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 meStalk 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 [1]. 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" [2] 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: [3] 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" [4].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" [5]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)
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.
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[1]Baharris18 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
edit request Lauren Rousseau
I added Lauren Rousseau
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)
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)
- This does not address the point about which kind of gun was used in the suicide. --Crunch (talk) 22:56, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Adults | Children | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
- 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. gwickwiretalkedits 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have, in the meantime, changed the formatting a bit to make it look a little less space-hogging. gwickwiretalkedits 00:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Look up ⇑. Uncle G (talk) 00:37, 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)
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."
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. gwickwiretalkedits 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)
- 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)
- 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. gwickwiretalkedits 22:55, 15 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)
- 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)
- 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. gwickwiretalkedits 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
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. gwickwiretalkedits 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Agreed. Anyone have objections to the main points of these?
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. Mkdwtalk 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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. Mkdwtalk 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. Mkdwtalk 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"... Mkdwtalk 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. Mkdwtalk 06:52, 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)
- 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"... Mkdwtalk 06:17, 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. Mkdwtalk 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. Mkdwtalk 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)
- 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. Mkdwtalk 06:52, 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. Mkdwtalk 06:14, 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)
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. Mkdwtalk 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.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3]