or resort to interviewing 5 year olds in the face of a tragedy. It's going to be a long time before we know the facts but the initial misinformation is fueling the mass media gravy train of progun and antigun zealotry to the exclusion of virtually everything else. Some of this one dimensional aspect has percolated into this article and which I wish we at Wikipedia would work hard to remove. If nobody has mentioned the exact weapon used, we should stick with long gun until the actual facts are verified.--Justanonymous (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering about the firearms used and I'm sure that it is important to the article to report these items. Thus far, I have heard over and over about the Bushmaster XM-15 used and someone has even narrowed down one pistol to a Glock 20 SF in 10MM. The only reference I have heard to the other handgun was a 'Sig Sauer, (the brand or kind) used by the Secret Service'. Presumably that would be the P229 in .357 SIG, but I have read that the firearm was a 9MM. Has anyone else heard anything in regards to the firearms? Also, the article states that Lanza had access to additional firearms - I understand the need to specify firearms used, the shotgun or rifle in the car, and the weapon used to kill his mother, however, I don't know if it is necessary to include information on other firearms in which he may have had access... Aneah|talk _to ^me 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The 4 weapons retrieved from the school crime scene are detailed in the infobox on the main article with two WP:RS sources as backup, this has been covered I think quite well by the editors here. Are we missing something or are you looking for something else Aneah?

Two of these have information for the make and model, two don't. I was wondering if there was anything out there to make sure that things were more specific/complete. If it hasn't been released as of this time, then it isn't a big deal, maybe put it down on a 'to do' list if the information ever becomes available. Aneah|talk _to ^me 23:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't trust much of anything reported on about the specific weaponry since they've gotten so much wrong up to this point. I am inclined to believe the Sig would be a 228 and not a .357 sig, because the latter is a relatively rare round, and almost everything else indicated it was a 9mm (although they were wrong about the 10mm being a 9mm). The Secret Service uses a P229 apparently chambered in .357 sig, but they used to use the 228 in 9mm. It should also be noted that the P229 is available in 9mm as well as .357 sig (not to be confused with the .357 magnum), so again, I don't think it's right for us to speculate about a particular model until it's displayed. That seems to be the only way to get a reliable understanding of the exact make of the guns. Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenia claim

While this may be from the NYTimes, I note that it says, quoting "We may never know with certainty what demons tormented Adam Lanza, who slaughtered 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, though his acts strongly suggest undiagnosed schizophrenia." This is still speculation by the press and not an official diagonsis from investigators, and thus inappropriate to include, so I have removed it. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have clarified things. They ordered DNA testing. Many news reports mentioned he had schitzophrenia like behavior, not just that one. PBS says while many have claimed he had that or Asperger's, there was no evidence yet. I then mentioned they are doing DNA test to find out. Dream Focus 19:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's better, though I am replacing the Daily Mail with a better source that's a bit more clear on things. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no way any source is reliable on that. Wikipedia is not obligated to bark up every wrong tree with the invesigators. Abductive (reasoning) 20:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that we do know that they are using DNA testing to see if mental illnesses (specifically Asperger's or schitzophrenia, but not limited) are there. It's part of the investigation. The way the statement is written here, it neither supports or denies that Lanza had these or that they were responible for the shooting. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict_Why would you not believe the news sources saying that DNA was being checked? Hopefully they brain scanned him as well. Dream Focus 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• We need to mention that the Aspergers claim is just speculation. Quoting various people is misleading. Why was this PBS referenced sentence removed: While some have speculated he suffered from schizophrenia or Asperger's, there is no evidence yet. Dream Focus 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Uh, what? Asperger's and schizophrenia are genetic? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There are genes that can mutate to cause them. Also caused by various viruses and heavy mental pollution or brain damage. They should have done a brain scan to see if he had anything by now. Dream Focus 20:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that unsupported speculation, no matter the source, is unfit for this article until a result is released. I don't doubt that they are grasping at straws, but it is WP:OR for us to hedge and weasel about a line of inquiry. Instead, it should just be left out of the article until a positive finding is announced (in other words, never). Abductive (reasoning) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that a significant focus of the investigation is on Lanza's mental health. To that end, explaining what actions are being done in relation to determining a dead person's mental health state seems completely appropriate to include, even if the chance of a specific finding something is unlikely (But not impossible in fringe science territory) --MASEM (t) 20:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess the sources are pretty sceptical of the DNA. What is the word on the regular toxicology tests? Abductive (reasoning) 20:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources say they are/have been done (as of around Dec 18) but the results have not be published yet. There are sources that claim that the tests came back with Xanax, but I can't find a good RS that asserts this and appears to be hearsay by less reliable sources from a neighbor's statement. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Abductive, it doesn't add anything to the article. So they're conducting long-shot tests, I would assume they would but they're unlikely to produce any results.It might be best to say that "the police are conducting a very thorough investigation which includes long-shot expermimental DNA techniques." The way it's worded it seems that the DNA will yield something and that is NOT what the WP:RS sources are saying.--21:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The use of DNA testing in a case like this is unusual, and not what would be the usual battery of evaluations (like toxicology) one would expect done, when one says "an investigation is happening". I can agree that rewording to downplay how conclusive the DNA testing is would be better, but to exclude it (and even in the future, if the results are negative/inconclusive) it would seem wrong given the focus on mental health of Lanza to this point. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

At a minimum we need to reflect what the WP:RS sources are saying factually. The fact is that an unusual test based on unproven techniques was ordered in an effort to be overly comprehensive. However, we don't really know what DNA test was ordered, how long it will take, what it will tell us so its very hard to report.---Justanonymous (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's DNA testing, and that's the State of Conn. chief medical examiner that asked for it. [7] - we don't know exactly what tests but we know they are being done. However, to address this, I have 1) moved this up to investigation, 2) added the part about toxicology tests being done for drugs/medications, and 3) used wording to make sure that DNA testing will not be a conclusive result. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

UTC)

thank you for the hard work and flexibility Masem, some of us are nit picky given the emotion and political nuances. I value your hard work here.--Justanonymous (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem - That's what we're all here for it get this right without bias. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry the whole paragraph probably doesn't have a place in wikipedia, it's filled with heresay and weasle wording of all kinds. That's like me adding to the article in the description of the weapon that "the AR-15 was used as the weapon but that AR-15s are legitimate recreational weapons that are in use by millions of law abiding citizens and the fact that an AR15 was used should in no way have us think that there is anything wrong with AR15s." That wouldn't last on the page for 15 seconds, yet this whole weasle worded paragraph remains and has grown. At the end of the day, the entire paragraph is mostly just conjecture, there is no diagnosis of Aspergers or Schizophenia, journalists are speculating and going on heresay from people who might have heard or who might know - that is not what Wikipedia documents, they're not facts. I say remove the entire paragraph barring s WP:RS definitive factual statements vs this weasle worded he said she said. Bottom line, we don't know, but we do know that sane people don't kill twenty 5 year olds so something was monstrously broken with this individual.--Justanonymous (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a factual statement to say that the official investigation is performing genetic testing to determine if mental disorders like Asperger's or schtizophrenia is involved, even if they are reasonably sure these tests normally don't give strong evidence towards this. There is no journalistic speculation going on in that claim. Mental health issues have already been well highlighted as a possible cause and so in light of that, this seems like a reasonable statement of the investigation's progress to include (in that they are trying to determine the mental health state). --MASEM (t) 21:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the WP:RS sources are saying, they're saying that "they are conducting a very thorough investigation which includes DNA which is unlikely to yield results." Your entry doesn't say that, your entry needs better wording. Again though even my rewrite, doesn't add anything to the article, so why add it? (we shouldn't) It's just more words and doesn't add to motive, It just clouds the very complex issue of mental health and introduces a bunch of weasle words and now makes the reader think that DNA is the miracle cure all.--Justanonymous (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We are unsure if Lanza had Aspergers, or Schitzophrenia. We are unsure if the strategies allegedly being followed to find out will tell us. We are unsure if either condition would have had anything to do with the killlings, even IF they existed. I do know that suggesting the latter indirectly labels everyone else with Aspergers or Schitzophrenia as a potential mass murderer, which is completely stupid, and inappropriate. NOTHING should be said in the article about either Aspergers or Schitzophrenia until there is legal proof AND it is shown to be relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well consider that one official reportedly on the investigation has said he was diagnosed with Asperger's. And the reports about doing the DNA testing specifically mention they are looking, among others for signs of Asperger's and schizophrenia. I do note the Bloomberg article already highlights concerns that DNA testing may be methods of testing for these and could preemptively be used to call people with these conditions as potential criminals. Reporting on this is not creating something that already is a concern. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that because the media is doing something bad, we should too? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Could not agree more! The media is free to makes wild claims or speculate. They need the ratings, we and Wikipedia do not. That said, how about we add things that won't require serious degree of editing in a week, a month, or a year? The amount of information that has been added and removed from this article is staggering.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This source was not about the DNA testing, but about why it's a mistake to focus on Asperger's syndrome as the cause. I've deleted it as a cite related to the sentence about the DNA testing; it was on Dec. 18 and preceded the announcement of that.Parkwells (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It is understandable that autism campaigners are annoyed by the repeated references to Asperger's syndrome in the media, and the DNA test seems a weird way of attempting to prove the theory. The article should reflect what the investigation has said, but give proper context to it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Black military style gear"

Is that even a real thing? Not a single military branch wears black clothing. This seems like weasel words to induce fear when reading it. This article isn't a screenplay for a movie and shouldn't be treated as such. The military wording should be removed. Cohenjc (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This comes down to yet more conflicting sources. Lanza has been described by police as wearing dark clothing, a mask and a bulletproof vest [8] when he entered the school. CNN says he was "wearing black fatigues and a military vest".[9] "Black military style gear" appears to be stretching the description, so it should probably be changed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... The article supported that (I guess, since I can't verify that online) with a cite of "Tragedy at an Elementary School". News12 Long Island. December 15, 2012. I dug around, and that story seems to come from an AP report widely circulated and appearing here and elsewhere. That speaks twice of a "military-style assault rifle" (inaccurately, it wasn't an assault rifle) and once of a "military style rifle" (i.e., a rifle which looked like a military rifle). It doesn't speak at all of "black military-style gear". This bit needs a review/rewrite. I won't jump in and do that as there's plenty of other editors working on this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cohenjc's comments are pure OR ("Not a single military branch wears black clothing") and conjecture (there are certainly without question black military fatigues -- see for example here), misunderstands that "black" is and adjective to the phrase "military style", and certainly doesn't trump what is reported in RSs. I know he is a 17-edit newbie, so understand how he might not be familiar with policy on OR and RSs. Ian points not to any conflicts on this issue, but to the fact that some reports mention the nature of what he was wearing while others do not -- but that is not a conflict. Of course, all manner of aspects of this matter are reported in some but not all articles on it -- that is very far from being a conflict at all. We should just follow the RSs here. A complete non-issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of mistakes and inconsistencies from media reports immediately after the shooting, "reliable source" does not necessarily mean "reliable information".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• The entire article is based on RSs -- we don't supplant what RSs report with OR. Instead, we reflect the RSs, and if RSs change their story we make the appropriate changes. Otherwise we have to litter the entire article with statements the reflect editors' personal unsubstantiated by RSs views that "RSs report x, but I really wonder if they are wrong." There were massive mistakes made in RS reporting in the beginning, but they have slowed. We don't now say "we think the shooter was Adam Lanza," because original RS reports were wrong on this point. There's simply no conflict in the RSs on this point at all. None. This is silly.

As pointed out by wp:v, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Let's follow the rules -- if there is an RS supported different point of view, report it. Don't delete what is RS supported based on OR unsubstantiated and incorrect views as to whether black military dress clothing exists.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Virtually all sources agree that Lanza was wearing black/dark clothing when he entered the school. There has been some dispute about whether he was wearing body armor or a bulletproof vest, as the two are not necessarily the same thing. Not many sources say that he was wearing a mask.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, police are now denying that Lanza was wearing body armor or a bulletproof vest, despite telling the media this at the time of the shooting.[10]. This calls into question whether he was wearing a mask either, as there seems to have been a good deal of confusion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out, we as editors don't just run with a news story - we work via Consensus - and the changing story on this tragedy has made most of us agree to wait a bit before adding material - as an encyclopedia instead of a newspaper, we can afford to wait. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I know what you're getting at HammerFilmFan, but just to be crystal, the consensus is a rational consensus (generally). eg If 10 editors say the world is flat, all it takes is on editor with RS, notability, a good article, etc to wash them away. in other words Galileos Welcome, no Old School Catholic Church here. -Justanonymous (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

MSNBC/NBC coverage

On my computer I have a few low resolution screencaps of the coverage from the beginning (first info and stuff). Should I add it to the reaction section? I have NBC's Special Report and MSNBC's Newsnation with Tamron Hall ones. In the screenshots the tv anchor isn't seen, but helicopter cam instead. Shall I upload it? EdwardRech (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's non-free images, and require strong rationales to include. Do not upload them. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a comment here, but I see it is dealt with elsewhere on the talk page. My apologies. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012

In regards to the sandy hook shooting, it should be noted and changed immediately that a bushmaster AR-15 WAS NOT used in the massacre. (four handguns were used, NO rifles or shotguns of any sort were used). Please reference this NBC news clip, http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#3677250 , Thank you, and I will be checking back to make sure the facts are changed.66.66.26.33 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That link doesn't have its video loading up, other than for the commercial before it, it just audio. And I didn't hear any part of it talk about that. Can you find a link that works? Dream Focus 16:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is previously discussed above at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Handguns_or_Bushmaster.3F. The medical examiner was clear in stating that all of the victims at the school were shot with a long weapon. The NBC report seems to be the result of early confusion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Unclear

We have a sentence that says "The events in another first-grade classroom remain uncertain, with varying accounts attributed to the surviving children." But the remainder of the paragraph fails to then mention what the variances are. I would either expand to explain what the variances were, or delete the sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

During the first 24 hours after the shooting, investigators and parents told the media many things that were wrong, contradictory or are still unconfirmed. This has caused problems for the article,and the article needs to flag this up where necessary. The events surrounding Victoria Leigh Soto are a good example, and the article could make this part clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's one option -- if the article clarifies what is "varying". It doesn't at all. The reader is left to wonder -- what in the remainder of the paragraph is "varying"? Or does this paragraph only report what the accounts agree on? As it stands, this is unhelpful. Either this should be clarified in the para, or the sentence removed -- as it stands it is not helpful to the reader.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The widely reported story about Virginia Soto hiding children in the cupboards was widely reported, but there is no reliable source for this, and it is probably not true. The only eyewitness account I have seen from the Soto classroom was from Aidan Licata as reported by his parents, and it contradicts this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.47.233 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Speculation, IP, about 'probably not true.' Wait for the official report from the investigation team.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Why no aftermath section?

I previously asked about when the kids would go back to school. I have seen but couldn't find again the article saying the kids at other schools in town went back to their respective schools. Nothing has been said in this article about moving the kids at Sandy Hook to some other location. Or have I just not seen it?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In the broad picture, it's probably not that important a piece of information. (Think about what readers in ten years time will be interested in.) But to be included at all, it needs a source. You'd better keep looking. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But put it where? There is yet to be an aftermath section.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we do mention what the school will do at the start of the second to last paragraph. However, "Aftermath" is a rather strong term, implying significant change and accounting; at this stage, we have reactions but no end effects in the larger picture. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Aftermath" is probably the wrong term to use. We do have a discussion of what happened afterwards, and reactions, which is certainly relevant. Shadowjams (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say if gun laws get passed as a result of the shooting then yeah an aftermath section could be useful but right now no. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Or if armed guards are placed in every school in the country. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Every school or some? There have already been reports of various schools around the country arming teachings or giving them training in firearm handling. That said, I also agree that its too soon for an "aftermath" section.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The dill from the NRA wanted armed guards in EVERY school. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Following the Virginia Tech shooting, the local sheriff's department posted armed school resource officers in larger local schools, that was 2007 IIRC, and there is current talk of expanding the program. A bad situation was possibly prevented by a school resource officer in 2010. I would typify policy duscussions and changes as a response rather than an aftermath.--Naaman Brown (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In short a major event as a result of the shooting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider what articles we have that begin "Aftermath of..."; most of these that use it are huge events, wars or natural disasters, or in a few cases, major terrorist attacks. No matter how tragic, one man shooting a number of teachers and students is going to create a response, but there's no "aftermath" of the event. As I said, it's a very strong word and one I wouldn't see in association with it, unless something happens that has a direct effect on every American (in this case). --MASEM (t) 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realize the term "aftermath" was so problematic. I assumed "Reaction" to be reaction from other locations, not the reaction there where it happened. The important thing is that the information is there.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Adam Lanza standalone article?

Currently Adam Lanza redirects to this article, but there is enough information by now for a standalone article on Adam Lanza. In terms of notability, I think this passes. See standalone articles for Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or Charles Carl Roberts for examples. Was there or is there currently objection to a standalone Adam Lanza article? TheLou75 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This will probably happen at some stage in the future, but at the moment the article would be stub class and bogged down with unconfirmed reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Further, with the limited detail we have on him, it is more comprehensive to cover him within the context of the crime. That might change in the future. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Lou, you're far from alone in your suggestion. Its been commented on previously and likely there are a few articles lurking in Sandboxes around WP already.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

For previous discussions of this issue, see this Archive 2 thread and this Archive 4 thread. Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The reasons behind WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL support waiting as long as practical before creating articles about alleged perpetrators of crimes. Until enough verifiable information is available to support a quality article on this person, it makes sense to cover him with a section in the article. I agree though that an article on Lanza will almost certainly eventually exist, similar to the biographies that Lou mentions above. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who's been around here knows that article will inevitably be created, and probably kept, but there was some AN discussions about the protects on those pages, and that seems to me to be the correct response. Btw, there's no prize for being the creator of an article. If those sandbox pages keep getting developed good, make the most accurate encyclopedia article we can. But I'm firmly on the side of the AN discussions that waiting on this is a good thing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it seems inevitable, but I'd wait a while before starting one. Can you link to the sandbox pages where a Lanza article is being developed? Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of editing

"How does Wikipedia deal with a mass shooting? A frenzied start gives way to a few core editors" is an interesting analysis of activity on this and other articles related to mass shootings. Parkwells (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a link in the talk page header - thanks for sharing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Other than hawking an opinion piece, not sure why this is relevant. Shadowjams (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more pertinent to one of the articles at Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media? Shearonink (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A student's opinion piece posted on their own blog first is hardly "in the media", which is why I question why essentially an op ed is listed on here at all. Shadowjams (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

After reading that, I'm feeling somewhat slighted. With all the time I've spent on this article and the Talk section, not a single mention of me nor Justanonymous or Shadowjams or Masem or KKid or several others. Hmmphh...!--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Iran Press TV conspiracy theories

The RS Washington Post has officially condemned Iran's press agency for blaming the attack on israel, there is no mention of this in the current article. These stories have also been echoed or sourced from Veterans Today, which appears to have close ties, and republishes Press TV stories, or serves as a source for stories. This may or not be evidence that the government of Iran may be covering up some sort of association it may have with the attack: Redhanker (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/18/irans-state-run-news-network-blames-israeli-death-squads-for-sandy-hook-shooting/ Iran’s state-run news network blames ‘Israeli death squads’ for Sandy Hook shooting

Posted by Max Fisher on December 18, 2012 at 10:20 am "Iran’s state-run media outlet PressTV, which broadcasts in English, on Tuesday carried a story blaming Israel for the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. PressTV has a well-earned reputation for incendiary anti-Israel stories and for wild conspiracy theories, but even this seems a far stretch for the organization, which maintains a bureau office in the District."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhanker (talk • contribs) 18:49, 29 December 2012 (URC)

Well known pro-palestine conspiracy theorist Jim Fetzer was featured by Press TV: In a PressTV column Fetzer accused Mossad of carrying out the Sandy Hook school massacre, as part of a Department of Homeland Security plot to confiscate civilian weapons as part of a process of "gearing up to conduct a massive civil war against the American people." Claiming that "the killing of children is a signature of terror ops conducted by agents of Israel," Fetzer further linked the Mossad's alleged role in the killings at Sandy Hook to alleged Mossad involvement in the Utøya massacre by Anders Behring Breivik. In the Utøya massacre, Mossad was supposedly taking revenge for Norway's support for sanctions on Israel. In the case of Sandy Hook, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyanhu was purportedly angered by American failure to approve military strikes on Iran.

[2]=http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/20/279183/israeli-death-squad-massacred-us-children/

[3]=http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/23/mossad-death-squads-slaughtered-american-children-at-sandy-hook/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhanker (talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE theories, and their rebuttals are not pertinent to this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Redhanker. This material is already covered at International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, under the Iranian section. It really isn't pertinent to the Sandy Hook shooting article here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be at least mentioned with a link to thereRedhanker (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not a fringe theory if it is being promoted by the official news agency of a nation state, namely Press TV. There are many WP articles on 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories. Nazi Germany promoted a lot of fringe theories which remain popular among neo-nazis, but they can be covered as well as neo-nazi groups.

This article has the title "Iran Propaganda 101: Mass Killing of Children in Connecticut --- The Jews Did It" http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html

Press TV succeeded in gaining attention for its story, which was the "Most Viewed" on its site throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. The response was far from one of applause, however. Max Fisher of The Washington Post, in a summary which rapidly spread across social media, wrote: "The PressTV story is sad and upsetting, mostly for its incredible insensitivity but also, to a lesser degree, for the obvious bankruptcy of Iranian propaganda."

It is extremely significant if a nation-state such as Iran is spending a significant effort in conjunction with american staff such as Jim Fetzer to promote the view that the attack are to be blamed on another nation-state such as Israel. Redhanker (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is being posted by the national press of a foreign state, it is a fringe theory (fringe theories are called such based on the "content" of the theory, not by who publishes it. Even RSs like NYTimes or WashPost can report news that we would consider as fringe. ) --MASEM (t) 19:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, Gaijin and AzureCitizen. Also, the following points have bearing on this matter:

1. This issue has already been discussed, see Talkpage Archive 1/Iranian reaction.
2. This issue is already covered at International reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
3. This article is about the mass murder that occurred at Sandy Hook not about this Press TV/Iranian propaganda/fringe-conspiracy theory, to give it massive coverage within the event article when it already has coverage within the related International reaction article (where this issue, by subject matter, belongs), smacks of WP:UNDUE.

--Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a very silly theory, and it is surprising that Fetzer did not add that Israel faked the Apollo moon landings for good measure. It is not worth mentioning here per WP:FRINGE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the above sources were put up for discussion in relation to a different article in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#EA WorldView and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Press TV and Veterans Today RS for their contibutors. Location (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm about as open minded in letting people post on the talk page about just about anything but quite frankly, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE do need to be adhered to. I can find zero supporting evidence for any of what is alleged here and Occam's Razor does seem to say that it's logical Iran would baselessly blame Israel for this. It's been covered, can an administrator please close this discussion and let's move on with the real work.--Justanonymous (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. This is just plain creepy and doesn't belong in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook, Connecticut

I thought I would post a note about the article on the village of Sandy Hook, Conn. Adam Lanza is listed as a notable citizen of the town, and I'd like to get more opinions on that listing as I don't believe the village article gets nearly as much editing attention as this one. Coretheapple (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that he should be listed, yes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I just took a look at it and my problem is not with "who" is on the list, but "why?" Except for Lanza, there's no context as to why they are notable with regard to Sandy Hook. I'll post a comment on its Talk page.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it simply assumed that they are all past/present residents of the town? What else could it possibly mean? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuit

An attorney in Connecticut is seeking to file a $100 million lawsuit on behalf of one of the child survivors of the incident. Should this be included in the article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One link is here: Newtown survivor’s $100M suit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Joseph, horrendous thing happened in your state and now someone wants to compound and draw it out with a lawsuit. I suppose that this is an expected reaction. Even with this new development, I think we should all try to stick to the facts.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that it is only a request to seek to file on behalf of the boy, and thus not the start of an actual suit, this is too extraneous to include at this time. If the lawsuit does start, that would be a better metric. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see the logic in this, good call MASEM. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Esteemed editors, I have to agree with Joseph Spadaro on this one. The lawsuit is on behalf of one of the victims alleging that the state did not provide adequate security for the school. This item was mentioned front and center on the evening news on Saturday December 29, 2012 (tonight) by the major broadcasters in the US, NBC Nightly News covered it so it is WP:RS. It's a direct Reaction and deals squarely with school security in the aftermath of Newtown (if I dare use the word aftermath). The filing of a lawsuit is a fact, and is a direct Reaction to the shooting and it was filed on behalf of a victim. Recommend reinstating a short one liner into the article without delay. --Justanonymous (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a lawsuit yet. It's a request to file one on behalf of one of the victims. If he gets that, then I agree the lawsuit can be included. Right now, it's basically saying "someone filed a form", which is far from encyclopedic. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

MASEM is correct, I was saying almost exactly the same thing, but his edit canceled out mine. Its just a publicly declared intention, NOT a lawsuit yet.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is all semantics and legal mumbo jumbo. In essence, a lawsuit was filed. However, when you sue the State of CT, you must ask permission of the State first, in order to file such a lawsuit against them. So, when you ask the State for permission to sue them, that is the first step in filing a lawsuit against them. (Think: "You have to file Paper A before we will allow you to file Paper B.") As I said, it's all semantics and legal mumbo jumbo. Once the State gives its permission, then the lawsuit is filed in court. However, the "big news" is this first step. It will not be "big news" once the State gives the permission. In other words, the filing of this perfunctory request for permission is, for all practical purposes, the initial filing of the suit. That's why the AP picked up and reported the story. For what it's worth. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Its more than likely that AP ran the story because the attorney involved included them in his announcement. Regardless of what we consider "big news" or not, the filing of paperwork is not relevant until its an active suit. Patience is not harmful.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're lawyers here so I don't think we can judge at what point a suit becomes valid....it's a convoluted legal process -- a plaintiff is taking legal action against the state, an entity that is generally immune from suits so an extra step is required....we are not lawyers and we should not arbitrarily judge at what stage of a case it becomes citable and certainly not because there is some arbitrary extra step that this is not citable. Semantics aside, a victim (plaintiff) is pursuing a legal and pecuniary remedy from the state of Connecticut claiming that the state did not satisfy the requirement to protect the child in the school (what we call a lawsuit and it's a complicated process with many steps). At the current stage it is notable enough for NBC, CBS, ABC, USA Today, Fox etc to mention and call it "a lawsuit," it should be good enough for us to add the one liner as a fact that one of the victims is seeking compensation through a legal setting (a lawsuit), it's a fact and it's citable. Whether the suit has merit, grounds, locus standi etc, is beyond us right now. I'm sure that in the days that come there might be multiples of this and we can just adjust the sentence then to "two victims are suing, three victims are suing," some might have merit, many might be dismissed etc. Our place is just to factually document that for now at least one of the victims is seeking a legal remedy - which is a fact plain and simple.--Justanonymous (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

At the same time, I don't think a lawsuit should consume much real estate on the article. We are a litigious society so it should not be unexpected that someone would try to seek a legal remedy. If the editors decide to add a factual statement, it should be very small unless, three years from now somebody wins a $100million dollar remedy from the state!-Justanonymous (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The resulting lawsuit could be huge, ending up at SCOTUS and be a major impact. Or it could be laughed out of court on its first hearing. Because we don't know which way it will go, it is better to wait until at least there is some trial to report on (likely at the CT state level) as opposed to just the filing. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Other articles where parties sue do not wait until there are trials to note the action in Wikipedia. I've combed through several of our aviation accidents issue and some have Legal Action sections while others just have one liners that there are lawsuits - even while trials might be years away. Personally waiting until there is a trial is a very high bar to set for citability of legal action on Wikipedia - Seeking to sue is a citable factual event, I think. I think it'll be a tough legal path to sue and recover from the state - but it seems like they're going for it. --Justanonymous (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is NOT a personal attack and please don't interpret it as such, but because Justanonymous mentioned it twice in his comment I'm mentioning that Joseph A. Spadaro happens to be a lawyer, this is posted on his User page,

This user is a lawyer.

True, a legal remedy is being sought, that is a factual statement and there are reliable sources to back it up. But its still premature information for a Wikipedia article. What's wrong with being patient and seeing if its approved.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

USA Today's article notes that "The state has immunity against most lawsuits unless permission to sue is granted." While the filing may be important in the 24 hours a day news cycle, I agree that it needs to be approved before becoming reasonably encyclopedic. GoingBatty (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too excited about the scale of the media coverage yet either. This is a pretty slow news period, and anything out of the ordinary can get big coverage. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Joseph is the attorney and he's the one asking if the statement should be added....there are a lot of types of lawyers, we don't know what type of legal training Joseph has and in which states. So he might be an expert here or not. I'm ok with waiting on adding this so long as we're waiting in good faith. My concern historically with this article is that some information like the DNA testing made it to the page immediately on a very fast path, while the NRA reaction was aggressively stiffled and now it appears that this lawsuit is being put on the slow boat to china path. Why the difference, Masem (no disrepect) had the idea to post the DNA stuff and he pushed it on there but pushes back heavily on the lawsuit? Why the double standard? All editors with fair and factual statements should get equal unfettered access to edit the article. That's my point. I generally object to procedurally blocking an editor who has WP:RS on his side regardless of how many editors pile on to disagree. Unless we have a very good reason to not include in the article, and I haven't heard any, a one liner is not going to detract but rather add to the article.--Justanonymous (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not likely, too many eyes on this article. Even if we agree to be patient and wait to see if the request is granted, we'll still be fending off other editors who don't bother to read the Talk page first.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I generally object to editors who aggressively argue WP:RS without putting any weight on notability and broader perspective. Waiting a little while will do the article no harm at all. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I generally go on the side of being bold provided WP:RS & notability is there. I trust a good decision will be made here either to add right away or to wait, I'm good either way so long as we apply that same thinking fairly across all reasonable fact based edits - this is a great team that is editing this article right now - I'm just sharing my impressions here, which are both sharpened and unfortunately clouded by my own experiences. The DNA point is hardly notable, will likely yield nothing of value but it's in the article right now (in fairness it doesn't hurt to have the blurb on DNA so long as quoted correctly) but all the while significant legal action is in some kind of procedural limbo in an arbitrary "cooling off period" process that I've never heard of until I bumped into it on this article. I'll leave it at that, I think you all know what I think. :-) I trust you all and value you all for your hard work here - this is a tough article to keep in line and I do applaud you all for the hard work. --Justanonymous (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Relatives of the victims of the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre attempted to sue, but the case was dismissed. A similar situation applies here, so the case may not get very far. At the moment there is no actual legal case, only a proposal for one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The intent to sue ( unsuccessfully) is documented on the San Ysidro massacre wikipedia page, why is that unsuccessful suit attempt allowed on that page but blocked here. Consistency please. The intent to sue is notable, lets please stop blocking valid posts, please add to the article.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not being blocked. It's being discussed. Be patient. HiLo48 (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

apologize HiLo48, my wording was too strong, I trust the good faith. We'll get through it, so many editors can't be wrong, I also respect the consensus.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The McDonald's case trundled through the courts in California for three years before being thrown out, which is significant enough to mention. The main difference is that McDonald's is a corporation, not the state. Either way, the plaintiff would have to satisfy the court that there was negligence involved. Failure to turn a school or fast food diner into an armed camp that will withstand an attack by a maniac with automatic weapons is probably not going to be viewed as negligence by a court.[11] The article here should wait and see on this one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait to see what happens. The lawsuit seems marginal at this point. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook shooter....

Resolved

The shooter at Sandy Hook DID NOT shoot his way into the school with a AR15.....the rifle was in the trunk of the car at all times, until the police removed it from the trunk....this action by the police was caught on News cameras. Riverrat1979 (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The weapon that was removed from the car was a shotgun, not the Bushmaster XM-15. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Already been discussed and put to rest, you read an old news report or watched mislabeled video.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this tragic story is still developing. We should go by the coroner's report though, until the surviving victims testimony becomes available. Authorities are not always right and there is a lot of confusion floating around out there. Keep diggin Riverrat1979 but let's be respectful to the tragedy and to the hard work of all the editors on here.....don't get me wrong, I love a good conspiracy but I prefer my conspiracies not to involve 20 dead children, we can't just go wildly slinging mud around here, we have dead children and a very sorrowful situation to contend with. Wild fringe stuff is not tolerated, rightfully, in this tragic situation. Lets get all the facts in line.--Justanonymous (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Question #4 in the FAQ section up at the top of this talkpage addresses some of the 'which gun' issue. Shearonink (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Autism and Asperger's are WRONG: he had CIPR

Why do you have that he was autistic or had Asperger's? That's completely wrong. Your only sources for that are hearsay using colloquial non-medical meaning. Look at the sources from those in a position to know. Adam Lanza had congenital insensitivity to pain and the behavior problems which very often go with it. Kjsdhj (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC) http://www.halfsigma.com/2012/12/did-adam-lanza-have-congenital-analgesia.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsdhj (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The congenital insensitivity to pain theory is not mentioned in the article because it is too speculative. Asperger's syndrome is mentioned because various people told investigators that they had been informed that Lanza had the condition. Medical experts have said that even if Lanza did receive a diagnosis of AS, it would not explain the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, something was very broken with him but No medical doctor ever diagnosed him as that (that has been made public) and now that he is dead we might never know. We can't have rampant conjecture. Kjsdhj, if you have his medical records and a diagnosis (obtained legally of course) happy to adjust. --Justanonymous (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

On one hand you have his estranged brother saying he was autistic. Then you have an anonymous police officer and a couple friends of the family saying he had Asperger's. But "the school district's head of security until 2008, who also served as adviser for the school technology club" says he had CIPR. If that doesn't meet your standards, then how can an anonymous source and a couple neighbors meet your standards? Why not just remove all mention of autism and Asperger's until the official investigation report is published?

In any case, what policy or encyclopedia rule would suggest that police and neighbors would be more reliable than the school district head of security? Kjsdhj (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If anything, we need a much more reliable source to even consider adding this. That halfsigma site doesn't meet the quality we'd need for that claim. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Kjsdhj, basically an illness requires a diagnosis from a competent medical doctor examining the patient. People (including) doctors who are removed can say whatever they think or suspect but that is not a diagnosis - an expert might make an educated observation but it likely won't be a diagnosis. It will be very hard to diagnose Mr. Lanza after the fact, he's dead and unavailable for evaluation. We might never know. Some condidtions like down's syndrome are detectable through certain DNA tests but I'm uncertain that DNA testing will be able to cast any light on autism, aspergers or CIPR - that's beyond the the science event horizon at the moment. Frankly, like Masem said, we need a reliable source (somebody who can confirm a medical diagnosis or interpret a DNA test conclusively to provide a medical diagnosis - good enough for a court). We don't have that. Yes some people say Asperger's, others CIPR, and still others Autism - that's all heresay. When the medical diagnosis comes out or a DNA test interpretation that is admitted in some court, we'll add that RS - until then it's unknown. I'm torn over how much of the heresay to include, it can be very incendiary and can be damaging to people who live with these conditions. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I also have advocated for the removal of all the here say diagnosis content barring confirmation.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Article FAQ (asked and answered)

We seem to be revisiting the same topics over and over at great time expense in the talk. Is there any way to have an FAQ for new editors so the working team doesn't have to revisit the same material over and over? Might be more trouble than its worth but might save some time.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can create a page Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/FAQ, which can use the {{FAQ2}} template, which can then be transcluded into the headers here using {{/FAQ}}. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, apparently this was already done -- it's in the talk page headers here. I think we can put a link on the page notice that editors see when they try to edit too. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As you just posted, there is already a FAQ section (presently with 4 questions) up near the top of this page, right underneath the WikiProject banners. Shearonink (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

FAQs are OK, but people often do not read them. There is an extensive one at Talk:Michael Jackson, but people still ask the same questions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course people will ignore it. We can't stop that, but at least we can say and possible hat-off threads that repeat info in the FAQs and point to them as the reason. FWIW, I've added explicit links on the article's page notice to the FAQ and talk page, whatever good that may do. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

appreciate quick response, it's probably ineffective as is. Peopl would have to read and agree to be effective. It just feels like zombies keep rising from he grave around here. Thank you all. -Justanonymous (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

We just have to be diligent with our efforts and intentions, but I'm dubious about a FAQ page if Sr. editors and admins are going to ignore our discussions and the process we have created. See below...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalhotrod (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 December 2012(UTC)

Edit warring warning

I dont see how this discussion is helping the article at all, and feel it should be kept on the talk pages of those involved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Has anyone else received an edit warring warning? One was just posted on my Talk page, but with no detail other than its in reference to this article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC) I did not, but I have not edited this article for a while now. I believe the warning editor was referred to the edit warning between Scalhotrod (talk · contribs) and Toddst1 (talk · contribs). You could talk about the problem here on this talk page. TBrandley (what's up) 21:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Hence part of my concern, the warning came from Toddst1 (talk · contribs) with my only interaction with this editor being to ask that he participate in discussions on this Talk page before making edits[12]. Does reverting edits and making a request like this amount to "edit warring"?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:37, 30 Decem--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)ber 2012 (UTC) If it is a 1 revert case no i do not see that as edit warring, 3RR is for 3 reverts in 24 hours and usually see warnings placed if there are 2 reverts but one yeah I can see why you would take issue with it. I would keep this on the talkpage as per above, im sure Toddst1 had legit reasons though assuming good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC) OK, so my confusion and apprehension is not unfounded. From my perspective, I have been diligent and consistent (as have others) with trying to maintain the status quo of the article. If we collectively agree on an edit and then a 3rd party makes a change seemingly without regard to our discussions here, I feel its warranted to revert the edit and ask the editor to participate in the process we have established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalhotrod (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC) This is an issue that I raised on Scalhotrod's talk page because it involves only him. I'll be continuing it there. Toddst1 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, and I am enjoying our conversation there, but I also asked for input and feedback from the group of editors that have been the most active on this article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Out of fairness and respect for Toddst1's (talk) status, I want to mention that I've been made aware of "BOLD, Revert, Discuss" and I have to admit that it changes my perspective on some of the edits made. In our conversation, Toddst1 cautions me that controversial edits should be quickly reverted, and I think that all of the active editors on this article strive to do this, but what WP:BRD promotes helps to clarify some things for me.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC) if there's been a meeting of the minds great. But don't just fold over the fact that he is an administrator. Progress sometimes means changing the status quo. I am always suspect of a "fold" over some sense o rank or authority. America was founded by radical liberals who didn't believe in kings.-Justanonymous (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I don't disagree with your comments and stances, but I also subscribe to picking your battles wisely and know from experience a lot can be learned from the Sr. Wikipedians.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Well, I've been watching. The esteemed editor Toddst1 came on a bit strong with a 1R threat of edit warring when he himself was engaged in the activity as one of the parties and then he flashed his administrator badge. Respectfully, I think Toddst1 can learn a bit from this incident as well. We need good editors in Wikipedia and I happen to think that you Scalhotrod are a good editor. You've been doing great work here. We should not assume bad faith or automatically operate from authority and education. You were not privy to the policy and mechanism that he introduced you to, I'm saying he could've introduced it more effectively without shoving his supposed weight around. We're all volunteers here. I hope all parties, including the esteemed administrator, can take a nugget from this one.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I wish you had watched more carefully and understood the issue more accurately. In the end, Scalhotrod and I sorted it out. S/he now understands why WP:Bold edits are useful and all is well. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC) This is what the esteemed editor Toddst1 gave me on my talk page: Thank you, For sharing your vast experience with us. Toddst1 (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Toddst1 engaged in edit warring, bullied a good editor, threw barbs at someone who dared point out his deficiences to him, and refuses to see that he too might be able to learn from the situation. Sad. No wonder, editorship is down when we have to submit to the likes of Toddst1.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Your accusation that I engaged in edit warring is pure bullshit and you know it. Before I thought you were just careless in your assessment of the facts. Now I see it's worse. I recommend you stop commenting on others' behaviors. Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you! All praise is gratefully accepted and appreciated... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Article about Victoria Soto created; nominated for deletion; ongoing discussion

Hi folks, an editor created a referenced article on Victoria Soto but someone else nominated it for deletion. There is an ongoing discussion about wether we should keep or delete the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Leigh Soto. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Leigh Soto and express your opinion; whatever it may be. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Adams car

Adams car was not registered to his mother. It was registered to Christopher roDia of Norwalk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.10.116 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Any reliable source for this RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 00:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And more importantly, how is this relevant to the article?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Shootings section currently says "Adam Lanza then drove his mother's car to Sandy Hook Elementary School." If it wasn't his mother's car (for example, if he had stolen someone else's car), maybe the sentence should be changed. However, if it was the car that his mother always used but she had some arrangement with a different registered owner, that's a level of detail that's probably not relevant. GoingBatty (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, got it, now I understand the issue at hand. So it sounds like in light of the accuracy of the statement "his mother's car" that it should be removed pending confirmation or just left neutral.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Material to introduce to "Reactions" Section

This is all from a separate reactions Article now being discussed for Deletion or possible Merger into this one. Let's introduce this material here, even if we condense it a bit.

Extended content

Reactions by countries United States President Barack Obama gave a televised address at 3:16 p.m. EST on the day of the shootings, saying, "We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics." Obama paused twice during the address to compose himself and wipe away tears, and expressed "enormous sympathy for families that are affected". He also ordered flags to be flown at half-mast at the White House and other US federal government facilities worldwide in respect for the victims. Within 15 hours of the massacre, 100,000 Americans signed up at the Obama administration's We the People petitioning website in support of a renewed national debate on gun control. Obama attended and spoke at an interfaith vigil on December 16, in Newtown. Australia Prime Minister Julia Gillard issued a press release, stating that the Australian people "share America’s shock at this senseless and incomprehensible act of evil. As parents and grandparents, as brothers and sisters, as friends of the American people, we mourn the loss of children, aged only five to ten years, whose futures lay before them. We mourn the loss of brave teachers who sought only to lead their students into that future but were brutally murdered in a place of refuge and learning". Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev sent a letter of condolence to Barack Obama, saying: "I was deeply astonished and grieved to hear about the terrible tragedy that happened at the school in Newtown, Connecticut. Sharing in your grief on behalf of the people of Azerbaijan and on my own, I would like to express my sincere condolences to you, families and friends of those killed and all the American people". Canada Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrote on Twitter: "The news is just awful. The thoughts and prayers of Canadians are with the students and families in Connecticut affected by this senseless violence." China Chinese netizens gave a lot of condolences for Americans affected by the shootings in Newton. On the same day as Sandy Hook there was a mass attack at an elementary school in China in which 23 children were left wounded. There was criticism of the ruling Communist Party's readiness to reflect on the what goes wrong in the US but not for China as much of the media was focused on the American shooting. Commonwealth of Nations Queen Elizabeth II said in a message to President Obama, "I have been deeply shocked and saddened to learn of the dreadful loss of life today in Newtown, Connecticut; particularly the news that so many of the dead are children." She added that Prince Philip joined her in extending their heartfelt sympathy to Obama and the American people. European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton said in a statement "I want to express my shock after the tragic shooting at a school in Connecticut today," She also said, "I think of the victims, their families and the American people at this difficult time," European Commission Chief José Manuel Barroso said, "It is with deep shock and horror that I learned of the tragic shooting in Connecticut," European Commission Chief José Manuel Barroso said. "On behalf of the European Commission and myself, I express my sincere condolences to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy," France President François Hollande commented that he was "horrified" upon hearing about the event. Hungary The Ministry of Foreign Affairs "wishes to express its deep dismay at the tragic events." Gábor Kaleta, head of the Foreign Ministry’s press department, told the MTI that the Ministry extends its sympathy to the bereaved families. Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast condemned "the massacre of American children" and expressed his condolences to the families of victims. An Iranian state-run newspaper claimed that Israeli "Mossad death squads" were the actual perpetrators of the shooting and that Lanza was merely a patsy. Israel ‘We in Israel understand the shock and agony,’ Netanyahu said. Japan Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda sent a condolence message to President Obama saying, "We express our condolences to the families of the victims... the sympathy of the Japanese people is with the American people." Lithuania President Dalia Grybauskaitė stated that she was deeply distressed by the Connecticut tragedy. Grybauskaitė wished "great strength" to the families of those who had perished. Malaysia Prime Minister Najib Razak extended his deepest condolences to the families of victims. "It's a tragic incident and Malaysia stands by your side," stated the Prime Minister via Twitter. Mexico President Enrique Peña Nieto expressed his condolences via Twitter, saying, "My solidarity is with the American people and President Obama". Norway Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg wrote on Facebook: "My thoughts are with the families who have lost their loved ones in the horrible shooting in Connecticut." King Harald also sent a personal condolence letter to President Obama. Philippines President Benigno Aquino III stated that he and the Filipino people stand with the United States "with bowed heads, yet in deep admiration over the manner in which the American people have reached out to comfort the afflicted, and to search for answers that will give meaning and hope to this grim event." "We pray for healing, and that this heartbreak will never be visited on any community ever again," he added, in a statement tweeted by deputy presidential spokesman Abigail Valte. Russia Vladimir Putin, President sent a telegram to Barack Obama expressing Russia's heartfelt condolences and "grief" at the fact that the victims were mostly children. He asked Barack Obama to convey words of compassion and sympathy to the victims' relatives, saying he empathized with the entire American nation. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wrote a message to Obama saying that he was "deeply shocked and saddened" to hear of the shooting." "An event like this reminds us of our common humanity, regardless of nationality or where we live in the world." "This was a senseless loss of innocent young lives, especially since schools should be sanctuaries for our children. I wish you success in your efforts to prevent such tragedies from recurring in the future." He also expressed condolences on Facebook. Similarly, Foreign Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam expressed his condolences in a Facebook post saying that "Children are innocent, full of life and promise. Cut down in a hail of bullets by a person with a rifle. There have been so many shootings in the US over the years we no longer get surprised that this happens", he went on to say that in no other developed country do school shootings happen so regularly. Scotland Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland sent a letter to Barack Obama expressing Scotland's shared "shock and deep sadness" Spain The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation announced that Spain expressed its "deepest condolences" and that "in these sad moments, Spain shares the pain of the families of the victims and their friends, the people of the United States. Turkey Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent a message to Barack Obama saying “Mr. President; I am very sorry to hear about the shootings. We deeply share your sadness. In the name of Turkish People, our government and myself we hope well beings for the wounded.” United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron wrote on Twitter: "My thoughts are with those who've been devastated by the Connecticut shootings." United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon voiced his "deepest condolences" over the victims, calling the rampage "shocking murders," spokesman Martin Nesirky told reporters in New York. "The secretary-general said that the targeting of children is heinous and unthinkable, and extended his thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims and all others traumatized by this horrendous crime," said the spokesman. Vatican City Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone issued a letter of condolence on behalf of Pope Benedict XVI, which was read aloud at a Newtown vigil, saying, "In the aftermath of this senseless tragedy, [the Holy Father] asks God, our Father, to console all those who mourn and to sustain the entire community with the spiritual strength which triumphs over violence by the power of forgiveness, hope and reconciling love." Reactions by leading newspapers and other organizations There were tributes and vigils by people in Moscow, Bangalore, Karachi and in Monrovia, Liberia. An organized candle light vigil was held in India and a make shift memorial set up at the US embassy in Moscow. Media in the United Kingdom compared the shooting to the Dunblane school massacre, another school shooting that occurred in 1996, in which 16 children and one teacher were killed before the shooter, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton, committed suicide.

Sorry this had to be so long

Have fun discussing this further! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The material above is controversial because it is repetitive and adds little to a reader's understanding. The flag icons have also been criticized for being too gaudy and unnecessary per WP:PROSE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a copy-paste job. I was just too lazy to go through removing the flag icons for a Talk Page. I'm talking about the actual information about foreign reactions to the event, which was briefly covered here without the flag icons and then removed altogether for God knows what reason. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no real need to enumerate a long list of reactions, a sampling is enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

FTI The article ended in a Weak keep result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

At most, I would make it a one liner saying, heads of state from x number countries expressed condolences.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest not giving a specific number, but saying "heads of state from numerous countries" or "heads of state from over x countries". GoingBatty (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

great point GoingBatty, makes it cleaner and future proofs it.--Justanonymous (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

So how about a sub article as a compromise? Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting:_International_Reaction, this way its not cluttering up the main article, but not necessarily subject to the standards for an independent article since the discussion resulted in a Weak keep.

If I might be so bold, maybe this could solve the Soto article issue and provide structure for the recent crop of "victim specific" articles. We just make them sub-articles and then the main one becomes the header to an "article group".

Hey, maybe a new template Template:Header article This article is the header for a group of articles, click here for the full list of related sub articles.

Or am I totally off my nut and violating a myriad of WP policies?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Father's name

The father is mentioned in the article but not by name. Should the father be mentioned by name?

We have in the section titled Perpetrator:

"Lanza's body was claimed by his father in December. No exact date was given."

And we have in the section titled Reactions:

The day after the shootings, Adam Lanza's father released a statement:

"Our hearts go out to the families and friends who lost loved ones and to all those who were injured. Our family is grieving along with all those who have been affected by this enormous tragedy. No words can truly express how heartbroken we are. We are in a state of disbelief and trying to find whatever answers we can. We too are asking why. We have cooperated fully with law enforcement and will continue to do so. Like so many of you, we are saddened, but struggling to make sense of what has transpired."

This question is addressed in this thread in Talk page archives. It is also addressed in this thread which I initiated on the WP:BLPN. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It is being left out as to maintain privacy issues for the father who is pretty much unrelated to the case outside of being the biological father. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me make clear that I have not suggested delving any deeper into the father's privacy beyond the bare mention of the name. Let me make clear that I would argue against inclusion of any other material pertaining to the father. This sort of material might include place of residence or occupation, or anything else. Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The user is one google search away from finding that information on his own. Not needed in the context of the shooting. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that "The user is one google search away from finding that information on his own." But what are we trying to accomplish by not providing the father's name in this article? Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Privacy within BLP on WP. Since we're not going to be talking about him in any great degree, we shouldn't be a google hit if people are searching for info on him. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the mainstream media operate by a different set of rules. Adding his father's name here does not add significant context per WP:BLPNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Even a Google search isn't necessary - the father's name is listed in the reference for the quotation. However, whether his father's name is George or Peter or Steve doesn't add any value to the body of the article. GoingBatty (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

specifically covered by Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names. The name does not add significant value. should not be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)Agreed this is an encyclopedia article, and the father isn't part of the event being described. Rklawton (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are we providing a lengthy quote from the father if his significance is as slight as some purport? Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question, but the significance of including his quote and the significance of including his first name in the article body are two different questions. GoingBatty (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Against Inclusion, Wow, have we already forgotten that this event includes a "name confusion" incident with the early mis-reporting of the brother's name instead of Adam Lanza? Now we're discussing naming the biological father when he clearly has no involvement. I'm with GoingBatty, MASEM, and ♦IanMacM♦ on this one.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion. We quote Peter Lanza and mention his claiming of the body. There are also cited sources that use his name in the headline, and it's standard to include someone's name with a quotation. We should either remove the quotation and all mention of him throughout or use his name. It's not like it's some big secret, and we make it clear he had not had contact with his son in some time but was providing financial support. I don't think there's any suggestion that he is complicit or guilty of anything because we include his name. Because he gave his son his own name as a middle name, I feel it actually helps clear up potential confusion. Also, let's leave this open long enough to have an actual discussion after the holidays. The last one was closed after just a few hours. Jokestress (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm flip-flopping on this one. Jokestress makes a good point with the quotation. He basically outed himself to public attention with his statement and opened himself up to the scrutiny. The reliable sources protect WP from any BLP issues.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Categorization?

An editor recently added Category:2012 deaths to this article. I was initially surprised that there doesn't seem to be a relationship between that category and Category:2012 murders in the United States (i.e. the former isn't a parent of the latter). Looking further, it seems that the former is used on biographical articles, while the latter is used for event articles, such as this. What do others think? GoingBatty (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See also and cats

In the article, the See also section has links to:

• Gun culture
• Gun laws in the United States by state

Both of them seem to be political while not directly about the event and I think they should be removed.

In addition, the Category Gun politics in the United States seems to have been similarly added and should also be removed. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. This is an article about a crime not a politics article-Justanonymous (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I also agree. This article isn't about politics, and certainly not about gun culture or gun laws. Millions of people own that type of weapon, only a handful of them did anything like this, and they were all found to be on medication that made them go crazy. Some blame video games that millions of people buy and don't commit crimes like this, but we don't bother linking to an article about video game violence or video game censor laws by state. Dream Focus 20:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

When we discussed this previously regardin the inclusion of specific links to the Cleveland and Dunblane shootings, in my opinion Joseph A. Spadaro had the most relevant and pertinent comment...

"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."

That said, lets take a look at all of the "See also" items. The three lists seem relevant because they allow a reader to delve deeper into the subject of "school related violence". Are they tangential, not really, they are just more of the same, but the lists provide a basis for a reader to expand their knowledge and draw their own conclusions.

The other three links (Gun culture, Gun laws in the United States by state, Gun violence in the United States) are in my opinion are very much tangential and serve one of the primary purposes that WP fulfills by allowing a reader to conveniently go beyond the direct subject matter and explore other topics. Perhaps even allow the reader to answer questions that might naturally result from reading the main article.

Following this logic, if there is still a question about the political nature of the links, then maybe the target articles need review of their neutrality as opposed to deleting the links. But its seems improper of us as editors to decide which of these seemingly broad topics is appropriate or not. Politicians make subject political, we're just passing along information.

As for the Categories, I'm neutral on their benefit to readers. They seem to be more of a tool for editors for article tracking and organization.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's work through that a bit. I edit the airplane forums sometimes and their disasters and in air disaster articles, the see alsos are filled with other similar accidents, they are not filled with links to politics between airbus and eads or transatlantic affairs (they're not germane). Seems to make sense to have the see alsos be about similar see alsos. We've strayed from that here. Now, please follow my logic - an issue that will arise is that if "gun culture etc" stay then someone (like me) is going to come along and put a link to "mental health" "aspergers syndrome" "autism" etc. That will draw a very strong visceral reaction from the opposing group (also like me) saying that we can't connect mental health with this particular crime and that logic would be partially sound. Then we wind up with an unbalanced article. This article is not about gun politics and it is not about mentall illness and aggression. I think the only relevant links that should go in the see also are other similar crimes like dunblane, pearl, etc and not other broader articles about the politics or mental health in general. I think Toddst1's logic is very good.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, when have we been concerned with reader or editor backlash? Given the policy on how a "See also" section is to be used and what can be included in it, personally I'm fine with including links to mental health subjects (suggestions anyone?) simply because its tangential, but relevant, to the primary story. Obviously we can't predict what information (included or excluded) is going to set someone off, we can only deal with the issue like we currently doing.

Second, we've been using the existence of WP:RS's to claim inclusion and exclusion of a variety of "facts". We need to pick a camp and stay in it. See also topics don't have to be as closely related to the article subject as you are suggesting, policy trumps precedent.

Third, I couldn't agree more that the "article is not about gun politics and it is not about mental illness and aggression.", but it does touch on those topics. We are talking about the "See also" section which is the place in any article where its OK to bring in related and/or tangential topics. Furthermore, there's a reason its towards the end of an article. Once a reader has read through the article they are presented with suggestions of other sections of WP to explore.

Lastly, my original query regarding how the "See also" section was used to challenge why the Dunblane, Cleveland, or Pearl events should get special attention. With regard to visceral reaction, this is a door I feel we should not open. Who are we to decide which of these tragedies is more important or relevant than another. Inclusion of the lists and exclusion of specific events eliminates the issue.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with keeping gun politics in there but kindof insist that if we broaden this to include gun politics that we should be allowed to include mental health and other ancillaries on this like violent mental disorders and the topic of school security and lawsuits (which we've kept out for now). Otherwise, we're partially excluding and not touching on all of the issues that are peripheral to this. We can't have just guns as the only acceptable see also category accepted. Ideally, I'd prefer to go down the path that Toddst1 proposed of not broadening the see also to a big catchnet and keep it to discrete crimes that share similar characteristics with this crime like Pearl (killer killed his mother before going to school) or Dunblane (where many children were killed). But happy to go with the consensus provided that it's balanced, If guns are fair game so is mental health, security etc in the see also.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As another observation, in most of the other articles, we don't limit the see also to dumping the list of ALL air disasters on the page, but rather call out specific accidents that share characteristics with the article being discussed. I don't understand the logic of excluding similar articles in favor of onlyallowing the master list of all school related incidents. I challenge that thinking as well, it's not common practice across Wikipedia. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because there are poorly written articles out there doesn't mean this one needs to be too. The see also section should be depopulated asap. --Malerooster (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've agreed, with depopulating it to just see alsos that directly pertain to similar crimes (I'm assuming depopulate means remove the extraneous links to ancillary topics). Do I have consensus to go do that? I've been wanting all that clutter gone for a week. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So it would appear that we have two competing POV, one for "narrow" (as in related or similar events) and one for "broad" (a variety of subjects). WP policy states this...

• Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.
• The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.
• As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section.
• 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.
• The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page).

OK, so this leaves out Virginia Tech and the Bath Bombing (which we haven't discussed) and red links have not been an issue and the link to Gun politics in the United States is off the table since its linked to in the Reactions section via "national debate on gun control". Within the article for Gun politics in the United States, there is a fairly prominent link to the Gun culture article, so there goes that. As for the Gun laws in the United States by state link, I'm so so on this simply because its so "technical" and not an easy read, but if we're going to keep the big shooting lists, then I would recommend keeping it. So what are we left with?

• Gun laws in the United States by state
• List of attacks related to primary schools
• List of school-related attacks
• List of school shootings in the United States

Is our only solution "delete or not"? Is there a way to integrate the Dunblane and Pearl events into the body of the article so we can leave the "See also" somewhat broad and/or bring in other tangential issues?

Or, do we just ditch the "See also" section altogether and assume we have a "high quality" article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• So far everyone but you has been against Gun laws, gun culture, and gun politics being in there. Please don't try to add any of that back in if the majority of people are against it. And remember, if people don't feel like responding to your long drawn out discussion, that doesn't mean they agree with you, they just don't feel like arguing nonstop, since there is no way to convince you, and this will just drag on forever. Dream Focus 02:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that Gun laws in the United States by state has been removed from the article, so this comment may be moot, but I agree with it's removal. Taking Scalhotrod's logic a bit further, the Investigation section already has the words "legally owned" linked to Gun laws in the United States, which could then take the user to Gun laws in the United States by state.

Also, Gun laws in the United States by state contains information about 49 other states (plus DC) that aren't relevant to this event. If someone wanted to make an argument saying that there may be some merit to including a link to Gun laws in Connecticut in the See also section or somewhere else in the article (such as changing the Investigation section so that the words "Connecticut law" link to Gun laws in Connecticut), that would seem more reasonable to me. GoingBatty (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We are being too sensitive about political implications of links to other articles in the "See also" section. I would be content with more links. These are for the purpose of being perused by readers. The "See also" section can be a useful resource. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has sparked public debate on topics such as gun ownership, protecting children in schools, and mental health. I think that we could link to both Gun laws in Connecticut and Gun laws in the United States by state. (See WP:SEEALSO.) I think we are agonizing over something that is not such a big deal. Unless a candidate for the "See also" section is already linked to in the article I think we should err on the side inclusion of links to other articles that may hold interest even if only to a minority of readers. Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The point right now is that until investigators give out explicit reasons for why this tragedy occurred, we should be careful of any subtle connection that may imply something (See for example the issue about DNA testing that we've worked through before). We should be careful right now to say there's major gun control issues here - mentioned the leaders' response towards it is fine, but, for example, linking to the gun laws by state implies that there was a problem with the CT gun control laws, even if that's the intent. Also remember that if the links are already used in the article prose, their repeating in See Also is inappropriate. So we can mention the CT laws when we're talking about Lanza being denied a gun (since that's part of the laws), but that's we should link to. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the article Gun violence in the United States be included in the See also section of this article? Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why not to include that one (unless we've linked to it already in the prose). --MASEM (t) 05:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So complete neutrality wins the day?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013

I wanted to include under his high school days "He was reported to be a Satan worshiper"

Sources http://www.christianpost.com/news/adam-lanzas-rampage-was-fueled-by-satan-86860/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250608/Adam-Lanzas-classmate-reveals-Sandy-Hook-gunman-online-devil-worshiping-page.html www.examiner.com/ article/ former-classmate-connecticut-school-shooter-adam-lanza-worshipped-the -devil -

Also I think it should be pointed out that he had practice for the massacre by his being an avid gamer. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/playtime_in_den_of_doom_vYB2VlXSBEW8Di7pMo1leJ www.infowars.com/ mass-shooter-adam-lanza-spent-hours-playing-call-of-duty

Lu kang-sung (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)