Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 3

Bushmaster rifle

I don't know where someone got reference that a bushmaster .223 caliber rifle is favored by deer hunters, but that particular rifle caliber is not legal to hunt deer with, the caliber is too small. Also, a bushmaster .223 is the same thing as an M-16, or M-4, the same weapon used by soldiers. Check your facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.178.188 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think someone removed it, I will double check. Yes, the Bushmaster .223 is a the semi-auto civilian version of the M-16. Despite its name, it is NOT favored by any kind of deer hunter. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 19:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see that in there anymore, and they are legal in some areas and not in others (I'm a former FFL holder). While only my personal opinion, I agree, it is a lousy caliber for deer hunting even where they are legal and would be original research in this context anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This rifle is referred to as an "assault rifle" which is technically wrong . A real assault rifle is a select-fire rifle capable of fully-automatic fire. The rife found at the crime scene is most certainly NOT fully-automatic capable. Semi-automatic riles such as these are sometimes politically refereed to "assault WEAPONS" based on their cosmetic features, but are functionally identical to any other semi-automatic rifle.Byerss (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

They are correct in using the term assault rifle as it was defined in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The definition is here: under definition of an assault weapon. When the law expired in 2004, the decade in which it was in place helped define to people the term 'assault weapon' as being synonymous with the definition in the law.Aneah|talk _to ^me 06:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, double check media reports that discuss weapons. Most in the media do not have much technical knowledge of guns, and it's very easy for them to make mistakes. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

" "I believe everybody was hit more than once," said Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the state of Connecticut's Chief Medical Examiner. Two handguns were also found at the scene, but Carver described the Bushmaster as the killer's primary weapon. A fourth weapon was found nearby." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.50.173 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012 (re rifle)

Section "Shooting", the last line reads "including a Bushmaster assault rifle", this is incorrect! As per the Wikipedia definition of an "Assault Rifle" - "An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle" . The rifle used in the Sandy Hook mass-murder suicide was semi-automatic and did not have the capability to fire fully automatic or in burst mode - such items have been prohibited since 1986 and only "assult rifles" manufactured and registered before that time are legal to possess by civilians - after submitting application fee and filing forms with the BATFE. The forms must be precluded by an interview with a head of local law enforcement, who has to give written consent on those forms once he/she is satisfied of intended owners legal use. Extensive background checks are performed by the BATFE and other federal authorities over 3-9 months before requesting or denying the transfer of said assault rifle (or other prohibited item). ABC News reports "Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle at close range" Please change "assault rifle" to it's correct definition of "semi-automatic rifle". Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are limited to firing one projectile per separate pull of the trigger. Unlike true military assault rifles, which have selector switches enabling them to fire more than one projectile while holding the trigger down. An M16 and an M4 are examples of military assault rifles that may look similar to civilian semi-automatic rifles, but they have vastly different firing capabilities. Also, be mindful in using the term "assult weapon". Any weapon used to assault someone is an assault weapon. If a bat is used to beat someone, then it becomes an assault weapon. If a kitchen knife is used to stab someone, it then becomes an assault weapon. Because a few individual semi-automatic rifles are used in crimes to assault people does not make the millions of legally used target, hunting or competition rifles into the scary sounding "assault weapons". Semi-Automatic rifles that appear visually to look like military "assault rifles" are too often called "assault weapons" in an attempt to scare the public who is unfamiliar with firearms - please don't fall into using such inaccuracies. Thank you. Steveday72 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not doneThe source describes the rifle as an "assault rifle." While I am aware that this is a contentious term, we are expected to reflect the sources in our writing, not what we know. As the coverage of this current event stabilizes, hopefully more accurate descriptions of all aspects of this will become available in reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

?? Your source is based on outdated information from early yesterday. The New source posted today on ABC News details the coroner's report by "Dr. H. Wayne Carver" (the state of Connecticut's Chief Medical Examiner) and it correctly identifies the rifle as "a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle" [2]. Steveday72 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "contentious" term, it's a factually incorrect term. 69.73.47.181 (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "assault rifle" does not occur in the current version of the article. Let's move on. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Motive source

Please replace the twitter-linked "According to Andrea McCarren, a multimedia journalist at WUSA-TV, the CBS station in Washington, D.C., "Police say evidence obtained on computer files reveals info on not just the how of the massacre, but the why".[54]" with a reliable source regarding motive such as | Police find "good evidence" on motive for Connecticut school massacre

Done. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Mother's connection to the school

I've seen a couple of sources that call into question whether the mother had any connection with the school. Here is the NYTimes:

News reports on Friday suggested that Ms. Lanza had worked at the elementary school, but at a news conference on Saturday, the school superintendent said there was no evidence that Ms. Lanza had ever worked at the school as a full-time or substitute teacher, or in any other capacity. The authorities said it was not clear why Mr. Lanza went to the school.

[3]

Right now we're saying that she was a volunteer, but I don't see a specific source. GabrielF (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If there's no source, then that information should be removed. Once we know why he went to that school, we can add it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Marsha Lanza, who is Adam's aunt and Nancy's ex-sister-in-law, told Evelyn Holmes of ABC-owned-and-operated station WLS in Chicago that Nancy had once been a classroom aide at the Sandy Hook school." [4] 24.151.50.173 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source from ABC, which says she "had once been a classroom aide at the Sandy Hook school."[5] I heard TV reports on ABC and NBC, which both said she had been an aide in the past, but not recently. She was definitely never an employee; just a volunteer. This one says "had at one time worked as a “classroom aide” at the school."[6] --76.189.123.142 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012

Additional victim identified: Lauren Rousseau Baharris18 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

edit request Lauren Rousseau

I added Lauren Rousseau

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-victims-newtown-shooting-20121214,0,2290518.story?obref=obinsite

Lauren Rousseau, 30, landed the subsitute job in November and was one of the six adults who died in the shooting, family members confirmed, along with first-grade teacher Victoria Soto, a first-grade teacher, principal Dawn L. Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary J. Sherlach.

but the href seems busted, and if anyone can change that to link her to the Obit page, that would help.

Thanks

--Patbahn (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Pol430 talk to me 00:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

References

list of victims

The Times has posted what appears to be an official list of victims here: [7]. I don't know if this is a permanent link since it comes from the live updates on their Lede blog. GabrielF (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Permalink from ABC: [8] 24.151.50.173 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Newtown paper has an official list according to CSP, http://newtown.patch.com/articles/police-release-the-names-of-20-children-six-adults-killed-in-newtownPatbahn (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we put the lists into prose? They look awful in the current format. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Attempted, but it was removed from the article for being a copy or something. Super Goku V (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

...and now both have been removed from the article. Super Goku V (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Would this donation link be a suitable add for article?

I can't add so I have to suggest here:

https://newtown.uwwesternct.org/

It is a donation link to help everyone affected by the tragedy. Would it have a place on the article anywhere? Thanks. --70.179.167.78 (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the exact rules, but offhand, I believe the answer is no. However, one thing that might work is that you if know of an official news article that mentions the donation URL, you could perhaps insert the following: "An official donation fund has been created for those who wish to help those affected by the tragedy," followed by a citation. That's just my suggestion, though, and it may not even be correct - perhaps someone else has another idea? ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would say no; however noble their goals, we cannot promote one organization over others for fundraising, since it causes Wikipedia to not be neutral. (We would have to list all organizations that might send aid, which is an impossible task and beyond the scope of Wikipedia.) Even if the school set up an "official" donation, that would have similar problems. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP:Five pillars forces us to be emotionally unattached to the subject matter, which isn't always easy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis is right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You are quite correct that thee proposed wording would not be suitable. However if it is considered significant there is no reason that we cannot say "An official assistance fund was created at https://newtown.uwwesternct.org." This is NPOV and will still be true in 6 months and 6 years. Rich Farmbrough, 04:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

Weapon used in the shooting was a rifle, suicide of shooter performed with a handgun

The medical examiner confirmed that all victims were shot with a "rifle", and .223 (rifle round) shell casings were found in the building. Considering that the shooter's Bushmaster rifle, the only one he had with him, was found in the car, and his body was in a classroom, it only makes sense that he carried out the active shooting with the rifle, before putting it back in the car at some point, and taking his own life with one of the four handguns he had in his possession after returning to the building. One was confirmed as a Glock of an unknown model or caliber, and another was a SIG-Sauer of an unknown model and caliber. The other two handguns are at this point unidentified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPDG2340 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference confirming which weapons were used where? --Crunch (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not the OP, but here's one from NBC "“Everybody’s death was caused by gunshot wounds and obviously the manner of death on all these cases have been classified as homicide,” Carver said. He said the primary weapon was a rifle. He said that he personally performed seven autopsies and those children had between three and 11 wounds each. Two of them were shot at close range, the others at a distance. “This is a very devastating set of injuries,” Carver said. “I believe everyone was hit more than once.” Asked whether the victims suffered, he replied, “Not for very long.” He said he will perform an autopsy on the gunman, Adam Lanza, 20, who is believed to have shot himself with one of two handguns he carried." " [9] 24.151.50.173 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This does not address the point about which kind of gun was used in the suicide. --Crunch (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

.”... He said he will perform an autopsy on the gunman, Adam Lanza, 20, who is believed to have shot himself with one of two handguns he carried." 24.151.50.173 (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OP here, I was using my problem solving that if he used the rifle inside, and his body was inside but the rifle in the car, logically he only could have used the handgun in the suicide. This was before the reports of the second rifle found in the car, so I may be wrong.

Victims section

formatting

Someone is making a mess out of formatting the victims section. I suggest that if you are not comfortable editing and formatting Wikipedia articles, you leave it alone and wait for someone more skilled to come along. --Crunch (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I tried. The amount of people trying to edit is insane! Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes!--Auric 23:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The victims list formatting is constantly morphing. I suggest we choose a format and stick with it.

I propose a gray background (or white background with a border) table, floated to the right of the text in the Victims section, as it was earlier, without the green background heading. I recommend something similar to the list in the Columbine shootings article. - MrX 23:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

inclusion of Adam Lanza

In the Victims section: is Adam Lanza himself not included among the victims for, well, emotional reasons or reasons of sensitivity? I can understand not wanting to call the perpetrator a "victim" but he is among the dead and should probably be listed, given that the death totals include him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.62.9 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? The perpetrator of a crime is not a victim. Period. There were 27 victims and 1 perpetrator for a total of 28 dead. That is why there is a Victims section and a separate Perpetrator section. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I accidentally posted this without logging in, then again with logging in. I'm looking just at the list of dead in the box it appears in, which says "killed" not "victims" (even though it's under the Victims section). TricksterWolf (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I resolved this by changing the box heading to "Victim Fatalities", in line with the Cleveland School massacre#The shooting article. --pmj (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's good, Pmj. One question, though... shouldn't it be "Victim fatalities" to match section titling rules? I'm not sure if that applies to boxes, also. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't perpetrator be in "Killed in the Shootings"?

Shouldn't the perpetrator himself be listed in the shooting deaths section? I'm sure there are emotional calls to avoid describing him as a "victim" given the horrific nature of the crime, but seeing as the body count includes him, it seems reasonable that his name should be among the deaths (with a parenthetic 'perpetrator' next to it, perhaps). TricksterWolf (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The exact same question was asked right above this. The answer is the same: "The perpetrator of a crime is not a victim. Period. There were 27 victims and 1 perpetrator for a total of 28 dead. That is why there is a Victims section and a separate Perpetrator section". And that list in the box should be titled "Victims killed in the shootings", not just "Killed in the shooting". Better yet, it should simply be "Victims killed". That box is meant to be attached to the Victims section. Apparently, there is also at least one person who was shot, but not killed (as of now). So perhaps the box title should be changed to "Victims" with a parenthetical note that all were killed except those with a * next to their name. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I know. They're both my question; the first one posted by mistake, when I tried to merge a change. I've tried three times to merge the two identical questions, and someone is undoing the changes.

As for your concern that I'm treating the perp as a "victim", please note that the box doesn't say "victim" anywhere on it, hence my question. I think the fellow in the other discussion has addressed my question appropriately, however. (Editing this right now is a nightmare on wheels.) TricksterWolf (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need a table to list the victims?

IS there another way we can place the information in that does not involve a big table? The table is causing a big break in the chat. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• The chat? Are you proposing that we list them in narrative for like 2012 Aurora shooting#Victims? If so, why do you think that's better? - MrX 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Xe means the article prose. And the cause of the problem is the {{clear}} at the end of the section. Have you all considered a three-column table, divided into the 6 adults and two groups of 10 children? Uncle G (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I considered and would be open to a multi-column list. Meanwhile, I can address the clear issue (unless someone already has). - MrX 00:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Here's one way of doing a multiple-column list. Adjust colours to taste. I picked them arbitrarily. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Killed in the shootings

Adults	Children
Rachel Davino, 29, teacher Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, 47, principal Nancy Lanza (née Champion), 52, perpetrator's mother Anne Marie Murphy, 52, teacher Lauren Rousseau, 30, permanent substitute teacher Mary Sherlach, 56, school psychologist Victoria "Vicki" Soto, 27, first grade teacher	Charlotte Bacon, 6 Daniel Barden, 7 Olivia Engel, 6 Josephine Gay, 7 Dylan Hockley, 6 Madeline F. Hsu, 6 Catherine Violet Hubbard, 6	Chase Kowalski, 7 Jesse Lewis, 6 Ana Marquez-Greene, 6 James Mattioli, 6 Grace McDonnell, 6 EmilIe Parker, 6 Jack Pinto, 6	Noah Pozner, 6 Caroline Previdi, 6 Jessica Rekos, 6 Avielle Richman, 6 Benjamin Wheeler, 6 Allison N. Wyatt, 6

• I would prefer to have no color. It might get long if we decide to add in how/where they were shot, but it looks good for now.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 00:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think it looks good as well, but the colors should all be a neutral tone (perhaps #f9f9f9 for the top bar and #f0f0f0 for the bottom two bars?). - MrX 00:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said, adjust to taste. Uncle G (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a great first draft. But how about any victims that were shot, but did not die? Apparently, there's at least one right now. Also, "Killed in the shootings" seems odd. How about a title that's a little more professional and concise, such as "Deceased victims"? After all, this is going to be part of the Victims section, so I think the word "victims" should be in the the title. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Do I have to say "adjust to taste" again? ☺ Only the columnization is the important thing in the above. Uncle G (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Would we add Adam Lanza under adults?  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 00:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Look up ⇑. Uncle G (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I have, in the meantime, changed the formatting a bit to make it look a little less space-hogging. gwickwire^talk_edits 00:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Lanza absolutely should not be included on the chart. The chart should be the names of victims only. See Virginia Tech massacre. If you don't include the word "victims" in the heading, many editors will question why Lanza isn't on the list. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
        • As I just did. Lanza absolutely should not be listed under victims, but he was killed in the shootings.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 00:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
          • As you just did what? Isn't the chart going in the Victims section? If so, then the table should be the names of victims only. And having a general "Killed in the shootings" chart is a very bad idea; mixing in the perpetrator with his victims. The article will forever get complaints if that's done. Again, if this table is going in the Victims section, then it obviously should only list victims. I'm not messing around with the table; I'm giving my thoughts. Calm your temper, particularly with those trying to help and improve the article. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
            • I questioned why Lanza wasn't on the list, thus proving your point. Uncle G, I don't want to adjust the table. Stop implying I can't read.  TheArguer  _{SAY HI!} 01:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
              • No-one has implied that you cannot read. Although you haven't noticed who I've been replying to. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
        • So do that, then. Or do I have to say "adjust to taste" a fourth time? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made a tweak to make the header a little more readable. I also made the background the same for adults and children, and increased the width of the first column. Thoughts? - MrX 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reconsidered. The proposed chart above is too much and will be unnecessary clutter. The chart that's currently in the article, which can have some minor adjustments, is totally appropriate and in line with the lists in the Columbine and Virginia Tech articles. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd leave out Nancy Lanza's maiden name. It doesn't seem necessary there, and removing it would make her line cleaner. LadyofShalott 03:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's moot. The list currently in the article is excellent and will probably stand; it matches the format of the Virginia Tech list. All names are included in a nice, clean-looking list and it's fully sourced. And of course Nancy Lanza's name should be on the list; she's a victim just like everyone else, even if it didn't happen at the school. There have been many multiple-victim shootings that have happened at different locations. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

References

POV Content?

I removed the following, as it seemed somewhat POV, possibly undue and not well-sourced:

The day after the events, Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, stated: "Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun."

Source

Thoughts? - MrX 22:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good removal; this sort of commentary (regardless of viewpoint) should only be considered if it is widely and independently re-reported in the context of the subject of this article. VQuakr (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitally a good removal. I doubt any major news network has wrote an article on his statement, or even mentioned his organization in their coverage. Undue weight unless they do. Thanks for removing it. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure to be honest. We have quotes in the article from Huckabee regarding religion, from Bloomberg calling for more legislation, why not have one from someone on the other side of the spectrum? Or should the reaction section be removed if we cannot balance it out? We all know that the subject of gun control has always been a hotly debated topic, I'm not sure using this article is the proper place for the inclusion of such material or rhetoric when it can easily be included elsewhere. Just my opinion.Aneah|talk _to ^me 23:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Per UNDUE and NPOV, just because we have one opinion doesn't mean we need to have a 'reply' or counteropinion if it has been barely covered, particularly in a case like this where there is large amount of coverage. Huckabee's opinion seems to be gone, but even if it were in the article, we don't need to have a reply even if we could find a source discussing the content removed above in the context of Huckabee's comment. Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. It violates WP:UNDUE. The idea that gun control caused the severity of this event is certainly a minority viewpoint. Ryan Vesey 00:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That it's a minority viewpoint doesn't matter. That this is an article on the tragedy and not people's reactions to the tragedy is what matters. We can't just delete minority viewpoints. What we need to do is exclude all viewpoints. There are enough facts here that we don't need no stinking viewpoints. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

this quote is now publishes in British newspapers The Observer and as such should be part of this article as it puts the whole tragedy in a context for the rest of the world. It does I am afraid help paint a "balanced viewpoint" and Wikipedia is striving to be a neutral balanced encyclopeda! Edmund Patrick – confer 08:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, its just another opportunistic politician, who is going to use it as platform to push his agenda, regardless of what actually happened or if his issues bare relevance. Something todo with public outrage greasing red tapes.--Mor2 (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above but the quote is all part of the complex mosaic of humanity and as now also being quoted elsewhere in UK have now added it. Edmund Patrick – confer 09:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not really appropriate to re-add this content when there is a lack of consensus to do so, and several editors have raised concerns of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. It looks like someone had already reverted it though. - MrX 14:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by family members

We are now starting to see paragraphs about each of the statements made by victims' families. I suggest we not do this. Eventually this will be a lot of people and unless they say something that adds substantive information to the facts of the crime, it's not relevant or important for this article. Simply expressing thanks for the support they've received or saying how much they loved the victim is not enough. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL . --Crunch (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - There's no reason not to summarize those responses, much as we did with the international condolences. - MrX 23:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Rifle location error

This sentence "A .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle was found in the back of a car in the parking lot.[33]" conflicts with the findings in the same paragraph. I'd fix it but I'm concerned about screwing up the refs. hydnjo (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. hydnjo (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous pronouns in lede

The several "he"s did not disambiguate well so I replaced a couple with the proper names of the two brothers. Hope that's OK. Shannock9 (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Two questions

Why was the picture of the mother removed? She's dead, not other free picture is available, and my second question is why was Ryan Lanza at the scene if he had nothing to do with the shooting. Keeeith (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

He was not at the scene - where does it say this in the article? Tvoz/talk 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the image and tagged it per WP:NFCC#8. The inclusion of a picture depicting one of the victims does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject matter. There must be a valid justification for infringing on the photographer's copyright in order to meet fair use. --auburnpilot talk 00:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the fact that the subject of an image is dead does not mean that hundreds or even thousands of images of that subject aren't available for donation. And if absolutely no photographer is willing to donate an image, that doesn't give us the right to steal it from one of them. Rklawton (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Poor Editor

I don't even know what this person's thinking, waste of time to read (with all due respect)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this Run by THE MEDIA trying to get WEB HITS on their sites? Look at all the complaints above. And why is editing limited to who that being considered? Police investigated whether Lanza was the person who had been in a reported "altercation" with four staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School the day before the massacre. It was presumed that he killed two of such four staff members (the principal and the psychologist) and wounded the third (the vice-principal) in the attack; the fourth staff member was not at the school that day.[30] But Lt. J. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police noted in a news conference later that he knew of no reports about Lanza being involved in any altercations at the school.[31] I read the above reference which references several other articles and cannot remotely find the above. Please remove "a" from the below... 30 # ^ a b c "Newtown gunman had 'altercation' with school staff day before massacre". NBC News. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/15/15926718-newtown-gunman-had-altercation-with-school-staff-day-before-massacre?lite. Retrieved December 15, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.81.201 (talk • contribs) 2012 12 16 00:36:20

Misspelling

"superintendant" in the "Perpetrator" section should be "superintendent" 87.189.164.199 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you, Garion96 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Shooting occurred in two rooms only

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

Do you have a link to that? JDHuff185 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have seen "two rooms" in media reports but it did not spell out which rooms. I then saw "two classrooms" in media reports meaning the original "two rooms" probably meant "two classrooms" as we have the office, the conference room with a women getting wounded by being shot through the door (she was holding it close to keep the shooter out), wherever Ms. Soto was shot, along with the classrooms. In terms of this article, we'll probably need to wait until next week when the magazines come out with diagrams showing the rooms. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Suppress Wikipedia Fundraising Appeal Pop-Up for This Page?

Would it be possible for Wikipedia to prevent its fundraising pop-up message from displaying on this page? Is there support and/or precedent for temporarily suppressing Wikipedia's fundraising requests on certain pages out of concern for the sensitivity and emotional impact of a recent and particularly tragic event? Drtheuth (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is technically possible, I'll make a note at User talk:Okeyes (WMF). Ryan Vesey 01:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless, if it's technically possible I Support immediately this proposal, as it seems bad that we would be fundraising for ourselves instead of (if anyone) the victims. Not saying we fundraise for victims, but it's kind of heartless to say "give us money" on an article about a recent tragedy. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  I understand the concern, but that doesn't seem like a particularly neutral approach. If we make a special exception for this article, does that mean that we've deemed it okay to raise funds by exploiting the Chinese children attacked on the same day? —David Levy 02:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• The only reason to remove the ad begging from this article would be the potential embarassment for our project. But even that is a not good enough reason, not by a long shot. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

28 Killed?

http://www.news.com.au/world/feared-dead-in-school-shooting/story-fndir2ev-1226537283734

Also instead of "primary school" it should be Elementary... In the United States they call it Elementary..

irrelevance of Chinese stabbings

Someone keeps adding references to a recent Chinese stabbing to the article. It has absolutely nothing to do with this story, and the fact that bloggers are blogging is not notable. Please don't restore this information until various reliable sources find it of enough importance in regards to this attack, not just "violence", to say so. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This news is merely co-incidental and does not help readers understand the primary topic of the article. I have removed it, pending consensus to re-introduce it into the article. - MrX 02:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the Chinese stabbing is being used by pro-gun websites and commentators to "prove" that guns are not a problem in schools: violence could happen even if there are no guns, so what's the fuss? It's already popped up on my Facebook page, among other places that I've seen. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty ridiculous, if you consider the fatality differences in the two attacks. Surely someone in the media has been tying the two attacks together, in discussing the similarities and differences. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't prove guns arent a problem. Intentionally misinterpreting your opponents arguments is a fairly weak debate technique. It does prove that crazy/evil people will use the tools at hand. see also School_attacks_in_China_(2010–2011) Osaka school massacre Akihabara massacre [10] Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is anyone making this comparison anywhere. We don't link earthquakes and hurricanes because they happen on the same day or New Coke and iPhone 5 because bloggers compare them. Let's please drop the synthesis whatever we think it signifies. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2012/12/china-watches-newtown-guns-american-credibility.html
• http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/15/gun-control-obama-shooting/1771417/
• http://www.krqe.com/dpps/news/us/sympathy-over-us-school-shooting-stretches-globe-nd12-tvw_5089960
• http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-14/news/chi-school-shooting-editorial-20121214_1_dunblane-primary-school-kindergartens
• http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/12/is_the_newtown.php
• http://hiphopwired.com/2012/12/14/22-children-stabbed-in-chinese-primary-school-photos/

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's nice, but every source you have given is marked blog or opinion. Adding this material is WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. Plenty of people are comparing this to Virginia Tech and Hurricane Sandy. It's simply irrelevant. Until there's some actual connection outside the minds of bloggers it's out of place here. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, the article is currently full of opinion and reactions? however, the Chicagotrib one is an editorial. the krqe is straight up news. and blogs from sources that have editorial control (such as the new yorker and the village voice) are generally considered reliable. These are not blogspot randome joe bloggers. Its not synthesis when its done by others. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A local television station broadcast short on facts and heavy on pathos doesn't justify this pointy undue weight. Other than the date there is no connection here. None. Unless the name of this article is cowardice. But it's not. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not POV. The pointedness goes both ways. Attacks will happen anyway. Attacks with things other than guns tend to be less deadly. Exactly how many sources do you demand before you will graciously allow a one line mention? Gaijin42 (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/15/schools-targets-worldwide/1771075/
• http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339118
• http://www.costaricantimes.com/a-genocide-of-innocence-meditations-after-the-connecticut-shootings/9059

Gaijin42 (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is a relevance through the coincidence that these two events happened on the same day. This has inevitably led to comparison between the two events in a number of news and other sources. I think it is worth a mention at least. The article about the Chinese attack mentions this one. Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Still no consensus

There is still no consensus to add this unrelated incident to this article, no matter how many references are added to it. Sources are necessary, but not sufficient (by themselves) for inclusion. Editors should stop adding this content unless and until consensus is established. - MrX 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's a vote, but by my quick count, we have

• Medeis, Orange Mike and MrX - against inclusion
• Gaijin42, Muboshgu and Wikipeterproject - for inclusion

- MrX 17:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Rename title, second attempt

While I understand the reasoning behind the current title, and the fact that other school shootings have been given names like this, I don’t think this is where the page should be located. From what I can see, in the media, this event is usually called “Newtown shootings”, “Newtown school massacre”, “Newtown school shootings”, “Connecticut school massacre”, “Connecticut school shooting”, and the occasional “Sandy Hook school shooting”. Now, obviously one can’t call this article “Connecticut school x”. But I’d think that something like “Newtown school shooting” or “massacre” is more appropriate. These seem to be the most common. However, I wouldn’t be against “Sandy Hook school shooting”. I do however, don’t think it is necessary to include the “elementary” as if to recount the schools full name. This is a title almost never used in the media, and quite frankly, superfluous. Now, I don’t have proper empirical data, but from searching major news outlets, it seems like the BBC uses “Newtown shootings” (what’s with the plural? Should the title be plural because more than one person was shot?) [11]. ABC (the American one) uses “Newtown school shooting” [12]. NBC also has “Newtown shooting” [13]. Massacre is starting to appear in some sources, at the moment, it seems, more in newspapers. Well, I’m not sure. But I think, right now, I would go with either “Newtown school shooting(s)” or Newtown school massacre”. RGloucester (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on the current Google News results: "Connecticut school shooting" is used most often with around 722,000 results. A search for the plural form, "Connecticut school shootings", gives around 27,600 results. A search for just "Connecticut shooting(s)" gives around 144,000 results and 18,100 results.

For the Newtown titles, a search for the more specific "Newtown school shooting" gives around 61,900 results. I think the reason why many titles use the plural form is because there were multiple shootings (of children) involved in the incident, not just a single shooting, although it can also be used to refer to a general single-event mass shooting. In any case, "Newtown shooting" is used more often than "Newtown shootings" with around 71,400 results for "Newtown shooting" vs. 10,100 for "Newtown shootings".

For the Sandy Hook titles, the current title, "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting", gives around 42,400 results, while "Sandy Hook shooting" and "Sandy Hook school shooting gives around 31,600 and 13,700 results, respectively.

Based on these results, if we follow WP:COMMONNAME, the title of this article should be located at Connecticut school shooting, rather than the current title at "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting". If someone wants to start a move request, feel free to do so, but it may be more helpful to use a specific title rather than a general one considering this is an encyclopedia article (that should clearly identify a topic and maintain a historical viewpoint/scope), not a new article that follows whatever is hot/trending/occurring at the time. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The above exchange illustrates why it's too soon for a move request. As is typical at this early stage, numerous descriptions are appearing in the media, with none clearly predominating (apart from "Connecticut school shooting", which is suitable for news reports but too vague for use as our article's title, given the fact that other school shootings have occurred in Connecticut) and a possible shift from "shooting" to "massacre" only beginning to occur. Until the situation stabilizes (and a de facto name emerges), any attempt to settle on a title is a futile distraction.

To answer the question regarding the BBC's use of "shootings", I've noticed in the past that the plural form is common in British English (which we obviously don't use for American subjects). —David Levy 04:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't see, the most common term being used by far is "Connecticut school shooting" (725,000 results vs 145,000 for the next most used). "Connecticut school massacre" only gives 21,200 results and "Newtown massacre only gives 9,890 results for now. Anyways, we still need to wait at least a week or a month before assessing which title is the common name. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I explained why "Connecticut school shooting" is a suitable description in news reports but not an appropriate title for an encyclopedia article (and you just expanded your earlier message in a manner that appears to reflect agreement).

I concur that it's too soon to assess the event's common name. That's why a move request is premature. —David Levy 04:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(Alright no more assumptions. I never disagreed so stop assuming; delete the unnecessary comment or don't address this). The article will still need to be moved to Sandy Hook School shooting since the current title is incorrect according to the photo (see a few sections down). - M0rphzone (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(Alright no more assumptions. I never disagreed so stop assuming; delete the unnecessary comment or don't address this).

Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to.

The article will still need to be moved to Sandy Hook School shooting since the current title is incorrect according to the photo (see a few sections down).

If the school's name is incorrect, that's true. But many sources refer to it as "Sandy Hook Elementary School", so I'm not sure that's the case.

The sign is inconclusive evidence. It appears to be quite old, and it's possible that the school was renamed at some point. I personally attended an elementary school whose official name was "_____ Elementary School", but whose old sign read "_____ School". —David Levy 05:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

official website <-- According to the official website of the Sandy Hook Elementary School, it does in fact have the word Elementary in it. However, the principal, now deceased, (in a letter to parents before the incident), states Sandy Hook School repeatedly message. I can't do more research right now, as that letter made me tear up, but do with those two links what ya'll will. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw the same webpage. I don't know whether one name is more official than the other is, but it's clear that the school system uses both. —David Levy 05:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yea, there appears to be contradictions in usage. I looked at the school district's website, and they use "Sandy Hook School" as a link title, but the page title uses "Sandy Hook Elementary School". The official title is most likely "Sandy Hook Elementary School", but they may just use "Sandy Hook School" since there is only one school in that area named "Sandy Hook". For the previous comment, your little side comment was unhelpful and it looks like you're attempting to mind read, so stop. If you don't understand completely, stop assuming and wait for others to clarify first. I clarified my original comment; I didn't "change to reflect an agreement". - M0rphzone (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood. I meant that your expansion of the message indeed served as a clarification, leading to my understanding that you and I seem to be in agreement on that point.

It wasn't a criticism. It was an acknowledgment that you'd written something similar to what I sought to convey. —David Levy 06:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Messy

This is very messy & unsourced:

"It is not clear whether" he had a job or not, or if he was enolled at college. "There were suggestions" ... "his mother mother was unable to work as well." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.144.112 (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm yes. I just read the article given as a reference. I've made a tweak to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

unneeded information

"The mainstream media's comments and speculation about autism and Asperger syndrome have been criticized by advocates of the autistic." is unneeded information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.57.118 (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I asked for this to be included (someone else added it), at this point I'm inclined to replace it with the much wider and more mainstream body of reactions by academic, think-tank, and government authorities discussing the need for more easily available mental health care services. (I don't think the gun control debate belongs anywhere near this article, because the common handguns were stolen from an entirely legitimate owner.) Others' thoughts? 2010 SO16 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That depends on whether one finds owning handguns "legitimate". Regardless, as far as the autism bit is concerned, I agree with the IP above me, but I think we have to wait. A “reactions” section will come later, after we know more about whats going on. I think, for the moment, we should hold off on speculating about implications, whether they be about gun control or mental healthcare. 138.16.100.197 (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The mother obtained her guns legally, thus her ownership of them was legitimate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Some people believe that it is never legitimate to own a gun, myself included. To want to own something that was designed specifically to kill or seriously injure seems depraved. It implies that the owner believes they have the capability to use the gun, and therefore kill. Regardless, many people feel as I do. That makes the IP's comment about the “gun control debate" bunk. Either way, we should hold off until reactions have fomented. 192.91.235.68 (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

They and you are factually wrong. It's a constitutional right. A lot of folks think abortion is not "legitimate", either; that it's murder. And they're also wrong. It's legal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. There isn't a country in the world that is afraid of such a piece of paper like the United States. It is changeable, and should be. That's why Thomas Jefferson said that it need to be rewritten for each generation, because times would change. Times have changed. Our Constitution hasn't worked. I’m fairly certain you can't exclude the gun control debate from this article because the Constitution has a vague reference to forming militias and bearing arms. RGloucester (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the "mainstream media" sentence: its sourcing was two advocacy websites and a FOX opinion piece. There are problems: that the media actually covered the topic is unproven (and if and how that was covered is actually not covered in our article), and that the criticism is notable and relevant is not borne out by any kind of sourcing. The two advocacy groups are themselves participants in this debate; relevance calls for more than just their voicing their displeasure. Now the "gun control debate"--there are plenty of reliable sources that note that this discussion is again flaring up, and the 100,000 people signing the White House's We The People thing is reliably sourced. IP 138, our article is not speculating about gun control, but it should say that the shooting led to renewed discussion--which is undeniable. But I'll leave that for other editors to include; sourcing it is easy. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone have objections to the main points of these?

• http://www.ktvb.com/news/CT-shooting-ignites-calls-for-more-access-to-mental-healthcare-183659631.html
• http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/198261/how-can-we-explain-shootings-if-we-dont-report-on-mental-illness/
• http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/us-mental-health-system-is-broken-why-we-can-expect-more-mass-murders
• http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140167676/nations-jails-struggle-with-mentally-ill-prisoners
• http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/09/05/us-number-mentally-ill-prisons-quadrupled

2010 SO16 (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

How is a 2011 story from NPR relevant? The article from the Boise station strikes me as a bit local, the Poynter article is an op-ed piece, and so is the New Jersey Newsroom article. So, no. If this is to be relevant, that there is a widespread call for improvements etc., it will have to be better sourced. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"More Americans receive mental health treatment in prisons and jails than in hospitals or treatment centers " was the quote from the NPR piece I want to use to back up the main points in the others.

How about these?

• http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/15/sandy-hook-shooting-why-did-lanza-target-a-school/
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297104578181583018831100.html ("Jeannie Pasacreta, the local psychologist, wondered about warning signs missed with Adam Lanza, the alleged gunman. Her oldest son was in the same graduating class as Mr. Lanza, she said, and had recalled a loner who didn't display unusual behavior. 'When you have mental health problems in a quiet compliant way, people don't pay attention....'")
• http://www.jsonline.com/news/134341463.html (and the sub-articles it links to)
• http://www.loscerritosnews.net/2012/12/14/rep-grace-napolitano-calls-for-congressional-conversation-on-mental-health-gun-safety-in-wake-of-newtown-killings/

I'd like to try to combine the main ideas from all of these. 2010 SO16 (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, combining stuff from before the event runs a high risk of WP:SYN. In a case like this, there should be ample coverage of the specific issue so there really should be no need to have to use sources which don't directly discuss the relevence to the subject of the article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I mean combine sentences from different sources into a single paragraph. Which I did. But people keep removing parts without discussion. :( 2010 SO16 (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

But the point is since this is an article about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and something which has received a lot of attention, there's rarely a good reason to use a source which does discuss the shooting at all (such as if it was from before the shooting). One of the only times when it may be a good idea to include such a source would be to back up stuff that is already sourced. For example, if there are sources from the shooting which mention some fact X, it may be okay to include another source from before the shooting which also mentions X to demonstrate X is well supported and not some mistake made because of a rush to get stuff out during the shooting. I guess a highly related case would be if a source A from the time of the shooting discusses stuff in report Y, it would probably be okay to include report Y as a source (but not to add stuff from report Y not mentioned in source A). In other words, the old source should generally only be used as a backup, not to establishes facts nor to established in topical sources nor to act as an RS if the other source has problems in that area. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC) P.S. A simple way to analyse if what you're writing is likely to be okay is to imagine the text were the same with just any source not mentioning the shooting removed. In such a case, if the text is fine and would pass WP:Verifiability, WP:UNDUE etc, then you should be sweet. If the absence of sources not concerning the shooting such as sources from before would mean the text needs to be rewritten, it probably should be anyway. 15:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

NFL

Should the NFL, Giants, Jets, and Patriots tributes to the shooting be mentioned? [14][15][16] ZappaOMati 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless a particular celebrity is relevant to the situation, or their reaction gains some level of notability/viralness I think not. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Shooting section

The Shooting section doesn't mention when or where Lanza killed the six adult staff members. The article only says that he killed the principal and the psychologist, and that "Most of the shooting took place in two first-grade classrooms, with fifteen killed in one room and five in the other".

The other problem with the section are those hero shout-outs to the custodian and the teacher (who probably followed simple protocol by hiding the kids and barricading the door). Both infos seem out of place in the Shooting section, and only further contribute to the confusion over the timeline. Better put those tidbits in a separate hero shout-out section which we can then remove wholesale later on. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Spam?

"An anonymous donor sent 26 Christmas trees to the town, one for each of the victims.[80] Stuffed animals will be donated to the children of the school following the shooting. [81]"

These links could be regarded as spam & the precedents may lead to too many others. Any 2 bit "publication" could (with its adverts) run this sort of masquerade "donation seeking" ... Teddy bears? Stuffed toys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.144.112 (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2012‎

Agree, such things should be removed with strong prejudice unless relevance can be established via independent reliable sources. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Gone HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Still there, it seems. WWGB (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No, there again. Please redo the removal. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Reactions (Domestic)

• President Barack Obama
• Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy
• Speaker of the House John Boehner
• United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan

• An anonymous donor ?
• the movie Jack Reacher ?

Yep, stilll there. Cute & undignified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.144.112 (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Mkdw^talk 08:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - school and street name

The actual name of the school is Sandy Hook School, not Sandy Hook Elementary School. None of the four elementary schools in the district have the word "Elementary" in them. They are Hawley School, Middle Gate School, Head O'Meadow School, and Sandy Hook School. Also, the name of the street the school is on is Dickinson Drive, not Dickenson Drive. This photo shows proof of both the school and street names. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done - M0rphzone (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Both names are used, but Sandy Hook Elementary School is more specific, so it will still be used. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to note that both names appear on the official website. —David Levy 05:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's Sandy Hook School. Go to the district's website (http://newtown.hawley.schooldesk.net/) and hover on the Schools tab. You will see it's Sandy Hook School. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you look at Feature Photo secton on Sandy Hook's main page (http://newtown.sandyhook.schooldesk.net/), it says Sandy Hook School. Better yet, read the principal's message (http://newtown.sandyhook.schooldesk.net/Parents/PrincipalsMessage/tabid/3550/Default.aspx). The name of the school is Sandy Hook School. There's no question about it. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Without official (legal) documents, it's hard to be sure that it is "Sandy Hook School". The title at the school website uses "Sandy Hook Elementary School" , not "Sandy Hook School". But the page title (on the browser tab) says "Sandy Hook School". - M0rphzone (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's simply the masthead on their web page, created by the websmaster. The School tabs shows the actual name of each school. I know it's Sandy Hook School. I know people who live 20 minutes from there and said everyone around there knows that's the name. And did you read the principal's message?[17] Not to mention the school sign, the teacher's directory on the site, and numerous others. The principal's message alone says it all. And Wikipedia does not allow the use of legal documents as sources; we use reliable sources. And the school's own website, which contains numerous verifications, shows the name in key places. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that both names are considered correct (with "Sandy Hook School" as the short-form variant). That was the case with the elementary school that I attended.

Or maybe you're completely right, but we can't take your word for it. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. —David Levy 06:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave you proof. The sign, the principal's letter (which says Sandy Hook School about 10 times), the teacher's list, the feature photo, and especially the Schools tab. ;) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source.[18] --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This image shows a very prominent and expensive sign with the word 'Elementary' in it. I doubt that they would have sprung for an extra 10 giant metal letters if this was not the name of the school. Abductive (reasoning) 06:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch. That looks much newer than the "Sandy Hook School" sign does.

Incidentally, I just checked, and based on a recent photograph, it appears that the elementary school that I attended twenty years ago still has its old "_____ School" sign. (The actual name has been "_____ Elementary School" for many years.) —David Levy 06:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the school's nickname (Sandy Hook Elementary). The actual name of the school is Sandy Hook School. Do you think the principal just forgot the word Elementary 10 times in her letter. Do you think the Schools tab listing for the school just forgot the word. The name of the damn school is Sandy Hook School. I know it. And your school's name is irrelevant. ;) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources seem to be calling it Sandy Hook Elementary School. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course news sites will use the word Elementary. That's standard protocol to use Elementary, Middle and High for newswriting. The school principal (now deceased), however, knew the actual name of the school and used it 10 times in her letter. The link is above. It takes f-ing 15 times to get these commetns to post. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The valid sources say Elementary, so that's what we use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Dude, those metal letters are each about 35 cm tall. Why on earth would they mount 10 more burnished metal letters into the side of the building if it wasn't the name of the school? Abductive (reasoning) 07:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My name isn't dude. And I already told you why. Do you think the deceased principal didn't know the name of her own school? I know people who live in that general area and everyone there knows the school's name is Sandy Hook School, but I need reliable sources here to prove it, which I've given. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Original research on your part. Not useable here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And I already told you why.

Do you understand our skepticism regarding your claim that "Sandy Hook Elementary" is a nickname mounted on the building's brick facade?

Do you think the deceased principal didn't know the name of her own school?

No, nor do I believe that my elementary school principal's use of a shortened form of the institution's name reflected such a lapse. —David Levy 07:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No journalistic protocol dictates that proper names be altered via the insertion of extra words. —David Levy 07:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the school's nickname (Sandy Hook Elementary).

How odd. Even odder to give it an expensive (and very official-looking) sign.

The actual name of the school is Sandy Hook School.

Repeating it won't change anything.

Do you think the principal just forgot the word Elementary 10 times in her letter.

No, but it's common to abbreviate names. My elementary school's name often was shortened in the same manner.

Do you think the Schools tab listing for the school just forgot the word.

Same answer. (And keep in mind that the website also refers to "Sandy Hook Elementary School".)

The name of the damn school is Sandy Hook School.

Repeating it won't change anything.

I know it.

Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR.

And your school's name is irrelevant. ;)

It's irrelevant in determining the name of the school at which the shooting occurred, yes. I've mentioned it only in the context of questioning some of the evidence that you've cited (which, if applied to the elementary school that I attended, would yield an incorrect conclusion). —David Levy 07:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

First, calm down. You're out of control. Your disruptive cluttering of this page is disruptive and uncivil. Second, here is the Newtwon Public Schools' home page on their official website. Hover on the Schools tab? What does it say the name of the school is? Notice how the Intermediate, Middle and High schools all use those words in the names, yet the four Elementary schools do not. Why would the school district use the full name for three schools, but not for the other four? Answer: because those are the actual names of each of the school. You know the actual name is Sandy Hook School, but are simply being belligerent because you don't want to admit you were wrong. The overwhelming evidence shows what the actual name of the school is, but go ahead and choose to ignore it because I assure you that the name will ultimately be changed to the correct name. By the way, injecting your own school's name into this discussion clearly indicates deep desperation. For all we know, the claim is pure fantasy. Of course, there's no way for any of us to even substantiate your totally irrelevant contention. How convenient. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "out of control", why are you so hung up on this tiny detail? I was just watching ESPN's football program, and they started with a discussion of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Your typical school has a qualifying adjective. Business school. High school. Middle school. Elementary school. Regardless of what some particular sign says, the adjective serves as identification. There's no value to the reader in taking "Elementary" out of the title. Now, you could create a redirect from your preferred wording, and all would be peachy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think having the correct name of the school is "a tiny detail", then you shouldn't be editing. Here is yet more definitive proof that the school's name is Sandy Hook School, from Newtown's own newspaper, The Newtown Bee! I guess their own newspaper, that covers them every day, wouldn't know, right? That is the official listing off all the disrtict's schools. Again, using the word Elementary in news coverage is standard convention in newswriting. It's simply done for clarity. Keep ignoring hard proof. By the way, citing what someone on ESPN said is absolutely ludicrous. You do understand that, right? It's amazing that you would even use that as an argument. Does ESPN know more than than Sandy Hook's local newspaper? <birds chirping> --76.189.123.142 (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We go by sourcing, not original research. The sources say Elementary. And there are already redirects that fix your complaint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What the hell do you think the Newtown Bee is? It's Sandy Hook's newspaper? That's called a reliable source. Hello? Keep ignoring hard proof. We'll see what happens. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Knock off the incivility. The school's own website says "Elementary", and that trumps your personal research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, how interesting that you would use that phrase ("Knock off the incivility")... 22 minutes after I said those exact words to you.[19]. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Newtown Bee has used both variants in its news reports (both before and after the shooting). As I type this, its website's front page contains the statement that "the Connecticut State Police released the following list of the 26 victims who were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14."

You keep asking us to rely on the evidence that supports your contention and ignore that which doesn't. —David Levy 17:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As if all the other proof wasn't enough, here is an official budget from the school district's website, which verifies the name is Sandy Hook School. Now let's stop the intransigence. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's another bit of original research on your part. Stop it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to provide that information by the editor who initially closed this thread![20]. Now stop your intransigence. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You've proven nothing. Stop your original research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, the official budget from the Newtown Public School's website proves nothing. Haha. Your denial of the facts is very disruptive to this project. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've taken you to WP:ANI, and I was required to report that fact to you. It's not "harassment" to post that fact on your page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The same website refers to "Sandy Hook Elementary School". So yes, it proves nothing. —David Levy 17:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

First, calm down. You're out of control. Your disruptive cluttering of this page is disruptive and uncivil.

Disruptive cluttering? You mean my responses to your messages? You'd prefer that I ignore them instead?

Second, here is the Newtwon Public Schools' home page on their official website. Hover on the Schools tab? What does it say the name of the school is?

And what does the name graphic on the same website say? We've been through this.

You know the actual name is Sandy Hook School, but are simply being belligerent because you don't want to admit you were wrong.

I'm being belligerent? You're the one hurling unfounded accusations (including one that I'm deliberately retaining inaccurate information out of spite).

As I've stated repeatedly, I don't know which name (if either) is more correct. You might be right, but we're trying to explain that we can't take your word for it or rely upon your original research (e.g. statements that you know people in the area, where everyone knows what the school is called).

The overwhelming evidence shows what the actual name of the school is, but go ahead and choose to ignore it because I assure you that the name will ultimately be changed to the correct name.

The evidence is far from "overwhelming", unless one pays attention only to that which you've cherry-picked and disregards the rest. You've cited an old-looking sign as "proof", but you want us to ignore the newer-looking/more expensive sign mounted on the building. You've cited mentions of "Sandy Hook School" on the official website, but you want us to ignore the large "Sandy Hook Elementary School" graphic appearing there. You've cited local newspaper The Newtown Bee (which, as noted above, uses both variants of the name), but you want us to ignore the Hartford Courant (Connecticut's largest newspaper) and WTNH (a local television station) — sources cited in another discussion in which you've taken part — along with other reliable sources around the country and the world.

Again, I'm not asserting that you're wrong. I'm explaining why we can't rely on your "proof" or take your word for it.

By the way, injecting your own school's name into this discussion clearly indicates deep desperation.

Again, I've referred to the elementary school that I attended not as any sort of evidence regarding the correct name of the school at which the shooting occurred, but as an anecdotal response to your anecdotal statements regarding characteristics that they have in common. You've cited contexts in which the school is referred to as "Sandy Hook School", and my point is that they don't necessarily prove that "Sandy Hook Elementary School" is incorrect. My elementary school's formal name is "_____ Elementary School", but "_____ School" appears on its sign and in short-form usage by administrators and others. (In fact, I just checked the school district's website, which contains both variants, sometimes on the same page.)

For all we know, the claim is pure fantasy.

Indeed. And for all we know, so is your claim that you know people in the area, all of whom swear that the school's name is "Sandy Hook School". Neither your original research nor mine is a valid basis for our encyclopedia's content. If my elementary school's name were contested at Wikipedia, my personal experience wouldn't constitute valid evidence.

Of course, there's no way for any of us to even substantiate your totally irrelevant contention. How convenient.

And we can substantiate your contention that you know people in the area, all of whom are positive that the school's name is "Sandy Hook School"? —David Levy 17:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we rerally need the exact address for the school? I dont see how this info helps the article at all and this is not the article for the school, its for the shooting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't. And there's already a redirect from the IP's preferred name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the info as non notable to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Noting for the record that a parallel discussion occured at a related talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Too young to own or carry"

Adam Lanza was too young to own or carry either handgun under Connecticut law.[34][35][36][37]

This statement, followed by four references seems like a bad case of The lady doth protest too much, methinks. How is it relevant, other than being a fig leaf for gun fans? --84.44.231.103 (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

They were registered to his mother, so in essence he stole them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you about "gun fans" clinging to this bit of info, but why would you try to keep this information from being in the article at all? Unless you yourself have an agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.173.21 (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that the phrase "but he was old enough to legally own and carry rifles in Connecticut" should be added. It seems this little tid bit of information is being added by gun enthusiasts to portray Adam Lanza as a criminal who was able to procure guns by violating the gun laws and to reinforce the argument that gun laws are ineffective against criminals. If that's the case, the sentence shouldn't even be there. If the sentence is merely pointing out which guns he was old enough to legally own, it should clearly state that he was old enough to own the rifle he used in the shooting.204.62.192.244 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I agree. In fact, I thought this was already in the article and someone may have removed it. Consciously omitting the latter while including the former in this case would obviously be someone trying to strawman. Actually, is that even considered a strawman argument? I'm dumb. 67.142.173.21 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

international reaction

I propose that the current contents of the international reactions section be condensed to one sentence: "Leaders from many countries and organizations throughout the world also offered their condolences." Thoughts? Unless a particular world leader's reaction is essential to the story, I don't see why we have to provide specifics on worldwide condolences. My edit was reverted because I was told that a consensus had already formed on this issue, but I couldn't find any definitive conclusion to the discussion here. Ragettho (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this not a UN vote, it is unnecessary to keep count of every country which offered condolence. --Mor2 (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Agreed. In fact, I think that the accumulation of all the reactions from each state is like trivia if the topic of the article doesn't involve the UN. When we include all these reaction statements, it's like political trivia since they do not contribute to the article. If the state is not significantly involved in the event/topic, their leader's statements and reaction do not need to be pasted into some list of international reactions. It is trivia, and Wikipedia is not a depository for quotes/paraphrased quotes. For unimportant reactions, they should be deleted or transwikied to Wikiquote. I don't know if someone has brought this up at the community portal, but there should be a policy regarding the inclusion of such reaction lists. (edit conflict)- M0rphzone (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, the section could be expanded beyond a single sentence. For example excerpts from select statements. The section will undoubtedly lead to much discussion in the coming days such as the debate going on in Australia over gun control laws. Mkdw^talk 05:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support - Ragettho is absolutely correct. His comments are right on the money and his proposal is excellent. In fact, the entire Reactions section is way overdone. Who cares what Malloy, Napolitano, Duncan, etc. think? Let's focus on Obama and maybe a few other major U.S. leaders, such as Boehner, and leave it at that. Plus the one sentence Ragettho proposed for international reaction. (Almost every major country in the world obviously made a condolence statement.) The Obama video is great, so leave that. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you be really careful if you're implying that condolence messages from Americans are more significant than those from others. This is a global encyclopaedia. Readers from other countries will be interested to see if their country was represented among those listed. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a damn stretch. No one needs to be careful. This is about common sense. This event happened in the U.S., so obviously the U.S. reaction is primary. Stop creating false drama. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Weed out the chaff, mercilessly. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I've implemented the change that I requested. To respond to Mkdw, I agree that some statements could be more relevant than others. For example, I recall hearing that the Pope issued a statement, which was read during a vigil held in the nearby Catholic church on the night of the shooting. This might be worth mentioning. As for HiLo48's comment, I think that the revised version does a good job of emphasizing that there was a global response, and not just responses from a selected group of countries. Ragettho (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Perpetrator section is too extensive?

This article is about the shooting, not the shooter, no need to give his life undue focus. Wich what many of the "suicide in a bang" types are looking for.--Mor2 (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This only reflects the sum total of coverage in available sources. I agree in principle that exaggerated focus is placed on the perpetrator(s) in such cases. However, we can't "make up" NPOV, we can only maintain it by looking at the sources. If an article is created on the perp (I hope not), then that material would be moved there and summarized here. Barring that, this article is not that long yet, so there is no urgent need to condense that section other than weeding out the trivial and extraneous as usual. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Lanza without question will end up having his own article (just as the perps in Columbine, Virginia Tech and the other big ones), so the Perpetrator section can be shortened at that point. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the prospect of the Perpetrator receiving his own article, makes his life story relevant to this article. Specifically entries like the date of his parents marriage, his father job or the amount of alimony payed?!--Mor2 (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If some admins weren't so precious about blocking the Adam Lanza article it would be extensively written by now. Of course it will exist, so resistance is futile. WWGB (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My question was how it is relevant here, not about the process of Adam Lanza article creation. Something that I don't share your enthusiasm about, because FMDIDGAD about Adam Lanza.--Mor2 (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'Hochsprung'

Can this be given, please?

From Youtube clips, it seems her name is pronounced something like "Hucksburn" - and definitely NOT "Hock-shproong" (or thereabouts), as the surname of a German would be Anglicized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptic12 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 16 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Hear here: http://www.dict.cc/?s=hochsprung you can click on the loudspeaker symbol and listen. --89.204.154.231 (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - address wrongly removed from infobox

An editor inappropriately removed the school's address from the infobox.[21] He is obviously unaware that the address is standard infobox content in any school's article. Please revert that removal. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Another editor put back the street name, but not the street number. The full address should be put back; that's protocol for school articles. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Columbine High School massacre is the precedent being cited the most as the article is being constructed. In that article the exact address was not mentioned in the infobox. Mkdw^talk 07:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Memorial

I for one disagree with edits like this, because imho they violate the spirit of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and this info, especially when written with a "hero angle" is imho out of place in an encyclopedic article.

Mkdw (talk · contribs) and me obviously disagree on that point, so third opinions on this are welcome. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see the "hero angle" as its likely that you're only aware of that verbage because of material outside the wording in the article such as in the citation which has been intentionally left out. The sentence structure is simple enough in that it describes an event that occurred during the shooting that explains the death of Soto, as well as actions in which her students were protected. Several other sentences in the paragraph are similar in structure and information. Mkdw^talk 06:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You know, the sentences are specific and should be included, but the overall tone (of these kinds of sentences) is not welcome in an encyclopedia. Editors, I know this is bad, but we can't have any personal emotions/pov involved in editing, since this is not some editorial or new article. So take away the soapbox and keep it concise and factual. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Woah Morph, what do you mean by tone is not welcome? You really are not assuming any good faith on me with soap box or tone. If you disagree with the wording and it could be better is one comment, but coming out and accusing me of tone or soap boxing is nothing what I had intended. If it was perceived that way it was completely unintentional, but please ask if it was a poor choice of wording over then to tell me to "take away the soap box"... Mkdw^talk 06:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Woops, guess I should clarify. My previous comment isn't specifically addressed to you, so calm down. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm calm, but was feeling a bit like I was on a witch hunt. Mkdw^talk 06:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, your mileage may of course vary, but this is what I mean with adding a hero angle. How is it relevant, especially for the Shooting section, that the teacher was credited with saving the lives of those students? --84.44.231.103 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no avoiding that it was her who saved the children. If you have a better wording, then I am welcome to it. Furthermore, you keep citing content that actually isn't worded that way any more as I tried to make sentence more concise. I would like to take this opportunity to say that my edit was a good faith edit and I was not trying to soap box or memorialise anyone. I simply added an event to the shootings section as details are starting to emerge. Mkdw^talk 06:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no avoiding that it was her who saved the children -- Does not compute. What are you trying to say?

I asked: How is it relevant, especially for the Shooting section, that the teacher was credited with saving the lives of those students? -- So, how is it relevant?

I simply added an event to the shootings section as details are starting to emerge. -- Yes, and we are now asking you to reconsider. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry 84, but the wording does not say that at present. This discussion is seemingly more about me than about the actual current text in the article. If you think its trivial to mention that her actions or the repercussions then I will have a civil conversation about that. Mkdw^talk 06:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is seemingly more about me -- No, it's not. You tried to make it that way, by "misunderstanding" M0rphzone's comment above and taking it personally. Please stop throwing such histrionics and focus on not misusing Wikipedia as a memorial site in violation of our policy. Thanks.

The current wording "Soto's actions are credited with saving the lives of her students but Soto was shot and killed in the process" still begs the question, which you are still intentionally refusing to answer: How is it relevant in the Shooting section? --84.44.231.103 (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm going to remove myself from this conversation. You're rude [22] and more than one editor has said so tonight. If you want a good sampling of inclusion material which includes survival cases, close calls, actions by teachers, and repercussions of actions see the Columbine massacre article. But then again that's a matter about relevance and not about soapboxing now any more. Mkdw^talk 07:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree the current wording make her involvement irrelevant, unlike the original wording which was fine and described the sequence of events. Seems that in the attempt to remove the supposed "hero angle" someone botched it up.--Mor2 (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still not entirely happy with the wording and the still somewhat convoluted timeline of the Shooting section to which the paragraph about the staff's actions imho contributes. But it's already much better integrated now compared to the earlier version. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing or pertinent background?

This text was removed a few minutes after I added it, with the edit summary "beginning to look a lot like WP:SOAP":

There are often few resources for the mentally ill until they become involved the criminal justice system. More Americans obtain mental health treatment in prisons and jails than in hospitals or treatment centers, leading to exposure of the mentally ill to hardened criminals. Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy proposed cuts to mental health services in 2011 including cutting funding for 80 of the 152 beds available at the two mental health treatment facilities in the state, along with nine respite facilities.

References

I'm pretty sure that those statements do not run afoul of WP:SOAP, but I would be interested in other opinions on this. The first two statements are simple statistical facts which pertain directly to the reactions earlier in the paragraph they were removed from. The Governor's proposal to slash treatment facilities is very politically sensitive, I'm sure, but it was the Governor who chose to take the political position, and it does not seem to be soapboxing to report that position. Others' opinions? 2010 SO16 (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected a few typos in the quoted passage above and intend to replace the text with the minor corrections pending further discussion here. 2010 SO16 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Have e.g. those budget cuts been mentioned in explicit connection with the shooting? --84.44.231.103 (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the article cited in support of them, which in turn cites this primary source from 2011. 2010 SO16 (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems legitimate and pertinent enough, but imho the wording could indeed be a tad less soap-boxy. --84.44.231.103 (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, can you please make specific suggestions for improvement? I was worried that I was paraphrasing the NPR and Time sources too closely far more than that it occurred to me that they were anything even approaching advocacy. I'm firmly of the opinion that reporting statistical facts, especially simple ones like "jails and prisons provide more mental health services than hospitals and treatment centers" and "it's hard to get mental health care until you're imprisoned" can't be advocacy if they are actually true, and NPR and Time Magazine are certainly considered reliable sources on such matters. 2010 SO16 (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(Actually "Psychology and criminal justice professor and author Christopher Ferguson said" can probably go, since the following statement is not in contention as far as I know, and so it doesn't need to be attributed to a third party since it appeared in the edited/fact-checked/reliable/good-reputation Time Magazine -- I removed that.) 2010 SO16 (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The passage was removed again in a revert which I think might have been mistake, so I'm continuing to edit the three sentences above in the interim. 2010 SO16 (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, now I don't understand this. How is "lost sentence" a meaningful edit summary for that? 2010 SO16 (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Now there's this again without discussion, except this time sources supporting general statements about the issue have been deleted. Just because a paragraph has background information clarifying the main idea doesn't mean that those parts are unrelated to the subject of the article. Just the opposite, in this case. Just like the "Background" section, you can have statements from sources published before the event. In this case they support and clarify the earlier statements in the paragraph. Why are people not discussing deletions? 2010 SO16 (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the wording above has to go. It is someone's commentary on the mental health system, pulling together a number of different thoughts, and not presented in the context of cited reactions to this event. In short, it come across as original research by synthesis (see WP:SYN - and therefore contrary to WP policy. I will give it a few hours to see if further discussion unfolds, but as it stands, it really has to go. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." What third unstated conclusion are you saying is being suggested? 2010 SO16 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just my two cents here. The discussion about the US/Connecticut mental health system is pertinent, since it is being written about in the excplicit context of this shooting. However, imho the only way to include it would be if a separate, dedicated section could be written and sourced. What I mean is that the main problem here appears to be one of relevance in the context of the shooting. The mental health discussion does exist, but it's on the outskirts of news coverage, and it is rather abstract and nowhere near the core issues discussed in the context of the shooting. So imho we would have to establish relevance as reflected in media coverage of the event, and then it should be a separate section. If it can't stand as a separate section, the material seems out of place, at best. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this wording as it seems to clearly use the article as a soapbox for a tangential issue ( I'm assuming good faith on the part of the editor who added it). There are many side issues that will arise out of a tragedy like this, but we have to remember that this is an encyclopedia article about a single event, and keep it focused to the scope of that topic. - MrX 14:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I replaced the objectionable statements from Time Magazine and NPR with similar statements from the peer reviewed article which the Time op-ed was based on (Furguson, C.J. et al. (2011) "Psychological Profiles of School Shooters: Positive Directions and One Big Wrong Turn" Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations 11:1–17) 2010 SO16 (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since the issue of mental health policy was explicitly picked up by Grace Napolitano, co-chair of the U.S. Congressional Mental Health Caucus, this seems far from a WP:SYNTH-related problem. Quite to the contrary, I rescind my comment above. This does seem immediately pertinent and should be included. However, I agree with the removal of those specific sentences, but not based on WP:SYNTH, but based on NPOV. The removed wording read almost like a public plea ("There are often few resources for the mentally ill until they become involved the criminal justice system") and it's based on one opinion piece. 2010 SO16's latest edit has my full support though. This is the way forward. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also replaced the statement from the National Public Radio piece which others were calling opinion from a government document source: Torrey, E.F. et al. (2010) "More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States" (Arlington, Virginia: U.S. National Sheriffs’ Association and the Treatment Advocacy Center). 2010 SO16 (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please undo Mr.X's spurious removal here. How does well-sourced context "not directly pertain to the subject of the article"? That's clearly incorrect, and should be undone. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, and I did this. I wish people would discuss their objections instead of making unilateral proclamations in edit summaries which seem so absurd. 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Which commentators on or after Friday, if any, have discussed the shootings while at the same time discussing the financial support for mental health care in Connecticut? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Congresswoman cited at the beginning of the paragraph, the author of the Poynter article, and multiple sources cited in the Wall Street Journal article. And those are just the sources cited to support the text in question. There are several other news sources above. 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Of those three, the only one that mentions the Governor's proposed cuts are the Poynter editorial. And that's a general comment. There's no apparent connection to this specific shooting, as there's no indication the perp ever sought and was refused help for whatever mental health problem he had. In short, it's wikipedia editors trying to do their own editorializing and advocacy. It's irrelevant to this shooting, and it must be removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Poynter "editorial" cites a 2011 primary source about the cuts, and the whole gist of the piece, which I believe is far more investigative than op-ed, although with a media org like Poynter I'm not sure their stories fit in pigeonholes, is that it is a terrible mistake to report on the shooting without reporting on mental health treatment issues. Roger Ebert raises exactly the same points. It's the kind of WP:SECONDARY source that we should be using instead of all the primary news sources that this article is filled with. 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Show me a source that specifically links these shootings to proposed cuts in state mental health budget. None of those links accomplish that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Move your goalposts much? Tell me why the proposed cuts to the state mental health budget don't support and explain the Congresswoman's reaction. 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Show me where anyone is saying that cuts or non-cuts to the state's mental health budget would have anything whatsoever to do with this specific incident. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There are several such stories below, including two by a prominent PBS journalist writing for Mother Jones. 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Show me the link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mothdust79

Mothdust79 is causing quite a commotion on this page. Wikipedia is an unbiased website that is informational only and doesn't represent opinions that could be potentionaly liabous. Is there anything we can do about this? Jason021388 (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

He's been warned. If he persists he will be banned from editing for a period of time. It appears he's already been the subject of editing bans in the past on multiple occasions. Mkdw^talk 07:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

References

what's happening with the references. They all seem to be going wrong--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone removed all the international condolences, so the associated references have nowhere to belong. WWGB (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the international condolences, per consensus formed in another section on this page. I was confused (and I still am) by the new way we seem to be citing our sources. Ragettho (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You can just comment them out for now in the reference section. <-- comment -->-- But it looks like it has either been removed or commented out already. No glaring red linked error messages in the reference section.Amadscientist (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See List-defined references Werieth (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is his motive not mentioned?

Discussion not aimed at improving the article

I wanted to read why he did it but find nothing in the article. --89.204.154.231 (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Cos they haven't found one yet! WWGB (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC) But police said, they have! --89.204.154.231 (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC) oh, yeah, anon ip - where did you read that at? just looked at latest news stories and no one has a clue why he did it HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC) I read the news and they say, the police found evidence why this happend. But why do they not tell about this evidences yet? It's sickening not to know why this happend. --89.204.154.231 (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC) You're sick with curiosity. Get a life, that's the cure. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Your lack of empathy is sociopathic. The motivation is the most important thing people want to know and therefore it should be included in the article. I lol'd at "empathy". Now please let it go. As has been pointed out to you, there are simply no reliable sources about the motive, that's the reason it isn't mentioned. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please archive this page, the bot seems ineffective

Thanks. WWGB (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just do it! --89.204.154.231 (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Amadscientist (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And not randomly. Just so everyone knows, I archived everything from the last post that did not have a reply dated on the 16th. So I think I split at the best location. While it looks like there is still a lot here, I wouldn't archive what appears to be active discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

2010 Lockdown Practice

A robbery in 2010 led to a lockdown exercise for students. Plenty of quotes as to the frequency of these training sessions. Relevant? http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Newtown-schools-on-modified-lockdown-due-to-527359.php

It doesn't appear to be related to this event. They share the fact that they were in a lockdown, but that's about it. Mkdw^talk 08:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Alleged internet preview of the shooting

Some sources such as Daily Mail claim that the perperator might have posted a threat on 4chan regarding the shooting, 2 days before the incident. [23] www.infowarscom/im-going-to-kill-myself-on-friday-and-it-will-make-the-news/comment-page-2/ #comments] Should we include these in the article? Myxomatosis75 (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

They were removed because they were sourced from KnowYourMeme.--Auric 13:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal age for possession of firearms under Connecticut law

A small point, but as the article says Lanza was not old enough to legally own a gun under Connecticut law, it may be worth stating what the legal age is. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember there was a discussion but can't remember what the outcome was or why there is no mention of the legal age.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just found the discussion here where I see that the original sentence was somewhat problematic, although the outcome seems unclear. I had in mind something slightly different to that. Currently Response by authorities#Weapons includes the sentence, "Adam Lanza was too young to legally own or carry either handgun under Connecticut law." It could be amended to something like, "Adam Lanza was too young to legally own or carry either handgun under Connecticut law, where the legal age for possession of firearms is 21." Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

His mother owned the guns. In essence, he stole them from her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Either handgun" is an odd construction, which lead me to believe that CT had complex firearms laws "When you are 27 you may own a multi-chambered weapon, but not in pink until you are 32" - I will repharse that if it is still there. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

"Adam Lanza was too young to legally own or carry handguns under Connecticut law." is the current text.

There is a suggestion, above, that he was old enough to own and/or carry the "long guns". If so this should be reflected in the article. (I would much rather face someone with a handgun than someone with a "long gun" so these sorts of laws have always seemed odd to me.) Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

Not sure why this is important

This recent change does not seem constructive. [24]

Don't see the need to change "From the scene" to "next to Adam Lanza's body", the need for the "Latest developments" from CNN, or why we are mentioning guns that the perp had "access to" but were not at the scene or the use of a Daily Kos diary as a source. I reverted this as unconstructive but User:Erudy just edit warred it right back against BRD. It is nice to be bold but when you are reverted, do not revert again. That is clearly edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In fairness Erudy was at least going for BRRD....

The "next to the body" might make sense, because the whole school, including the parked car, may qualify as "the crime scene" if not "the scene", and the "long gun" would have to be included. The distinction needs to be drawn, though whether this is the way to do it bears some thought.

The matter of additional guns may well become significant if it attracts much commentary, but we should not pre-empt that.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. It may be somewhat excessively detailed, but I think there is direct relevance to the event. It also seems to be well sourced, although the Daily Kos as a source is a little shaky on its own. - MrX 14:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the body thing is a tad to much and doesn't at all seem worth the change, but I could live with that. Kos diaries aren't just shaky they are not RS. I also think this is just spilling out everything that comes out of the media as sensational and is too soon to begin talking about whether the guy could have used the kitchen sink at his mom's house.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist: 1) I'm going to remove the "body" 2) Someone has already found a straight CNN source for the other weapons; I will remove DailyKos, which is probably just repeating CNN. Is that sufficient? Erudy (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. If you make it clear where this "Access was" I will remove my opposition completely. Others have also cleaned up other concerns and while I still object to the mention of weapons not really there, I can live with it as long as it is clear where the access was.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Or let me make that addition without reverting (why should I hold you up to an edit that is my concern).--Amadscientist (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Other weapons

I made a couple modifications to the "weapons section" that have been disputed:

1.) To clarify that weapons found "at the scene" were actually weapons found next to Adam Lanza's body, supported by ref to CNN. I think this is an important clarification, since weapons found in the trunk of the car he drove, or at the Lanza's house, could also be described as "at the scene" of the school shooting or of the related shooting of Ms. Lanza.

• Why is that detail important? No, the scene of a crime is a specific place and next to the body is a little to much detail that has no real reason for the decription we could assume as much. We do not need the greezily details like film noir.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• • The problem is that there are too many "scenes." Inside the school, Around the area of the school (car that he drove), and the Lanza residence. This makes clear that these are the weapons that he likely actually had with him when in went in the school. Maybe less vivid: "next to Adam Lanza" instead of "next to Adam Lanza's body" ? Erudy (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

2.) I added a note about other weapons (basically, older type rifles) that Lanza had access to, according to authorities, supported by ref to CNN and DailyKos. I think this is informative factual information.

• The way this is now written makes it seems as if he had access at the scene. He didn't. The daily kos was not a news article...its a diary.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• • He may have had access at the scene...of his mother's shooting. These weapons were probably also part of his mother's collection. The fact that he may have decided not to take the less lethal weapons (or may have taken one, but left it in the car) may go to show deliberation. Point taken about DailyKos; I've added a CNN transcript cite as well.Erudy (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph as I editted it:

Authorities recovered three semi-automatic firearms next to Adam Lanza's body: a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a 9mm Glock handgun, and a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun. All three were legally registered and owned by Lanza's mother, who is reported to have been a gun enthusiast. Further reports suggest that Adam Lanza "had access" to three more guns: a .45 Henry repeating rifle, a .30 Enfield rifle, and a .22 Marlin rifle. One of these, described as a "long gun", may have been found in the car he drove to the school.

Issues? Erudy (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, unconstructive puffery. Could you expalin why you reverted a revert on a contentious article? You should have comehere to discuss to get consensus after I reverted you.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Further reports suggest" is weak and as I said these new weapons being mentioned were not actually used by Lanza or at the scene. This is puffery.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Should the "other weapons" content additions stand?

Oppose - see my comments above. Major cleanup of the material, as well as my adding that it is unclear where the three "other weapons" were located as seen with this quote:

The other three weapons, according to CNN's Susan Candiotti include a .45 caliber Henry repeating rifle, a .22 caliber marlin rifle and a .30 caliber infield rifle not clear whether those guns were found in the car that Lanza had been driving or elsewhere.

from CNN[25]--Amadscientist (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume we will eventually find out where, but this may or may not be for some time.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Antisocial personality traits

I removed this content, as it seems to theorize on the cause of the shooting without an established connection to this event:

School shooters generally have a history of antisocial personality traits, suffer from mental illness, and tend to obsess about how other individuals or society at large have wronged them, but there are often few resources for the mentally ill until they become involved the criminal justice system.ref>Furguson, C.J. et al. (2011) "Psychological Profiles of School Shooters: Positive Directions and One Big Wrong Turn" Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations 11:1–17</ref>

This is probably a pretty clear transgression of WP:SYNTH. - MrX 14:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding well-sourced context violates WP:SYNTH? That's a bit of a stretch. Your reverting of pertinent and well-sourced context is what's unacceptable imho. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with MrX, despite the current welter of rolling news speculation, little is known about the motive of the shooter. Please avoid adding this type of material even if it appears in a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As you can see from the section where it has been discussed above, others disagree. The statements are taken from the peer reviewed report cited. WP:SYNTH says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Exactly what unstated conclusion are you suggesting is being reached or implied? 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

little is known about the motive of the shooter -- If you read the section in question, you will find that this is not related at all to speculation about the motive, it's about the issue of mental health care, which has been brought up in the context of this shooting by Grace Napolitano, co-chair of the U.S. Congressional Mental Health Caucus. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

They are being combined to place implicit blame on "some agency" for not having good mental health care in the US that would have averted the event. Even if that's not outright being said, that's SYNTH because it is given a undue amount of weight for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I take it you're not responding to me, are you? --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's sublime content, but that's not the point. Connecting it with this article is original research unless and until other sources establish that connection in a clear, unambiguous fashion. I would ask you to read WP:SYNTH and tell me where I've erred in my interpretation. - MrX 15:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Grace Napolitano brought up the issue of mental health in the explicit context of this shooting. How is adding reliably sourced context then an issue of SYNTH? You're acting as though we can use only sources which are only about the shooting. But you are mistaken about that. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Westboro church has brought up gay marriage as a fault, we should talk about that. Jack Thompson has brought up video games, lets talk about that. Right now, any opinion, even if it came from Obama, on what went wrong is inappropriate to include because we dont have all the facts yet. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We have the fact that the issue of the mental health system has been brought up in connection with this shooting. That's not speculation, it's verifiable fact. Your mileage may vary as to its relevance, but your arguments do nothing to help your case. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a HECK of a lot of SYNTH violations going on in that last section, and far far far too early to be putting in any quotes from 3rd parties that are trying to place blame on some facet not directly under the school's/townships control. Should we include how Westboro is blaming this on gay marriage, or Jack Thompson blaming this on video games? We can say the shooter had a history of mental health but it is synth to say the "what if"s related to mental health treatment. Yes, hundreds of articles in the press are playing these points up, but they are the press, we are not. We need to wait until time has passed and settled down to identify the primary viewpoints of what went wrong here before including them, which hopefully by that point there will be sources that avoid SYNTH. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not speculation about motive or assigning blame to any particular agency, it is supporting information explaining Napolitano's reaction. To those objecting to the statements: Is there a way they could be rephrased to be less objectionable to you? 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not including it until we know there was a connection. Unless I'm missing it, the shooter never had or prescribed any mental health treatment, therefore how could the US's poor mental health treatment be a cause? It could be, but there's no way we can say that now. Remember, every talking head out there is trying right now to position their side as the "right" in this. Until the investigation gives more evidence of what exactly happened and where it could have been placed, any speculative quotes need to be stripped from here as it creates SYNTH and POV that is inappropriate for a WP article. Remember, we need to be summarizing this as inhumanly (in terms of emotion) as possible. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, we already have several sources in the Perpetrator section from family and close associates claiming Aspergers and autism. And even if we didn't, the statments support and explain the Congresswoman's reaction without implying any unsupported conclusions. 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Claiming". And was he seeing anything about them? The statements, combined, are implicitely blaming the lack of mental health care as the fault. Until we know more about what happened in the hours + days preceeding, this is a POV conclusion, in light that no other possible explainations are being covered. If it turns out a week from now that it was clear that some facet of the shooter's autism was the trigger, then great, let's talk about the failure of the mental health system to our heart's content. But there's zero conclusive evidence right now that this was the sole reason for this tragedy, and to give that undue weight and connecting these dots in this way is a SYNTH violation. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

MASEM, you appear to not understand how Wikipedia works. We add verifiable and relevant info. If there is e.g. very notable speculation by someone, we would include it. We would not assert the speculation as fact, we would assert the fact that notable speculation has taken place as fact. Verifiability, not truth, remember? --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is tons of verifiable information out there on this event, including thousands of opinions, but we can't include that all. And we certainly cannot include speculation, even if it is by a notable person. The only speculation that should be included now are statements made by the police et al investigating the scene and reporting on their progress (eg "We believe he was working alone..." type statements). This is why NPOV is important. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You still don't understand. Speculation is a fact in and of itself. We can report, if notable and relevant, that speculation has taken place. Mind the difference. You appear to massively misunderstand our core content policies. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be an explicit connection made by (probably several) reliable sources. To my knowledge, this has not yet happened. - MrX 15:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you even skim the Poynter article or the Congresswoman's statement? 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the Congresswoman did not make the statement that we are discussing

"School shooters generally have a history of antisocial personality traits, suffer from mental illness, and tend to obsess about how other individuals or society at large have wronged them, but there are often few resources for the mentally ill until they become involved the criminal justice system."

...did she? Also, the statement comes from an whitepaper written more than a year before this event. - MrX 16:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Speculation in and of itself is a reportable fact, if it's notable in the context of the shooting. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The rolling news channels have been filling in time by asking "experts" why people do this sort of thing. It may or may not be relevant in this case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Accolades

Let me express my pride and respect for all the editors working to improve this difficult article. This talk page and the history of conversation that creates it is an unbelievably Wonderful source for the observation of the ebb and flow of information (good and bad, fact and non-fact, etc). As is often the case, there is more information in the back pages than there is in the article. The collaboration and co-operation among editors is an important lesson for veteran and newbie alike. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like unrelated talk not aimed at improving the article. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Maintaining the proper decorum among editors is most definitely related to the construction of the article. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Like - MrX 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Attempts to "hat" this thread will be un-successfull. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Then ANI is the next stop. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Encouraging editors to collaborate and work together is improving the article. Especially in such a controversial subject where things can get heated. Hatting the discussion does not improve the article or enourage civility and collaboration.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Reactions

Don't forget to include reactions from the media, i.e. TV Schedule changes and Saturday Night Live. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The perpetrators of mass shootings are often mentally ill. School shooters generally have a history of antisocial personality traits, suffer from mental illness, and tend to obsess about how other individuals or society at large have wronged them, but there are often few resources for the mentally ill until they become involved the criminal justice system. There are more than three times more seriously mentally ill persons in jails and prisons than in hospitals. A local psychologist whose son was in Adam Lanza's graduating class said he recalled a loner who didn't display unusual behavior, but she said when experiencing "mental health problems in a quiet compliant way, people don't pay attention." Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy proposed cuts to mental health services in 2011 including cutting funding for 80 of the 152 beds available at the two mental health treatment facilities in the state, along with nine respite facilities. These statements are not reactions, the local psychologist's statement would rather be in the perpetrator's profile, the rest are pure SYNTH. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH says not to combine statements to reach unsupported implications. Exactly what conclusion do you suggest is being reached here? There is no implication intended. All of those statements are intended to support and explain Congresswoman Napolatino's reaction stated at the beginning of the paragraph. 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you just parotting the SYNTH-point from above? There is nothing to suggest original synthesis is taking place. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually I wrote and then read that someone above had the same view as I have. Explaining Congresswomen's statements is SYNTH, unless we have the statement and the explanation in the same source. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Poynter article most certainly includes the issue and the explanations in the same source. 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The section currently contains information on the President, the Governor, the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of Education, etc., "reacting" to the shooting and holding press conferences. How is the sentence about the Governor cutting mental health services in 2011 a "reaction" to the shooting? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it supports and explains the reaction of the Congresswoman co-chair of the Mental Health Caucus at the beginning of the paragraph. 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AzureCitizen et al. Repeating what I said above in specific form, even if you argue the info isn't WP:SYN, it clearly has WP:UNDUE and relevence concerns. The simple fact is, this is an article about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, not an article about school shootings or mass shootings in the US or in general, nor an article about the health or mental health service in the US or Connecticut, nor an article about the Confresswoman's comments. If all this info was well covered in reliable secondary sources concerning the shooting, perhaps it would be okay to mention but as it stands, they have quite questionable relevence and weight here even if we ignore Syn concerns. It may very well be true that many mass shooters are mentally ill but unless this one was, then who cares what many are? Similarly while there may very well be resource problems for mental health treatment in the US, according to this very article the perpetrators family wasn't exactly lacking in resources so the general problems with a lack of resources may not have been a big barrier to the perpetrator seeking treatment. If multiple other sources thought these issues were relevant despite these issues, then it's not up for us to judge, but all we have is one person's comments stretched way too far with additional non connected sources. . Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed this section. It's completely irrelevant and UNDUE, not to mention the fact that there is a vast spectrum of autism (including Aspergers) and the section implies that this was the reason for the shooting, for which there is no reliable source at all. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously unaware that the shooter's older brother was widely quoted saying he was autistic as early as Friday afternoon. Even if he hadn't been, the Congresswoman's reaction would have been noteworthy because of the supporting peer reviewed and news sources provided showing that most school shooters are mentally ill. 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So we've got some hearsay alleging that he was autistic. We've got some research claiming most school shooters have mental issues. Now go and read WP:SYNTH. Black Kite (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A comment by the killer's brother does not justify a exposé on mental health. That is almost the very definition of synthesis. You do not seem to be understanding that, even though several experienced editors have pointed it out to you. Please read the policies on original research. - MrX 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2012

Rifle image that is depicted in this article does not match the one that that was used in the shooting. This rifle would have been illegle due to the laws that are in palce in the State of Cunnecticut. THe rifle would be most like these rifles in this link. :" http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/hunting.asp " These are bushmaster semi-automatic rifles that would be legal in the state. Mavhunter20xx (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Presumably the immediate edit that you are requesting is removal of the picture as you have not suggested a substitute image available in wikipedia. I think that this is appropriate; the "similar to" for the picture (and thus the only relevance of the picture to the article) is unsourced, challenged, and likely wrong. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I took it out. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Terminology for the rifle

Even though a source used the assault rifle moniker, it is probably wrong, i.e. likely not not one with selective fire. Probably best to use what is known correct, a .223 Bushmaster rifle. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is there is a technical definition as used at assault rifle, and then there is the widespread colloquial usage to describe any riffle style Assault Weapon. The colloquial usage is so widespread it is hard to argue it is wrong. Monty₈₄₅ 17:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was dealt with yesterday already. "Assault rifle" is not in the article anymore--if it is identified/classified incorrectly, we don't need to report that with the caveat that it's incorrect. The article currently simply has "Bushmaster rifle" and North, you are correct, that's correct. At the same time, Monty's point is well taken (the use of "assault rifle" to mean "semi-automatic rifle" is widespread) but there is no need to complicate matters, until this verbiage becomes an issue in itself. North and Monty, I assume you're keeping an eye on this article and I thank you for it. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

National Public Radio is running mental health story while people are deleting mental health reactions and explanations

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/16/167374514/shooting-raises-issues-of-mental-health-treatment

Audio is now at that URL and presumably a transcript will be soon. 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See above. Most of the media explanations of the shooter's motives come from people who never met him. This leads to WP:OR issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, we had quotes from his older brother claiming he was autistic as early as Friday afternoon. 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This leads to WP:OR issues.

WP:OR applies to WP editors, not those in society. Speculation that Adam Lanza had mental health issues is perfectly valid. If politicians or those in society react to the shooting by discussing mental health issues, then it is valid to include there. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This assumes WP:WEIGHT is followed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Before this is all over, the mental health of the mother may come into question also. There's an interesting story on her own obsession with guns and how she would never let anyone inside the house. We are nowhere near all the facts being in yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not speculation. His brother was quoted as saying Adam was autistic as early as Friday afternoon. 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether he was autistic or not, it's still completely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to link that to the actual event. Black Kite (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So, having learned that you had been uninformed, you change your argument? Why are the Congresswoman's reaction statements on the issue not a noteworthy and appropriate addition to the article? 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with using what is reported now, including the statements of Ryan Lanza, an adult with firsthand family knowledge, about his brother being diagnosed with a "personality disorder" and relatively "autistic" (the first is likely more significant to the shooting). But editors should not be creating their own story here by Synthesis - citing a 2011 study (based on a 2002 report), or suggesting that it is the current governor's fault for cutting mental health budget - see below. The failure of society to fund adequate community mental health is a longstanding problem.Parkwells (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Mentioning the brother's claim is not a problem - linking it to a piece of research claiming that mental illness is responsible for most school shootings in synthesis. Especially as the vast majority of autistic people do not have any issues relating to violence - indeed, often the opposite. Black Kite (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Until the shooter's mental health has been determined as one of the reasons for the shooting, including anything about mental health care or lack thereof is SYNTH. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Simply quoting the brother is not a problem. It gives some background on Adam Lanza. It would be if it is used as an explanation for the shooting. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Classification ranking...

It should be added that this is the second worst school shooting and third worst school massacre in US history-behind the Virginia Tech shooting and Bath School Disaster.

It's already classified as the "second-deadliest mass shooting in United States history" behind Virginia Tech; I think adding the 'third' detail would be a bit much, as we're trying to keep a concise lead section. —Theopolisme 16:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Spree_killer#The_Bath_School_Massacre, this was a bombing incident, not a shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be OR/synthesis to add at this time

The following paragraph appears to be trying to create answers and is not reflected in current reporting on this event. I started editing for author, better identification of reports being referred to, but think it is inappropriate altogether for the article at this point, as it appears to be trying to push a synthesized POV that has not been offered by the media about this event.

"A 2011 study by Christopher J. Ferguson, Mark Coulson and Jane Barnett summarized data and noted that the perpetrators of mass shootings are often mentally ill. According to a 2002 joint report by the US Secret Service and US Department of Education, school shooters generally have a history of antisocial personality traits, suffer from mental illness, and tend to obsess about how other individuals or society at large have wronged them. In the past decades, as a result of changes in policy, most states have reduced funding for mental health facilities. Approaches have also changed on commitment of the mentally ill. The Ferguson et al. 2011 study noted "a failure of society to support and fund any real semblance of a mental health system." Often few community resources exist for the mentally ill until they become involved with the criminal justice system. As a result, today three times the number of seriously mentally ill persons are held in jails and prisons as in hospitals. Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy proposed cuts to mental health services in 2011, including cutting funding for 80 of the 152 beds available at the two mental health treatment facilities in the state, along with nine respite facilities." Parkwells (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the unsupported synthetic conclusion you think is being implied? It's just supporting and explaining the Congresswoman's reaction. 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's creating a conclusion by looking for old data to support the Congresswoman. That is not what is being reported now.Parkwells (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) What conclusion? (2) The Poynter article explicitly makes the connection, as does the Wall Street Journal article and the NPR piece that is running on the radio right now. 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

All those sources are stating it as a probable factor in the shooting, but no one from the investigation side has explicitly said "The shooter's mental health was the reason for this event". Until that statement is made, linking the state of mental health care in the US to this shooting is SYNTH, even if all their statements are verified and notable. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've removed it. It can be revisited when we've got reliable information on the mental state of the perpetrator - to do so now would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you consider the shooter's brother unreliable? 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Even if we assume he's a reliable source, to link the alleged mental illness and the shooting is original research and synthesis. Black Kite (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Congresswoman co-chair of the Congressional Mental Health Caucus put out a press release explicitly making the link. Did you read any of the sources? 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And she knows that's the season for the shooting, does she? As opposed to making a point on an issue which would clearly back up her POV? She can say what she wants, and she may be right, but it's still speculation. Black Kite (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

When a congressional co-chair of the pertinent caucus makes the connection, is it noteworthy or not? Even if the shooter was still alive, we would not be able to say with certainty whether he acted out of mental illness or just ordinary anger. But is Wikipedia supposed to report the statements of the pertinent officials when they make such connections or not? 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. Just another politician mouthing off.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has objected to Boehner's comments, which are entirely content-free. But the co-chair of the Congressional Mental Health Caucus explicitly linking the dearth of mental health treatment availability is not a noteworthy reaction for what reason, precisely? 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop the propaganda of removing his own brother as a source that he had Asperger's?

Can you stop the Propaganda of removing his own Brother as a source that he had Aspergers? --fs 16:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that accurate quotes from an RS of what the adult brother said should be included. The article includes quotes by classmates about Lanza's behavior; his brother grew up in that family, knew about his brother's problems, and was told the diagnosis. He didn't say that's "why" he did it; he was commenting about his brother, as are these other quotes.Parkwells (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is understandable concern about this, even though it has appeared in reliable sources. More sourcing is needed before implying that it was a cause of the incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said it's a cause. --5.54.82.192 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

These same reliable sources also claimed his mother was a teacher at the school, that she was kindergarten teacher, and her class was targeted. All false information. Also his bother never said he was diagnosed with autism or asperger, his bother said he was somewhat autistic. --24.7.156.185 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ThinkProgress: "It’s Easier For Americans To Access Guns Than Mental Health Services"

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/14/1338021/its-easier-for-americans-to-access-guns-than-mental-health-services/

"The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) reports that Connecticut’s public mental health system currently provides coverage for less than one in five Connecticut residents with a serious mental health problem. The other four may not be able to afford to pay for those services on their own, particularly since mental health issues tend to disproportionately affect poor people. Many states do require mental health evaluations and background checks before allowing their residents to purchase a gun. But doing an evaluation isn’t the same thing as actually treating people with ongoing mental health conditions."

Any objections to including that? 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely YES, I object. You are not getting the fact that no one has affirmed that the cause of this event was explicitly due to the shooter's mental health. He had mental health problems, sure, that can be included, but it hasn't been ruled in as the only or primary reason for why he did what he did. Ergo, any statement on mental health care in the US is a POV and SYNTH statement. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

YES. As you've been told by at least five editors now, you're still synthesising a link between the shooter's alleged mental health issues and the shooting itself. I do have to start wondering about your motives. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Highly partisan group soapboxing and exploiting the issue to further their own political agenda. Is there really any question? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting the feeling there is an editor with an agenda going on here. Please take a step back and consider your edits in a NPOV vein.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You are implying that I have an agenda because I am asking whether mass media stories which clearly make the connection between mental health care deficits and mass shootings should be included in the article? I could make a stronger case that others have an agenda for questioning what is explicitly proscribed in WP:TALK. 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

All I know is that the source for this paragraph, thinkprogress.org, unquestionably has an agenda, which is why it is inappropriate and unreliable due to bias as to source this type of information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that ThinkProgress is an established media organization with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy which is frequently cited in Wikipedia. A quick search of the WP:RSN archives shows that it is frequently approved as a reliable source here. However, I see that it has been excluded from articles explicitly about politics. Can you show an example where it has been excluded in articles about mental health treatment or crime? 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, it is arguably a political purpose to which it is being used. You are of course welcome to take it to WP:RSN, and be sure to ping me if you do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sorry, this has some of the same issues as the other material that you have tried to add. This is not an article on mental health. Also, ThinkProgress is of questionable reliability as a source for a highly visible articles such as this. - MrX 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - It has nothing to do with this case, so far as is known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Second-deadliest mass shooting?

The introduction states "It was the second-deadliest mass shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre."

This is incorrect as the Bath School disaster was the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikefnv (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That was a bombing, not a shooting. 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bath School Disaster was the deadliest mass murder taking place in a school (final death-toll of 45) but it was not the deadliest mass shooting. Kehoe's weapon of choice was explosive-charges laced throughout the school. He only used one firearm in his crime, a WInchester bolt-action rifle. He shot it off by hand into the back seat of his car, using it as a detonator for some rigged-up explosives and shrapnel, thereby killing himself, the school superintendent (who had just come up to his car) and a bystander or two. Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

CBS Face the Nation this morning

From what they reported the shooter was still alive when police arrived and ducked into a room and shot himself. Not sure this has been verified yet, but to me this was definitely "new" news.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Follman on mental illness

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation?page=2

"A major New York Times investigation in 2000 examined 100 shooting rampages and found that at least half of the killers showed signs of serious mental health problems. Our own data reveals that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides: In the 62 cases we analyzed, 36 of the shooters killed themselves. Others may have committed "suicide by cop"—seven died in police shootouts. Still others simply waited, as Holmes did in the movie theater parking lot, to be apprehended by authorities. Mental illness among the killers is no surprise, ranging from paranoid schizophrenia to suicidal depression."

Are there any reasons that shouldn't be included? 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? You're getting close to disruptive here. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive? Because I'm actually looking for and finding an abundance of reliable sources in mass media from prestigious journalists which don't agree with your POV, for which you have what sources, by the way? 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Because we've told you that until there is an authority on the case that explicitly makes the case that the mental illness was the issue for the shooting, that trying to prescribe problems with the mental health care system in the US is POV and SYNTH, and yet you keep pushing that. Look for sources from the authorities investigating the manner, not from the talking heads that are pushing political viewpoints. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Who has any source indicating that the shooter's own brother's claim that Adam was autistic is not authoritative? 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're going to feel some Administrator wrath if you continue down this road. You're tying something to THIS event that the Reliable Sources have not done.17:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We need 100% prove that the shooter's mental illness was at fault for the incident. He had mental illness, that's fine, but the next leap of logic, to place the shooting blame on it, absolutely requires an authoritive statement from the investigation. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is a policy or guideline against pulling pertinent quotes from mass media stories and asking on talk pages whether they should be included, I would like to read it. 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In this specific case, WP:NPOV unless we are ready to cover all notable positions (that includes gun control, non-traditional marriage, video games, etc.) WP:FRINGE also applies since all these have no evidence or statement of fact that tie the cause of the shooter to their political interest. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP:TE is worth a read as an essay that covers the policies that do cover it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of "tendentious editing" because I have been finding mass media reports from reliable sources that agree with my point of view but disagree with yours? 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think if you sincerely read that essay, it will be more clear. I don't remember having a specific point of view on any content, nor have I edited the article. I've only focused on policy requirements for inclusions and behavior on this talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of "tendentious editing" then please tell me exactly why instead of asking me to try to figure it out merely from the text of the policy. If you are not making such an accusation, then please make that clear. I understand that you are an administrator and I find such oblique potential accusations in a mismatched power situation to be extremely offensive and bullying. 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no control over how you perceive anything. I linked it to let you know that continuing to beat a dead horse and add more of the same will be perceived as WP:TE, that is all. I've tried to explain, as have others, what you need in order to get the information included, ie: a definitive statement, sourced, that mental illness played a role here. That is lacking. We can't just say "but we know he is mentally ill", that is original research and a WP:BLP violation to boot. (BLP covers recently deceased, not just living). You keep trying to add more of the same material, like shaking a Magic 8 ball, expecting to get a different answer, when the primary problem is that the claim that he was mental ill hasn't been established. Any synthesis that is based off of that unproven premise is automatically going to be ineligible for inclusion. Ask specific questions, I will be happy to give specific answers based on years of experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Mass Shootings: Maybe What We Need Is a Better Mental-Health Policy"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/jared-loughner-mass-shootings-mental-illness

"This story on the prevalence of previously identified mental-health problems among mass shooters has new relevance in light of the Newtown tragedy.... Mass shootings generate sensational media coverage, yet most media have failed to connect the dots with regard to mental health.... No less than 80 percent of the perpetrators in these 61 cases obtained their weapons legally. Acute paranoia, delusions, and depression were rampant among them, with at least 35 of the killers committing suicide on or near the scene. (Seven others died in police shootouts they had little hope of surviving, regarded by some experts as "suicide by cop.") And according to additional research we completed recently, at least 38 of them displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings."

Is someone going to call me disruptive for asking whether this story should be included? 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I gain no information on THIS shooting from the above whatsoever. Btw is autism a "mental illness" in your world?HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Has any reliable professional demonstrated that mental health was a factor in this event? Otherwise, you are beating a dead horse, to the point of disruption, as this has been explained multiple times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you imply that the many journalists I have shown demonstrating that it was are not professional? 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Because journalists cannot make that determination, only a clinical psych-type can, and as of right now, no official report has been issued to that effect. What if the guy was just angry? Autistic people (who are afflicted, not "mentally ill") especially one with as light a case as the shooter's can get mad and act out on that emotion. Just wait for some hard reports on this issue for THIS incident before adding this sort of info.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Professionals" as those tied with the current investigation. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Journalists are generally not accepted as mental health authorities, and their speculation is just that, speculation and editorializing. When they report what a real mental health car professional that has examined the person has to say, it will be easier to consider. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Then the answer to your question is yes because the lead author of Furguson, C.J. et al. (2011) "Psychological Profiles of School Shooters: Positive Directions and One Big Wrong Turn" Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations 11:1–17 wrote this article for Time Magazine explicitly making the connection. I believe one of the authors in Torrey, E.F. et al. (2010) "More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States" (Arlington, Virginia: U.S. National Sheriffs’ Association and the Treatment Advocacy Center) have also been quoted in an NPR story, but I don't have the transcript for that yet. 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what type of authority we're looking for. We need an authority on the present case to make the assessment that his mental health condition significantly contributed to the incident. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. These were published before this incident, how does this demonstrate this person is mentally ill? It doesn't, you are assuming he is without substantiation, or claiming all mass murders are the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you clearly didn't even glance at the headline of http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/15/sandy-hook-shooting-why-did-lanza-target-a-school/ then perhaps observing that URL will convince you that it was not published before the incident. I have had it. This will be my last edit under this account. I am scrambing my password. Please inform your "WikiProject Editor Retention" that I am leaving because of your bullying, oblique accusations, and unwillingness to read even the headlines of references. 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And that's speculation from an expert that is not part of the investigation, so again, more talking heads. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Some serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here. Please, no more speculation from "experts" who never met Lanza.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Foreign condolences

Did I miss a discussion that supported the removal of the foreign condolences? I know we cut it to simply listing the countries whose heads of state expressed condolences, but now that's gone entirely. Go Phightins! 17:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert it.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

#international reaction - MrX 17:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I included the foreign condolences in a one sentence form with reference, important as it shows that this went worldwide in scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Lanza

Is Nancy Lanza included in the total victim count in the infobox? She was killed at her home five miles away from the school, and including her in the victim count may imply that she was at the school when the shooting took place, which isn't true. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The article makes it clear where and how she was killed.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

St. Rose church evac'd on Sunday

[26] Just developing, may be nothing. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

From the looks of the article, it seems the trouble was in a home next to the church and the church was evacuated as a precaution. If this goes in the article, we need to wait for more information on how this (if it does) relates to the events last Friday. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

CNN is saying that it was a threat made, but yes we should wait for more info to come in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Radio Reference forum post has started on this incident, Here is the first message:

An Active Newtown Incident involving a threat at a church and resulting evacuation. Not much accurate info at this point.

http://forums.radioreference.com/connecticut-radio-discussion-forum/255528-active-newtown-incident-dec16-2012-13-05-a.htmlCoasterghost (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Media is now reporting the threat is a bomb threat -

BREAKING: Worshippers hurriedly left a Newtown church Sunday, saying they were told there was a bomb threat not far from the elementary school where 20 kids and six adults were massacred.

https://www.facebook.com/6abc.ActionNews/posts/200180513452750 Coasterghost (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Bomb threats are really not all that notable, however this one may be in the context of the shooting. I don't really think it should have more than perhaps a sentence or two mention, and certainly not a dedicated section called "Other occurrences". - MrX 18:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A user on Radio Reference is reporting that he believes that according to the newtown police radio that There was a mention of a possible gunman earlier since then radio traffic has been quiet. Coasterghost (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Title of article (again)

I think that by now we have enough clarity to determine a renaming of this article, and I think that "2012 Connecticut school shooting" fits closest to the most common public perception of this incident. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of something specific, like the current title, with redirects from other plausible titles, such as the one that you proposed. Generally, I don't see the value of including the year in the title, unless we are expecting a rash of school shootings in Connecticut. - MrX 18:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No year, per precedent such as Bath School disaster and Columbine articles. Also, I think this article is better for many reasons, first of which is it specifies the school. gwickwire^talk_edits 19:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Im in favor of the current title per MrX, Connecticut school shooting is a bit vauge and the year is un-needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think most members of the public are aware of the name of the school. I agree that the redirects help, but the most common usage does not include the name of the school. Most people are talking about the "Connecticut school shooting." Admittedly, that is vague, so I added the year, but that doesn't seem to be allowed by the stylebook. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're discovering the difference between news media and an encyclopedia. Toddst1 (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. In an event's immediate aftermath, a description like "Connecticut school shooting" makes sense in the context of a news report. Similarly, in 1999, news media reported on a "Colorado school shooting". Had Wikipedia existed at the time, someone might have suggested that "1999 Colorado school shooting" was the obvious article title. —David Levy 19:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's still too soon to know what name will predominate among reliable sources. Perhaps the one suggested above will end up being the most viable, but history suggests otherwise. (Almost all of our articles about U.S. school shootings are titled as the school's name followed by "shooting" or "massacre".) —David Levy 19:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly the precedent some of us are trying to follow when saying we should keep it as it is. gwickwire^talk_edits 19:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me, for the time being at least. Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Will probably need to remove the word "Elementary" at some point, but the rest looks as good a candidate for the name as any for now. Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC).
  

Edit request on 16 December 2012

In the last line of "Perpetrator" it states "He was too young to have purchased a gun anyway." This is false. He was too young to purchase a handgun, but he was there to buy a rifle, which in Connecticut you only have to be 18 to purchase. Him being too young to buy a handgun has nothing to do with him trying to buy a rifle. Sources: and Ecoleman24 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like someone took care of that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Numbers

Someone reverted the article's form of reflecting numerals, throughout the article. Mis-applying the pertinent rule, IMHO.

For example, the article began "... a gunman killed 20 children ... The overall death toll was 28 ... firing approximately 50 to 100 shots.".

The changer changed it to: "a gunman killed twenty children ... The overall death toll was twenty-eight ... firing approximately fifty to one hundred shots.".

At the same time, they inserted into the article itself... "<!--This should be "20 and 6", not "20 and six"; see WP:NUMERAL and talk page-->".

It was perfectly appropriate as it first stood -- and, given that that was the initial form chosen by the first major contributors, we try to avoid silly revert wars by abiding by the first reasonable form chosen throughout the article. That the first form was perfectly acceptable is clear -- wp:Numeral states

"As a general rule, in the body of an article ... numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words ... Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs."

I would also note that wp:Numeral states:

"... editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and ... revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

The most recent change, from numerals to words, seems to fall into the category of "choice of style" change, without a substantial reason.

--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed it back, as per consensus. There's no justification for spelling out the numbers since there is a conspicuous hidden comment in that section. A serving of WP:TROUT for whoever did it. - MrX 19:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. There are other such numbers within the article that were also changed. If I have a moment, I'll address them -- or feel free to yourself. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Apparently someone thought it looked better. - MrX 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I performed edits (unrelated to the diff linked above) for the sake of consistency. (At the time, the article contained mixed usage and no hidden comment on the matter.)

There appears to be some misunderstanding regarding WP:NUMERAL. Yes, consistency is called for (hence my edits), but when quantities greater than nine appear alongside those lower than ten, the spelled-out form is preferred, provided that all are expressed in one or two words. —David Levy 20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you happen to read "... editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and ... revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

or the fact that this was discussed and consensus was reached yesterday, thus the hidden comment? Please review the first couple of paragraphs of MOS:NUM and consider self-reverting your edit. - MrX 20:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to switch from one guideline-defined style to another (meaning one of equal standing). For the record, I've been heavily involved in authoring the MoS text documenting this.

Again, the word form is preferred under the guideline. Figures and spelled-out forms (expressed in one or two words) of quantities greater than nine have equal standing, but figures of quantities below ten are discouraged in this context. Such usage is considered acceptable when needed, but it isn't preferred.

And again, when I performed the edits, the article contained mixed usage and no hidden comment on the matter. —David Levy 20:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

David -- I understand some of this; this happens. The article was however completely consistent. Then, an editor comes along and adds an inconsistency. Then, an editor such as you comes along, is not aware of the prior consistency (and has not the time to wade through and see the last time the article was consistent per the edits of the main contributors), and makes the article consistent in a manner that is contrary to its first consistent form. It happens from time to time. Moreso in articles that are heavily edited.

But at least here, I believe that per the rule it is appropriate to use the form -- as MrX states -- that has us use figures rather than spelled-out forms (expressed in one or two words) of quantities greater than nine. And, of course, the rest of the rule as to consistency follows as well (e.g., 12 girls and 8 boys).

And, I certainly think that in the wake of this talkpage discussion there is nor reason for edit-warring to impose the opposite. Finally, the ArbCom ruling on edit warring to impose one's view as to which style should be used here is I believe as MrX indicates -- ArbCom said in 2005: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. .. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable." There is no question that the use I describe above, which was earlier consistent throughout the article, is what Arbcom refers to as an "acceptable" style. It's to avoid arguments of this precise sort that Arbcom handed down its ruling against style-revert-edit-warring in such circumstances. I also think a self-revert would be compliant with both the rule and with Arbcom's view.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. When I encounter such inconsistency, I often check the history to determine whether the style was consistent at some point. I didn't in this instance, as the spelled-out form is preferred in this context.

The confusion is arising because of a focus solely on the text pertaining to consistency. Yes, either consistent style is preferred over an inconsistent combination (and examples of both consistent styles are provided). But the same guideline advises us that "as a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words." In other words, for numbers greater than nine, both forms have equal standing (provided that they're expressed in one or two words), but for numbers below ten, the word form is preferred.

The advice against replacing one MoS style with another — which I helped to author (and strongly support) — doesn't mean that we shouldn't switch from a non-preferred style to a preferred style. —David Levy 21:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand the difficulty with checking history to conform to main-contributor/consistent prior usage, when it comes to articles such as this one that are heavily edited. This talkpage discussion hopefully helps clarify the circumstances in this case, however.

Here, also, the usage is ... to use Arbcom's language ... "acceptable". Nobody has disputed that. Arbcom does not say we can edit war where there are two acceptable styles, but one we believe is preferred. To the contrary -- If it is acceptable, we should not edit war over it. And the rule clearly states that this approach is acceptable, indicating that "numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)".

Here is what I understand, based on the rule (which derives from the Arbcom rulings in pertinent part), Arbcom rulings, and article history. Numbers less than ten should be written out in words, unless they fall into the "mixed" sentence category described above. Numbers greater than nine should be in numeral form in this article, consistent with how the article was when it was in consistent form, and edited by the article's substantial contributors. Mixed sentences should, per the rule, then be in numeral form.

As to the language of the 2005 ArbCom ruling -- it is quite clear. It refers to "acceptable" styles. The indicated style is acceptable. If Arbcom wanted to say what you say, Arbcom could have said it. It didn't. Same with the rule itself -- and, it is a general rule of construction that inconsistencies are construed against the draftsman. In short, Arbcom refers to "acceptable" styles, and says we should not edit war to seek to impose our preferred style -- when the style preferred is preferred for stylistic reasons. I think this quite clearly falls into that category.

Arbcom also provided the same advice, more strongly, in its 2006 ruling that applies here, in which it stated: "Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style.". (emphasis added). Clearly, the style you prefer is not mandated by wikipedia. This Arbcom ruling is a basis for the wikipedia policy, and referenced in it in footnote 1, as is the above Arbcom ruling.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of the ArbCom ruling, but I disagree with your interpretation of the MoS. When one style is explicitly preferred over another, the latter is "acceptable" only when there's a good reason to make an exception. The guideline advises us that when an exception is needed, either consistent style is preferred over an inconsistent combination. This isn't intended to supersede the same guideline's advice regarding which style is preferred, thereby rendering both "acceptable" under normal circumstances.

I'm unclear on why you quoted the "...may be rendered in numerals or in words" statement, which explicitly applies to "numbers greater than nine". —David Levy 21:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Arbcom rulings are the basis for our policy. In this case, this is made clear by footnote 1. The Arbcom rulings say that if we have an "acceptable" style (which we have here), that one should not edit war to seek to impose a usage that is not "mandated" (which is what is happening here; your preferred usage is not mandated).

One can't conflate the word "acceptable" to mean "preferred". One can't conflate the world "mandated" to mean "preferred". One can't conflate the Arbcom rulings to say that "even though the style was acceptable (clearly the case here), and even though my preferred style is not "mandated" (certainly the case here), I wish to impose my preferred style... and do so despite the fact that there was a consistent style prior to my edits that I do not prefer, supported by the main article contributors."

That the style which you object to is acceptable is borne out not only by the Arbcom ruling, but by the MOS, which states: "numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)." What we are discussing here falls directly within that in part -- as we are discussing the revising of numbers greater than nine from numerals to words. As well, of course, as the mixed use issue which then follows.

In short, the language in the 2005 Arbcom ruling, the 2006 Arbcom ruling, and even the MOS indicate that as long as the style used in this article which you do not prefer is "acceptable" and a different style is not "mandated", you should not edit war to impose a "preferred" style. That is even more emphatically the case where, as here, the initial major contributors, prior to your edits, had a consistent style in the article ... albeit one that you do not prefer.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, I disagree that the style in question is considered "acceptable" in this context and believe that the alternative is MoS-mandated unless unusual circumstances dictate that an exception be made (which isn't the case).

There's no dispute that both styles are acceptable for quantities greater than nine expressed in one or two words. But in the body of an article, only one style is acceptable for quantities lower than ten, unless there's some special reason to make an exception (in which case the consistent usage of figures is preferred over an inconsistent combination). No such circumstance exists in this instance.

Unless I've misunderstood, you interpret the ArbCom ruling to mean that any style that's ever acceptable must be retained forever. Were that so, it would be improper to replace non-inline citations with incline citations. That isn't so, because the former is considered "acceptable" only when the latter is infeasible or unavailable. Likewise, there are scenarios in which it's acceptable for an article's body to contain figures lower than ten, but this isn't one of them. —David Levy 22:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can debate and fix MoS issues after the flurry of BLP concerns are hashed out, and just try to keep it clean enough while there are so many other changes being made? Right now, it is enough just to keep up with BLP and other policy consideration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi David. I still want to make sure you understand that I think you did the right thing initially, via changes to make the article consistent, where it was unclear to you what the history was and that it was consistent earlier. My views are just as to the current form of the article, given our above discussion. I think now we're perhaps getting somewhere, albeit slowly.

Maybe we should start with what we all agree on, and then address mixed-use sentences. We all seem to agree that for quantities greater than nine, numerals (as the article had them, consistently) are acceptable. Let's make that change. We all seem to agree that in sentences that have only one quantity, and it is fewer than ten, words are appropriate. Let's make certain that is the case. Then we can turn to mixed-use sentences (e.g., 50 widgets and 100 things). @Dennis -- if I have a moment, I'll try to help out there as well; but I think we can parallel track these.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with your general approach as given: work on those things you agree on and improve those aspects of the article. My comments are just to remind everyone that the article is really, really busy with all kinds of problems and we are already working hard to allow maximum accessibility while dealing with the BLP issues. It is better to put off contentious debate on MoS (or edit warring...) for a week or so as the threshold is understandably lower. As to the application of MoS, I have no opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your continued assumption of good faith. For the benefit of others who might have doubts, I want to stress that I had (and have) absolutely no intention of violating the ArbCom ruling.

I also appreciate your efforts to find common ground upon which to build a solution. But I interpret the guideline's consistency advice as applicable to the article as a whole, not merely to individual sentences. And under the current format, all instances of quantities already comply with the MoS, regardless of which interpretation is correct.

But I don't mean to be stubborn, and your willingness to compromise warrants reciprocation. So if you believe that the above course of action is appropriate, rest assured that I won't revert. As Dennis points out, we have more important concerns and can resume analyzing and discussing MoS issues down the road.

Thanks again.  :) —David Levy 23:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• David Levy did the Right Thing™ but there's really no need to worry at this point except to correct solecisms such as "20 and six" which should be "twenty and six". Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC).
  

A question about numbers

It seems that, at this point, most numbers in the article are listed in verbal format (e.g., "twenty"), as opposed to numerical format (e.g., "20"). I hardly claim to be an expert on this MOS issue. Furthermore, it seems to me from the above discussion (that I only briefly scanned), that it is a complex and involved issue, with both exceptions and editor discretion. In any event, I have a question, since most of the numbers are now in verbal format. One exception that I have noted is the age listed for individuals. Should it say, for example, "20-year-old" Adam Lanza? Or "twenty-year-old"? The article lists the ages of several teachers, etc., in the prose section. (I am not referring to the chart of victims.) What is the correct way, per MOS, to list the ages? Should we be using words – as seems to be the style for most other quantities, at the moment – or numbers? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Best to just check WP:NUMBERS and the talk page there. Again, once the dust settles a full discussion will surely take place on the MoS issues. Things are just changing too fast with too many edits to get into minutia. Give it a week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In my view, this is a gray area, as ages are treated more as numerical designations than as a quantities of years elapsed, with figures predominating in common usage. (And they certainly aren't "comparable" to quantities such as the numbers of victims.) That's why I didn't convert them to words. —David Levy 23:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. However, shouldn't consistency in the article trump the ambiguity (and discretion) presented by a "gray area"? In other words, a "gray area" essentially means that it can go either way. Since it can go either way, wouldn't the article be best served by consistency? Let me know your thoughts. I have often seen a phrase such as "twenty-year-old". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We seek consistency among "comparable quantities". So while the correct style to use is debatable, the styles used for incomparable quantities (numbers other than ages) aren't factors in the decision. —David Levy 00:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. I am talking about consistency across the whole article. Most readers (and editors) are not concerned with subtle nuances such as "comparable" or "incomparable" quantities. Nor do they even know what that means. But they do know that they see some numbers spelled out and some written with numerals. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but it isn't reflected in the Manual of Style. Of course, you're welcome to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. If others agree with you, the guideline can be changed. —David Levy 01:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO sometimes it’s helpful for incomparable quantities to be expressed in different styles. It may not apply here, but an example might be “The speed-trap caught twenty-seven vehicles exceeding the limit by at least 15 kph, twelve that were 30 kph over, and two that were 45 kph over.” FWIW I would have spelled out the ages, giving other statistics in numerals.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

‎Condolence messages:???

Is there a reason why this was changed from "Reactions" to "‎Condolence messages:"? In addition a large bulk has been removed as a result of the name change. See WP:NOTCENSORED, if there is a political reaction to the events of Sandy Hook the nwe cant just sugarcoat it and pretend its not there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Yogesh Khandke is the one responsible for this. Everyone else just jumped on the bandwagon, myself included. It does remove quite a bit of contentious material and enables more consistent contributions. If there's no soapbox to stand on... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The previous title is simpler and better. The section should not be a coatrack for people to say how sad and sorry they were, this goes without saying.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The idea of a section of condolence messages rather than reactions is so unencyclopedic I can't even begin to explain how bad it is. It terribly violates WP:NPOV. Ryan Vesey 05:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that bothered me as well. The change from "Reactions" to "‎Condolence messages" was a step backwards. After all, this isn't a Hallmark card. The reactions (political or otherwise) are a reality of this tragedy and should be included as some level. - MrX 05:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What is notable is the reaction this is getting for the gun debate, we can include that without going into what the NRA has to say. The NRA bit should have just been removed and brought back when we have more details on the full story so we can be neutral. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with either, the section just needs to be consistent the intent/purpose of the heading used. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Knowledgekid, you beat me to the edit, I was in the process of restoring the same section, thanks. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Shelley Cudiner listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shelley Cudiner. Since you had some involvement with the Shelley Cudiner redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, was speedily deleted. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A reference for each victim

There does not/should not be a reference for each victim in the sidebox. The references which include the full list is appropriate; short biographies of each student are not necessary references. The only necessary ones would those with missing information for the list e.g. staff titles or the wounded unnamed adult.Samvnkauffman (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Natalie Hammond as lead teacher or vice principal

According to an edit this was discussed on the talk page, however "lead teacher", "vice principal" and "Hammond" are not here. CNN lists her as the vice principal. At the very least it should only be teacher, "lead", while also not a common term, is irrelevant. I am undoing the undo until it can be explained why "lead teacher" is more appropriate, or argue that both titles should be listed.Samvnkauffman (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

1. The discussion was archived.

2. Please see WP:BRD. —David Levy 08:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. Undone.Samvnkauffman (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for self-reverting.  :) —David Levy 08:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Refs moved

I'm a bit clueless on refs and their management so please prepare your trout. In response to this: Cite error: ref tag with name "NRA_releases_statement_on_Conn._shooting" defined in references is not used in prior text; see the help page. and the same for "identified" and "cbswitness" I moved them to the commented-out section, as it suggested on the Help page referenced. This looks tidier, certainly, but I hope it was the correct way to proceed - if not please revert and explain! Thanks DBaK (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lots of good details in WSJ profile

I don't know how much detail we plan to include about the perpetrator, but here's a chronological summary from the article

• The family moved to Newtown in 1998
• Lanza attended Sandy Hook Elementary for first through fourth grades, starting the year they moved
• Lanza's parents separated in 2001
• Lanza's mother pulled him out for homeschooling
• Lanza returned to public schools in middle school
• Lanza's mother took him out of public school in the middle of high school
• Lanza then took classes at Western Connecticut State University
• Lanza cut off contact with his father in summer 2010
• Lanza cut off contact with his brother after Christmas 2010
• Lanza's mother told friends she was preparing to move to Washington State in the days before she died

Link: School Gunman's Downward Spiral. That information all seems pretty salient, but some people have very strong opinions about what should be in here. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

After it's verified by official sources it would be good for the article on Lanza when it is ready to be created. I see nothing in there that pertains to the shooting (as yet) i.e., THIS article, except the time he attended the school. Need very firm confirmation on the last line, for instance. All this info has been reported in the press for a couple of days now. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Another interesting story I read. Apparently, the mother essentially never left Adam alone. However, she went on a mini "vacation" for the 2 or 3 days prior to the shooting, leaving Adam all alone for all that time. (She didn't want him using the stove, so she prepared all his meals ahead of time.) She arrived back at home on Thursday night; she was killed the next morning. Speculation is that Adam was doing much of his "plotting" and "preparations" during those 2 or 3 days, when he had the house (and gun access) all to himself. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tangential soapboxing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you (?) mark the request as answered? [27] --87.79.128.82 (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In spite of the consensus above, the statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content
Sockpuppetry... says the person with the brand new account. --87.78.239.56 (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC) This is my only account. It is over 6 months old. Please limit discussion to the relevant topic at hand. --Digitpuppet (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.Danger ^{High voltage!} 20:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

NRA Reaction/Deflection and Reaction to NRA Reaction

I see someone added the portion of the NRA News Conference about the armed guards at schools but left out the equally ludicrous deflection of blaming everything on video game and movies and everything but their constant lobbying to make guns easier to attain. I have to step out for a while but hopefully someone can fully flesh out the NRA's reaction a little better. There's already been quite a few politicians that chimed in on the news conference as well. Capeo (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm agreeing with everything said, but the NRA is not alone in its claim that our violence laden media (movies, games, etc.) has contributed to the problem. The violence in media comment was just a fraction of the transcript.[28] The NRA spokesperson goes on to suggest that we use retired military and police officers in our communities to protect our schools. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed a new section entirely devoted to coverage of the NRA statements. It is totally undue to give so much coverage to the NRA, and omitting any reaction to their controversial statements violates WP:NPOV. It their statement is to be covered at all, it must be done briefly, and in a way that avoids using this article as a WP:COATRACK platform for the NRA's position on gun control. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The NRA reaction should be summarized and this article should not become a soapbox for promoting their position. The content was re-introduced by the same editor and I have removed it. - MrX 03:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I had cleaned up the NRA entry because it was POV laden and then it was deleted entirely :-(. the commentary on here makes me concerned that the editors are not adhering to Wikipedia Policy in good faith. Can we cover in an NPOV fashion everybody's reaction including the NRA, the media certainly covered that today. Frankly leaving out the NRA's statements is censoring and I expect better from Wikipedia. The NRA's statements were covered on evening news tonight and there are thousands of pages out there covering their position but no mention here at all? Surely we can do better than just block deleting without even putting one iota of effort into attempting to be NPOV.Justanonymous (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

'Censorship'? Please don't drag out that old canard. The section (a whole section? why?) was entirely contrary to WP:NPOV policy - it made no mention whatsoever to the reaction to the controversial statements made, and looked to be little more than a WP:COATRACK. This article isn't about the NRA, it is about a tragic event at an elementary school. If the NRA response is to be covered, it needs to be done properly - which means reporting what secondary sources said. First though, we need to discuss the extent to which the NRA's statements are directly relevant to the article at all, and to what extent those organisations in favour of gun control have their views reported too - we can't simple give the NRA a monopoly here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Censorship is what you have accomplished either by design or by accident. By your actions and supported by Mr. X a ProGun control position was left on the page yet zero coverage is allowed from the progun crowd. So fix it or admit what you areJustanonymous (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The statements from the NRA need to be summarized, and we need to use independent news sources that objectively report on those statements. I think we also need to keep this section brief, since the article is primarily about the shooting. - MrX 03:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by progun crowd? Do you mean pro gun control? - MrX 03:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Justanonymous, your section violates Wikipedia WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT policy. It was reverted accordingly. Do you really think that Wikipedia should use language like "the creation of a comprehensive yet flexible school protection program entiteled the National School Shield Program that would include best practices in the areas of security, building design, access control, information technology and student and teacher training" here? We don't regurgitate press releases in Wikipedia's voice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

it is not my section, please don't attribute it to me. I showed up and the section was filled with weasle words, I merely cleaned it up to reflect what the NRA actually stated today with references. If you want one sentence there instead of a paragraph, no objection here. The problem is that you entirely deleted the section without any attempt at making it conform. I have no issues with the pros and cons growing or for pro and con to be one sentence each. You mention policy like NPOV and Weight but from my vantage you're the one that has violated those policies by making the article unbalanced. The onus should not now be on me to fix. You block deleted, at least be courteous enough to condense vs forcing us to rewrite. The NRA spoke out on Sandy Hook Elementary massacre today and that is eminently newsworthy and merits coverage here. You adamantly oppose and Mr. X backs you. Justanonymous (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that at the time any detailed opinion of the NRA will be NPOV because we're not representing any other viewpoint (and I don't think I've seen any other counter-viewpoint yet). So it is effectively impossible to keep any part of that section. It's removal was appropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure you are, there is a significant ProGun control section in there right now but no ProGun ownership reaction? Have you read the article? Your logic doesn't track, the article clearly has ProGun control spin to it at the moment and the newsworthy NRA statement on the massacre happened today which you are all colluding to supress. Andythegrump doesn't like the word censorship but that is exactly what is going on. It is censorship sorry.Justanonymous (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

" I showed up and the section was filled with weasle words, I merely cleaned it up to reflect what the NRA actually stated today with references". Really?

Before:

In a December 18 statement, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) said it was shocked and saddened by the tragedy in Newtown, and is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again".[156] On December 21, the NRA proposed placement of armed police officers in every US school to protect students and announced that Asa Hutchinson would lead a task group to develop the program.[157][158][159]

After:

[Section header] National Rifle Association of America

Main article: National Rifle Association

In a December 18 statement, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) said it was shocked and saddened by the tragedy in Newtown, and is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again".[156] On December 21, the NRA called on the United States Congress to immediately appropriate funds for the hiring of armed police officers in every US school to protect students and to further have those new officers in place in time to start guarding all student's upon their return for the Spring 2013 session.[157] The NRA also announced the creation of a comprehensive yet flexible school protection program entiteled the National School Shield Program that would include best practices in the areas of security, building design, access control, information technology and student and teacher training to be made available to any school that wanted to use it and further denoted that armed guards should be an available component of such program at the discretion of the individual schools.[158] The NRA introduced former Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and former United States Congressman Asa Hutchinson from Arkansas as the lead for the National School Shield Program.[159][160][161]

How is replacing weasel words with an entire weasel section 'cleaning anything up'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The NRA proposed nothing today, they did exactly 2 things:

1. called on congress for the immediate funding of police officers for all schools
2. informed the world of their creation of a School Protection Program

The version I found was factually in error. I corrected and expanded and yes, I needed more words to clarify what the NRA called for today. Justanonymous (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit violated WP:NPOV policy in my opinion. It was removed accordingly, and the clear consensus here seems to be that my actions were correct. Wikipedia is not a platform for the NRA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revision

Here is a possible revision.

In a December 18 statement, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) said it was shocked and saddened by the tragedy in Newtown, and is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again".

On December 21, the NRA called on the United States Congress to appropriate funds for the hiring of armed police officers in every US school to protect students. They also announced the creation of a school protection program called the National School Shield Program which would be led by former DEA Administrator and United States Congressman Asa Hutchinson.

- MrX 04:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You sir restore my faith in Wikipedia, yes, that is succinct, clear short concise and very balanced. I like it.Justanonymous (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a rapidly-developing situation, and frankly I think we'd do better to wait a few more hours, so we can report how the NRA's statements were received. As The Guardian reports, [29] [30] it seems that some notable conservatives in the US are distancing themselves from the NRA's position, and there are likely to be more sources in a matter of hours, rather than days. There is no need to rush into this, as I see it. Wikipedia is not a newspaper... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be about a statement from the NRA and its responses--this harebrained scheme is going to provoke more responses than any wardrobe malfunction. One sentence is enough, as far as I'm concerned: that first sentence, their statement from 18 December, that's just a meaningless cliche. Scrap that, for starters. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but like it or not, The NRA is front and center in a national debate that started a week ago as a result of this tragedy. FWIW, I agree that the first paragraph lacks any meaningful content. - MrX 04:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: is this proposed text intended for the 'condolences' section? If so, I can see nothing particularly wrong NPOV wise with including the first paragraph - but the second paragraph isn't about 'condolences', and doesn't belong in the section at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is, the NRA promised meaningful action the second paragraph denotes what they offered factually, whether that's good or bad is not for us editors to judge, it is for the readers to judge. Let them read and judge. Lest we just want to censor viewpoints or bog them down in administration until the traffic volumes die down.Justanonymous (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. We're not a pool of information from which readers can "decide" one thing or another. This isn't freshman comp: it is our job to include notable facts in a well-written, concise manner. An announcement that they will deliver something meaningful in a couple of days is not notable. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Dec. 18 promise should go, and the widespread criticism of the statement Dec. 21 needs to be included. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Justanonymous that MrX's edit is acceptable. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Commented content

I uncommented the NRA reaction. There is no policy requiring us to omit content while we wait for a reaction to a reaction, nor has this practice been applied consistently to this article. The reaction of the NRA is notable and significant, and there is no legitimate reason for hiding it. - MrX 14:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

But NB ref #155 is currently undefined. This is probably my fault (see #Refs moved below), in which case sorry, and I should maybe stop trying to help ... :( DBaK (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. The full citation needed to be moved from the commented-out list to the non-commented-out list in the references section. - MrX 14:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Reaction of WP:RSs to Lapierre

A mention of the response to LaPierre's statement, by multiple WP:RSs, is required under WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Everybody agree?

Here's a good summary from The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/22/nra-lapierre-statement-pilloried-newspapers which includes the responses of many WP:RSs. Some of the strongest statements are in the New York Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/america-mad-gunman-article-1.1225123 --Nbauman (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Opinion article are tripe. Nothing is "required" Arzel (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would safe to include that that the NRA's response was criticized, but I don't think we need to include opinion quotes, unless they come from very notable people, and the quotes are reported by multiple reliable sources. - MrX 20:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's what WP:NPOV says: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

Agreed? --Nbauman (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree on the WP:NPOV policy, but interpretation and applying it is what we, as editors, discuss and reach consensus on article by article. There's all sorts of things that are reported in multiple RS's that are deemed not appropriate for an article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a section on LaPierre's statement. If multiple WP:RSs publish critical views of LaPierre's statement, shouldn't we also represent those critical views proportionately? --Nbauman (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Not 'should' - 'must'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

disagree, there's going to be plenty of opinion on this going in all directions, lets stick to facts not politics. Yes, predictably some hate nra and some love nra, besides the point, facts rule. Justanonymous (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)