Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 4
.223 Bushmaster found in car TRUNK
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRdWORVgyvo
Northern Illinois University massacre
--91.6.94.46 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I assume it is due to a lack of reliable sources that have made that clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- {ec with DB] Sorry, but our job is to write a decent encyclopedic article. If reliable sources report on some assessment of a motive, this article will too. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's "missing" because it's not known yet, or at least the investigators aren't saying. For one thing, it's reported that he destroyed his computer, so it's going to take the experts a while to figure out what possibly-useful info was on it - and with it, the best likelihood of assessing the motive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Edit Request: NOT second most deadly attack at public school in US - Problem with first paragraph
In the first paragraph of this article, it is stated that this was the second most deadly attack on a public school in the US, with the Bath School attack in 1927 being the most deadly. This is incorrect and needs to be revised. Virginia Tech is also a public school (public university, and a university is a school) and experienced a greater number of dead than the Sandy Hook Elementary attack.
- I've reworded it as "American school of compulsory education", which encompasses elementary school through high school. —David Levy 22:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see what you've done, and I understand it. But, I am sorry, that sounds "clunky" and disruptive to the reader's flow. So, please tell me, would the following suggested statement be factually accurate or inaccurate?
- * It was the second-deadliest mass shooting in United States history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, and the second-deadliest attack at an American school
of compulsory education, after the Bath School Disaster of 1927. - In other words, does the statement still hold for any type of American school (public or private, regardless of age level) or no? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- There seems to have been some misunderstanding about the lede, which had previously made a distinction between mass shooting and mass murder/attacks. The 1927 Bath School disaster with a death-toll of 45 is the most deadly mass-murder/attack (regardless of what kinds of weapons were used- guns, explosives, whatever) on any school of any type in American history. Sadly, the number of dead at Sandy Hook makes it both the second-deadliest mass shooting at an American school (which would include the Virginia Tech massacre) and also the second deadliest attack on any American public school (which includes Bath and Virginia Tech). Shearonink (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I don't understand the very last part of your reply. You state that: the Newtown event is "also the second deadliest attack on any American public school (which includes Bath and Virginia Tech)". How can that be? Bath was 45; Virginia Tech was 33; and Newtown is 28. So, Newtown is then third – not second – no? Please clarify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Unless I'm confused, that doesn't make sense. Both the Virginia Tech massacre and Bath School disaster involved more deaths, so the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is the third-deadliest attack at an American school (public or private) and second-deadliest at an American school between the elementary and high school levels. —David Levy 00:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- There was initially a difference delineated between mass shootings at schools and mass murder at schools by any means (Bath was a bombing, Va. Tech was a shooting, Sandy Hook was a shooting). If the distinction of the manner of inflicted death/murder is of a secondary concern for editorial consensus, then yes, by the numbers alone, Bath holds the sad distinction of being the worst, Va. Tech is #2 & Sandy Hook is #3. The problem I ran into earlier in this article's history is finding reliable sources that state the rankings...if a reliable source doesn't specifically say that "something is so", then numerically ranking these school-house murders could be seen as original research. Shearonink (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The source cited in the article provides all of the relevant information. —David Levy 01:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Can we find any better wording for "compulsory education"? It is clunky; it is disruptive to the smooth flow of the well-written lead; and most people really don't know what the term means (despite the fact that they can click on the blue link). In other words, "compulsory education" is not an "everyday word" in general use with the public. Any suggestions? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've switched to "elementary school". It's a narrower description, but I think that it addresses your concerns (and it might be a more noteworthy distinction anyway). —David Levy 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Great! That works! Much better. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I still think this needs some work. I was confused by the opening paragraph too and didn't understand the distinction until I came to the talk page. Based on other comments here, I'm not alone. The whole point of an opening paragraph should be to be concise. Instead the article is making two different comparisons in a single sentence.
I suggest dropping either one of the two comparisons. As it reads now it's like saying "something bad happened and it's the second worst thing to happen since the apple incident and the second worst thing to happen since the orange incident"
Shoeless Ho (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Shoeless Ho makes a great point. Maybe we can take it out of the lead. And perhaps add it to the "Victims" section or the "Shooting" section. When we move it to another section, we can there be more wordy (less concise than the lead requires) and more clearly delineate the differences. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- This article is a current event, and it relates to a contentious debate (gun control). The Bath bombing is significant to learn about right now. It happened in 1927, which demonstrates that a school massacre occurred historically (this is not only a modern day issue), and it was not a shooting, which demonstrates that the problem is not limited to guns. Knowing about Bath is important in relation to Sandy Hook. It enters into thinking and debate on the topics of mental health and gun control. I think it should remain in the lede. Tumblehome (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I like your split into two separate sentences, which should help to address Shoeless Ho's concerns. I've tweaked the wording to specify that the 1927 disaster comprised bombings. Hopefully, that will help to convey the distinction between the two statistics. —David Levy 06:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Tumblehome, that's a huge improvement and it's at least less confusing. I still think the second paragraph is a bit awkward with too much information shoehorned into two sentences, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to fix it either. A couple of suggestions questions:
- 1) Move both sentences out of the lead and into the body where they can get more "loving" as Joseph A Spadaro suggested.
- 2) Keep the shooting statistic (as it is slightly more relevant) and move the bombing info into the body.
- 3) If it's deemed vitally important to keep both sentences in the lead, can the comparisons be less clunky? Why distinguish "elementary" in the second sentence? Wouldn't it be easier to say something like "It was the second deadliest shooting at an American school and the third deadliest attack on an American school"? Or even just say "It was the third deadliest attack at an American school in U.S. history" Shoeless Ho (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The two individual statistics are significant (and belong in the lead) because they relate to separate key elements of the event (the fact that it was one of the deadliest shootings and the fact that was one of the deadliest elementary school attacks).
- I don't regard the current wording as awkward or clunky, but perhaps it can be improved further.
- We did briefly switch the second statistic to "the third-deadliest attack of any kind at an American school" (which someone quickly reverted), but that version strikes me as both clunkier (particularly given the need to mention the Virginia Tech massacre twice) and less informative (because the aforementioned "elementary school" element is lost). —David Levy 18:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "It was also the second-deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school" is just clunky writing, with a sophomorish placement of "also" and a redundant, dummy "it was." Drmies (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- What do you suggest? (Perhaps "also was" would be an improvement.) —David Levy 18:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree with David Levy. The statistics (esp. the "ranking") maybe somehow relevant concerning the "gun debate" in the lower section of the article. But wikipedia is not a news bulletin. Placing those statistical references in the lead creates the impression, that the statistical ranking regarding the death toll is a decisive parameter for categorizing this event.The lead should only contain the basic and known facts for those will not change in the future (with the advantage that the article won't have to be updated every time there is another incident with more casualties). Any other information - that may be described as dynamic - like the "ranking" should be placed in the article's body.AssessorJurBerlin (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I respect your opinion, but it's inconsistent with Wikipedia's coverage of such topics. —David Levy 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Gun "Registration"
The article says the guns were registered to his mother. I don't know Connecticut law, but under federal law, there is not gun registration. You do fill out a "Firearms Transaction Record" form when you buy. This could be see as a pseudo registration, but is not an "active" registration process. That is, if you sell the gun to a private individual, you do not have to fill out a new form. Thus, you would still be the last person of record to have the gun, but no "registration" would need to (or is) updated.
Mrjohns2 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
So, that article says there is no registration. So, shouldn't the article be changed to fix this misnomer?Mrjohns2 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article above says that there is de facto registration due to the requirement that handgun sales and transfers require an authorization number issued by the state and a form containing personal and weapon identification must be submitted to DPS and local police. In parallel, if you check the NBC News source cite here in the Sandy Hook shooting article, it says "The weapons used in the attack were legally purchased and were registered to the gunman's mother, two law enforcement officials said." Hence, we've been going with what the sources say when we say that the firearms were registered to the mother. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It seems like the source was wrong. There isn't registration, there is de factor registration. Legally owned, legally transferred, but they can't be legally registered without having registration. No?
Mrjohns2 (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- To simplify, I've changed that paragraph to read that they were "legally owned by Lanza's mother" rather than "registered". AzureCitizen (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- There does not appear to be formal "registration" in Connecticuit in the way that say California or New York do it, but as Mrjohns says, all firearms are registered as they're sold from a dealer, and they are registered in the same way if they're ever sold to a resident of another state (because those transactions require a dealer). The federal "loophole" refers to the fact that in some cases private citizens can sell to other private citizens of their own state, if state law allows it (and the persons are authorized to have them). Those transactions might possibly not be federally "registered", although many state registration schemes would register those.
- It doesn't seem innacurate to say "registered" to the mother if in fact she purchased them from a licensed dealer. Shadowjams (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Registered is indeed incorrect language Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) being: No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
The fact that a record of sale and background check exists and may be referenced is explicitly NOT registration of a gun. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually in typical language one calls keeping a record of something pretty damn close to registration. You're quoting part of the Brady Bill that deals with background check registration and state sovereignty issues. The simple fact is all FFLs are registered, and all gun transactions through them are registered. Nitpicking about "registration" verses "registered", when we're talking colloquially (the term "assault rifle" is thrown around with impunity) why are we wikilawyering about "registration"? Shadowjams (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This Article should be blanked and locked immediately
It is HIGHLY irresponsible to print anything at all until the facts are all in. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The page should be blanked with such a notice, and locked until such time as the media circus has found other more interesting things to sensationalize.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- While I empathize with your perspective more than you know, the fact remains that a consensus does not, and as such, we are limited to instead policing the article and dealing with individual issues as they come up. If it gets to a point that it can't be managed, myself or another admin will full protect the page but it isn't close to that. It is a WP:Five pillars issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't write what is true, as that is not always known (as it isn't now), but we report what is verifiable. Everything in the article is verifiable. Therefore, it meets that policy. It's already been semi-protected to prohibit addition of unsourced material, which is all that needs to be done. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, but we do write verifiable material. Regardless of whether it's true or not. gwickwiretalkedits 22:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia were not allowed to have an article on some event until "the facts are all in," then it would be decades before it had articles on many events (the Titanic sinking, some historic assassinations, espionage cases for instance). There has never been any such guideline or policy. I agree with your desire to avoid being a tabloid, and we should keep out ill-sourced material. We should follow mainstream media and not try to lead them with synthesis or original research. Edison (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article has over 600,000 visits already. Someone is interested. It would be irresponsible not to meet such a strong demand. WWGB (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't entirely agree, although I do recognize that it's problematic to edit as an event such as this is unfolding. I'm not sure how we could assess when "all the fact are in". As someone way up-thread mentioned, we probably need to have a broader community discussion about how to handle these situations in the future. Perhaps a 24 hour editing editing embargo or pending changes protection for a period of time. - MrX 23:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would argue that the way it is being handled works. Actually, this has been discussed at the admin boards anyway. Our first obligation is to the reader, which is why less but reliable is better than more and unreliable, why it is semi-protected, and why so many experienced editors are volunteering to help here on this page, even if they aren't editing. I think it is going as good as can be expected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- At the very least, I think a discussion about how to implement a system to prevent constant edit conflicts might be helpful. - MrX 23:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is a wiki, when two people try to edit, there is a conflict :) Nothing on the technical side that you can do. This is common for any hot topic, the result is always the same: nothing can be done if you are a wiki. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sure there is. A check-in/check-out process similar to what is used in software development. I'm not saying it's an appropriate solution, but there certainly are technical solutions that could be brought to bear. - MrX 23:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- To put it more clear, nothing is going to happen here. Wiki is fast, dirty and simple on purpose (theoretically). This has been discussed many times is the point. 99%+ of the time, it works perfectly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sure there is. A check-in/check-out process similar to what is used in software development. I'm not saying it's an appropriate solution, but there certainly are technical solutions that could be brought to bear. - MrX 23:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is a wiki, when two people try to edit, there is a conflict :) Nothing on the technical side that you can do. This is common for any hot topic, the result is always the same: nothing can be done if you are a wiki. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- At the very least, I think a discussion about how to implement a system to prevent constant edit conflicts might be helpful. - MrX 23:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would argue that the way it is being handled works. Actually, this has been discussed at the admin boards anyway. Our first obligation is to the reader, which is why less but reliable is better than more and unreliable, why it is semi-protected, and why so many experienced editors are volunteering to help here on this page, even if they aren't editing. I think it is going as good as can be expected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would have agreed with Sue not too long ago, but mostly because these articles used to be atrocious and of service to nobody. Over the years though, the community has become pretty good at rapidly building useful articles beginning right with the first wave of coverage. Of course these pages grow and change substantially, but we're delivering a condensed summary of available sources, and we include all relevant information. Naturally, many people look to Wikipedia for distilled coverage. We should take pride in that and do our best to give our readers a useful overview of the topic. --87.78.4.182 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised at such a comment coming from a long-time contributor. Whatever "the media" sensationalize is one thing, but that a sensational thing happened is hard to deny, and we should have an article on it. Whether we should have it right now is another matter, but as the IP above me notes it's a pretty decent article right now, and indeed, despite problems, something to take pride in. Sue, I apologize for ending a sentence with a preposition. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Well its locked, and thus piling up with inaccuracies as knowledge about the issue is released. For instance authorities have announced they cannot find any corroborating evidence that the perpetrator tried to purchase weapons in the days before the shooting, yet the rumor is still on the page implying it's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.168.205 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Conspiracy Theories
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are already conspiracy theories being woven around this incident from the usual sources. Veterans Today which generally takes positions against US military policy, but supportive of Iranian policies and shares content with Iran's offical news agency PressTV, publishes many conspiracy theories from 9/11 to UFOs claims that Sandy Hook is " the worst elementary school massacre in America since General Erich Ludendorff, then head of German Intelligence, ordered the destruction of Bath School, Michigan on May 18th 1927, in a desperate effort to put pressure on the Coolidge Administration to cancel the Lindbergh Flight. This was after German technical experts had determined that the Ryan NYP Monoplane had the range to fly from New York to Paris and that it’s excellent Wright J-5 Whirlwind motor was sufficiently reliable to keep going for up to 40 hours, although the planning was triggered by concerns the previous year over a successful non-stop transatlantic flight, before the Ryan plane became a contender. Thirty-eight young children were murdered." There appears to be no evidence to support anything except the Bath school was attacked, and this may be the first appearance of such a theory. There is wikipedia coverage of JFK and 9-11 conspiracy theories, and such theories, even if demonstrably false, may contain clues to people who are trying to protect those who are connected to crimes and disasters. This particular article also makes references to the USS Cole, Virginia Tech and Aurora shootings. Redhanker (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- No one cares about conspiracy theories coming from random websites, really. Stuff like that is not getting into the article. --Conti|✉ 23:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- One should care when Veterans Today is not a random website, but a heavy traffic site closely tied to Iran's PressTV, which makes it effectively an international reaction. PressTV frequently posts articles from Veterans Today and even shares bylines. There are many wikipedia articles on conspiracy theories about attacks such as 9/11. VT is noted by the ADL as a source of destructive and deceptive onspiracy theories. Redhanker (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I might have worded it a bit differently, but agree that any "theories" would be an absolute violation of one of several policies here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's actually a conspiracy theory about the Bath School disaster, not about this shooting, so it wouldn't be relevant to this article even if it were being reported by sources less fringey than Veterans Today. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I might have worded it a bit differently, but agree that any "theories" would be an absolute violation of one of several policies here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The statement that the President paused twice to wipe away tears is not supported by analysis of the videos. There is no evidence of tears to wipe away. It would be better to simply state he paused twice to compose himself.
Title of article
Okay. So Columbine High School massacre of 1999 has massacre instead of shooting, right? That resulted in 13 deaths, and this Sandy Hook nonsense has like double Columbine. Change to massacre. Jonno - (Wanna talk?) 23:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article is protected against a name change for a week. The criteria for the name is what the sources call it, not what we think it should be. Surely, a discussion on the name will take place in a week once the protection is no longer in place. Until we know what the media will be officially calling it, no name change will likely take place. WP:COMMONNAME and likely others covers this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right. Plenty of time to discuss these type of changes down the road once the news of this incident settles down some.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes and by the looks of this (the redirects we have now) there is little chance anyone will have trouble finding this article. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 00:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article title is by no means the "official title" of anything, although it appears that some editors believe it is. In the case of incidents of this type, the title is and may forever remain a generic descriptive label. "Massacre" is probably a closer match for many people's emotional perception of this event, but it is somewhat childlike to "consequently" insist that Wikipedia reflect that perception and not "demote" the event to "just" a shooting. Dunno, that's the vibe I'm getting from most of the comments of people seeking to immediately move the article to the massacre title. It's just a generic descriptive label for our encyclopedic coverage of the event, not the gospel. --87.79.225.233 (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Massacre" makes sense, but right now I think we should just let the matter lie for the time being and focus on improving the article. That's the consensus of the experienced editors who have addressed this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- It it worth noting that many newspapers, especially in the Northeast, have already run print denoting the event as a massacre. Food for thought. 108.7.234.171 (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, but perhaps in due time. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The title of the article should be changed to "2012 Newtown massacre" because the article also covers the murder of Nancy Lanza, who was not killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. 3193th (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Did another Newtown massacre occur in a different year? —David Levy 23:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if you consider the Murder of Helle Crafts a massacre, then yes. Plus there's other cities called Newtown in the world or the United States in which massacres or mass murders have happened, so it would make sense to include the year of the massacre to distinguish it from other massacres in cities that share the same name. 3193th (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- By definition, a massacre involves the killing of a large number of people (or animals, but that connotation isn't relevant), so no, the murder of Helle Crafts wasn't a massacre. In which of the other Newtowns have massacres occurred? —David Levy 00:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, then it should be called "Newtown massacre". 3193th (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- That probably is among the more likely possibilities. We just need to wait and see what ends up predominating among reliable sources. —David Levy 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, then it should be called "Newtown massacre". 3193th (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- By definition, a massacre involves the killing of a large number of people (or animals, but that connotation isn't relevant), so no, the murder of Helle Crafts wasn't a massacre. In which of the other Newtowns have massacres occurred? —David Levy 00:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if you consider the Murder of Helle Crafts a massacre, then yes. Plus there's other cities called Newtown in the world or the United States in which massacres or mass murders have happened, so it would make sense to include the year of the massacre to distinguish it from other massacres in cities that share the same name. 3193th (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Did another Newtown massacre occur in a different year? —David Levy 23:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Concur with title change from "shooting" to "massacre". "Shooting" is ambiguous for when this becomes old news. Also, shouldn't there be consistency (re Columbine). There's so much stupidity coming out of the woodwork whenever a tragedy like this happens. (Just heard out of the mouth of an educator reported on ABC News "World News Now", kids returning to school are being told: "[...] was a very sick person, and some very poor choices". [Amazing! Water-down much?]) A "shooting" sounds like a sporting competition. Name a spade a spade. (Isn't common sense, in lieu of what the "media" does, which is driven by advertising dollars, a WP pillar? If not, it should be.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- We use the title Columbine High School massacre because that's what the event is commonly called, not because we decided on our own to label it a "massacre" (which is neither more nor less accurate/precise than "shooting" is). —David Levy 09:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- How can you say word "shooting" is equally accurate/precise, when that word does not necessarily imply any deaths? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Massacre" doesn't specify the method of attack. That's the tradeoff. —David Levy 09:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed.): massacre: 1. The act af killing many humans indiscriminately and cruelly. shoot: v. shot, shooting: 1. To hit, wound, or kill with a missle. 2. To fire (a missle) from a weapon. 3. To discharge (a weapon). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- We're discussing the noun form of "shooting". In this context, it's widely understood to refer to a firearm attack. —David Levy 10:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've butted heads with David about the name change timing, but I think we're largely in agreement that the general trend on wikipedia is that school tragedies like this are termed "massacres" and not "shootings" or "bombings" or whatever subset of attack. That's the trend in most of these articles, and it also avoids the obvious fact that the tragedy is homicide, rather than the method. And if the method is the tragedy, then that deserves a separate discussion, but it shouldn't be the article's title.
Waiting is fine for both a name change and for any extraneous bios, but we should consider starting a wide discussion, and leaving it open for a while. Shadowjams (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, we're in agreement that school shootings resulting in large numbers of deaths tend to be labeled "massacres". My point is that this occurs outside Wikipedia. If an event is commonly known as a "massacre", we call it a "massacre". If it's commonly known as a "shooting", we call it a "shooting". We don't override common usage with our personal opinions of what terminology should be used. —David Levy 10:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Common usage should be a factor, but it doesn't trump everything. (If you are for applying black & white principles, then it seems that goes against Jimbo's precept that editors use "conscientious editorial judgement" as well. Jimbo explained that Wikipedians are, afterall, 'editors'.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that common usage trumps everything (and I previously commented on scenarios to the contrary). I'm saying that it trumps Wikipedians' original research and advocacy. —David Levy 13:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Personally in favor of letting the media determine (in general) what the this will most commonly be known by, then renaming it then. More for the benefit of preventing confusion in people who might get initially confused that it is referring to another incident than the one they were looking for. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
More soapboxing?
I removed this:
In addition to tipping off debate about gun control, evangelical Christians spoke out blaming the ultimate cause of the massacre on "removal of God from schools". This point of view was presented by former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and echoed by both the American Family Association and Christian Broadcasting Network. Huckabee made similar blame comments about the 2012 Aurora shooting.
Which was previously removed, and seemed to have consensus for exclusion from the article as WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. - MrX 00:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was about to remove it as well, as it is def WP:POV info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The gun ban link in See also looks out of place as well (someone else pointed it out), and a lot of cites are broken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is easy to see that it will take a firm but polite hand to keep the soapboxing and theories out, due to well meaning newbies. Again, it is better to have less that is neutral and properly sourced than more that is not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- These are political opinions (disguised as religion) which offer no practical solutions. A couple of guys on The View today actually offered practical solutions: Putting armed guards in schools (like they have in banks); and urging parents to stop funding the violent portion of the video game industry, and to start paying better attention to what's going on with your kids. I'm not saying those guys should be quoted here either - only that their opinions are a lot more informed than politicians like Huckabee. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Attended St. Rose of Lima Middle School?
In the "Perpetrator" section, I put a "citation needed" tag next to the statement that he attended St. Rose of Lima Middle School. The citation is a link to a Hartford Courant story. At the time I looked at the linked story, about 7 p.m. 12/16, I couldn't find anything in that story about his having attended that school. Perhaps this is just a story whose online version is being frequently revised, or maybe I just missed it somehow. I'd like to see this get a good citation. I wasn't able to find one myself in casual Googling. (Perhaps I should disclose my motive for wanting this is that I mentioned it to a friend in a discussion of Mike Huckabee's claim that the crime was no surprise because we have "systematically removed God" from public schools. If Lanza in fact attended St. Rose of Lima Middle School, which is a Catholic school, this would bear on that discussion. By the way, yes, I agree that Huckabee's speculations on the root societal causes of the shooting does not belong in the article.) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I thought I had read that he (and the family) attended the church as parishioners, not the school (as a student). But, I am sure that there is a lot of confusion in these early reports. So, who knows, for sure? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
- Yes there is a consensus to exclude that content and I support that.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- This link from ABC News (Connecticut School Shooting: Adam Lanza and Mother Visited Gun Ranges) shows a photo with the caption "Adam Lanza is pictured at St. Rose Middle School". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Manual archiving again
I am going to archive a chunk of the talkpage again folks. It has become ungamely to edit again. Since discussions come and go quickly we may need to do manual archiving for a short while.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The best thing to do is usually to adjust the bot archiving time except in extreme cases. For some reason it was 36 hours (last time I looked it was 1 day). I've adjust it to 18 hours, although this is a fairly short time it's sometimes needed on very active pages. While the bot only runs once a day, it's still helpful to have an archive time under 24 hours as it means when the bot does run, discussions which have died down are more likely to be archived. Allowing the bot to work is usually best since it's both faster and reduces the risk of controversy if people disagree with what was archived. In particular, when manually archiving it's fairly easy to make a mistake and archive an old discussion which is still active. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please try to let all the archiving be automatic unless it's absolutely necessary. The automatic archiving makes it easy to look at the archive page and make sure nobody's modified past discussions, and it also, like Nil says, ensures objectivity and squashes any debates about fairness. If a section's not being archived but it's stale, make sure it has a proper date tag on the comment (otherwise the bot won't flag it). Shadowjams (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've templated some of the discussions for archive purposes, on cleanly settled issues. That should reduce some of the need to manually archive and give people a reference on discussions on this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- As a bit of an off-topic question, can the top section of the talk page have a message, such as in the page notice, about some of the commonly asked questions? It seems that there is a new section about the Bath bombings and renaming the article each day. Since the sections are being archived, someone else ends up bring it back up since they do not check the archive, thus my question. Super Goku V (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are templates for that. Just go pick your favorite super-controversial topic and check out the talk page. There are FAQ templates for most of them. Just follow those and check out the documentation. You might want to userspace it first and get it checked out to be on the safe side, and avoid conflict. Every monumental breaking-news story has similar talk page issues. This article and its talk has been overall very calm and thoughtful. Shadowjams (talk)
- Alright, thank you for the help with that. Hopefully it helps instead of harming. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, that might do it. I didn't remember to add everything I thought of, but it should be good enough for now at the least. Thanks again for the help. Super Goku V (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are templates for that. Just go pick your favorite super-controversial topic and check out the talk page. There are FAQ templates for most of them. Just follow those and check out the documentation. You might want to userspace it first and get it checked out to be on the safe side, and avoid conflict. Every monumental breaking-news story has similar talk page issues. This article and its talk has been overall very calm and thoughtful. Shadowjams (talk)
- As a bit of an off-topic question, can the top section of the talk page have a message, such as in the page notice, about some of the commonly asked questions? It seems that there is a new section about the Bath bombings and renaming the article each day. Since the sections are being archived, someone else ends up bring it back up since they do not check the archive, thus my question. Super Goku V (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Evangelical reaction is significant
OK according to some there was no "consensus" about including Huckabee's reaction, but now the head of the American Family Association has echoed these remarks and CBN News has placed an editorial about the issue. The text I have added is as follows:
- The shooting did not only initiate debate about gun control, but also among evangelical Christians about the place of religion in public schools. Key evangelicals spoke out, blaming the ultimate cause of the massacre on "removal of God from schools", including former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and echoed by both the head of the American Family Association and by Christian Broadcasting Network Huckabee made similar blame comments about the 2012 Aurora shooting.
So, not only Huckabee made headlines in the US and abroad, but this has been echoed by primary evangelical organizations.
The fact that some of us find this extremely distasteful does not change the fact that this is a major phenomenon triggered by the shooting. I feel that many of the efforts to suppress it are because those opinions are seen as outrageous - but this is not a reason to suppress the fact that those opinions exist and are widely and prominently reported on.
Aside from that, I think the article does not really reflect the kind of debate that the shooting tipped off, i.e. major discussion on gun control and by evangelicals on the place of God in schools. I think the Reaction section should actually have sections for "influence on gun control debate" and for "influence on religion in schools debate". Maybe there needs to be a sub-article about the Reactions and the Influence on Political Debate that the shootings triggered. Keizers (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it is still a POV (selecting one view to highlight). --MASEM (t) 02:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The key is that at first, we document the facts. Opinions are pouring out by the minute and it isn't wise to just dump them into the article as they come out. We are an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. When opinions are popping up like this, it is impossible to determine the proper weight to give them. Facts are easy to determine the proper weight to, facts are facts. An encyclopedia requires a little hindsight and patience, otherwise you end up with bipolar viewpoints and no balance. In other words, it is better to leave out all opinion in the short term, with the understanding that as the events settle and the facts come out, and news cycle gets back to normal, it is easier to add theses ancillary bits about the effect of this event. We can't honestly say what the effect is, as we are barely outside the cause. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the article is not about Huckabee's or anyone else's response. I'll defend the inclusion of the Feinstein information, since the announced introduction of legislation is far, far more than a reaction, but the evangelical reaction, no--and besides, "evangelical" is much more broad than Huckabee, the AFA, and the CBN. To call them "key evangelicals" is cherrypicking, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the gun control aspect is fine because something is actually being done (at least, we expect, we'll know tomorrow) in specific response to the event. Everything else is talking heads pontificating for their own political gain. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- As long as we don't include the "opposition to gun control" information from 2005. I've been busy on this page and about to go off for the evening, but the sources need someone to review again. And again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- {ec with DB--we have to stop meeting like this.] Yep. There's plenty of valid reactions (the mental illness aspect), but that doesn't make them encyclopedically relevant. Masem, I think you and Dennis are doing a stand-up job here: thanks to both of you, and to the dozens of other experienced editors. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed as well. This is not encyclopedic in my opinion. It might be on the Huckabee article but in the scheme of his entire life it may not gain consensus even there. And another thank you to Dennis and Masem.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the gun control aspect is fine because something is actually being done (at least, we expect, we'll know tomorrow) in specific response to the event. Everything else is talking heads pontificating for their own political gain. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am opposed to including the reaction from Huckabee et al, as they are merely politically motivated attempts to capitalize on this tragedy. To a slightly lesser extent, the Feinstein material does the same thing, but at least will likely result in tangible legislative action, partly as a result of this shooting. However, until there are longer term outcomes that reliable sources connect to this event, it does not belong in the encyclopedia. This includes evangelicals, gun control advocates, 2nd amendment advocates, mental health pundits, etc. After the longer term outcomes are established, known and reported on, then is the time to add them to the article, IMHO. - MrX 03:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The Feinstien stuff isn't a reaction but a developing outcome from this situation and is directly related. The Huckabee stuff is some guy on TV gaming for attention and has no place on the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're right. Huckabee's ill-informed comments have no place in the article. Every politician in America is likely to comment on this for the sole purpose of scoring political points. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I take your point, but there's a strong case to be made that this has little to do with the shooting, since her plans predate the shooting. In fact, the HuffPo article says "In the wake of Friday's mass killing at an elementary school in Connecticut, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday that she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress." Correlation does not imply causation, and all that. - MrX 03:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The Feinstien stuff isn't a reaction but a developing outcome from this situation and is directly related. The Huckabee stuff is some guy on TV gaming for attention and has no place on the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The "evangelical reaction" was very similar after Columbine, but it is not included in that article. No point in including it here. JayHubie (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Consensus Restore International Reaction
Proposed/archived text |
---|
Reaction from world leadersUnited States President Barack Obama gave a televised address at 3:16 p.m. EST on the day of the shootings, saying, "We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."[1] Obama paused twice during the address to compose himself and wipe away tears, and expressed "enormous sympathy for families that are affected".[2][3][4] He also ordered flags to be flown at half-mast at the White House and other US federal government facilities worldwide in respect for the victims.[5] Within 15 hours of the massacre, 100,000 Americans signed up at the Obama administration's We the People petitioning website in support of a renewed national debate on gun control.[6] Obama attended and spoke at an interfaith vigil on December 16, in Newtown.[7]
Leaders from many countries and organizations throughout the world also offered their condolences.[28]Also, there is information there other countries have had reactions, such as China, Singapore, Denmark, and Belgium This information may be important because all these countries usually don't comment on a crime in the U.S. |
Discussion
Why the rush to remove international reaction to the shooting? World leaders from all around the world reacted. Even naming the countries was too much? The shooting is being covered on many international news channels and being watched around the world. Many articles have international reactions to a tragedy, no matter how much they all sound alike. Could we discuss this again? There were only three responses to the last discussion and suddenly it was a consensus here, [1] enough to delete any mention of international reactions? Two users and an IP is not a good enough consensus. There are many contributors to this page. All three supporters of the last discussion made 6 edits or less to this page. 2 hours.. 5am to 7am GMT (12am-2am EST), was not enough time to get any consensus among the many people that edited this page. I would like a better discussion for more than two hours. People are going to bed in the United States and and there's 4 hours until those following GMT will awake. More time is needed.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- From the archives: [2].--Amadscientist (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is this too (Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 3#international reaction), which shows a much stronger consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- There does appear to be a consensus on this issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't notice that. I was viewing a later archive. I still think there should be another discussion.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that that is also not a good enough consensus. It was "Go Phightins" and "Knowledgekid87" vs MrX and TheArguer. That's a tie.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that another discussion is necessary. Also, I think the archive time on this talk page is a little to quick. I'm going to boldly change it to two days, rather than one. Go Phightins! 03:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't notice that. I was viewing a later archive. I still think there should be another discussion.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it came up earlier--I spoke my own mind on it, probably covered with dust by now. Problem is that this talk page also fills up very quickly and it's hard to see the forest for the trees if stuff isn't archived quickly. It'll calm down in the next few days--I think for now we should all take it easy and try not to double the article in size overnight. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Several edit conflicts)Consensus can change and there is no reason it can't be brought up again (although I am not for an extensive international reaction) As for the archives, changing the bot won't matter. I have been archiving manually. When the page gets too long we have little choice. But you can place any and all blame for the archiving squarely on my shoulders. This page is moving quickly, so the archives are probably going to have to be subject to some ignoring of the rules for a bit. But of course, I won't object or revert if someone feels that the archives need to be reverted, but be careful with that. the slower you make this page the harder it is to collaboarte together, discuss and forma consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Amad, thanks for your archiving work. I agree that the page gets way too long, but I think that at least two-three days is necessary to form a consensus on an issue such as this one. I trust your judgment. Go Phightins! 04:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure if others would agree to the time period you mentioned but somethimes it becomes clear quickly that there is no support, and sometimes it does take several days. Really depends on the forming of a straw poll !vote and reaction itself. Always a bit different with so many editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Amad, thanks for your archiving work. I agree that the page gets way too long, but I think that at least two-three days is necessary to form a consensus on an issue such as this one. I trust your judgment. Go Phightins! 04:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- (Several edit conflicts)Consensus can change and there is no reason it can't be brought up again (although I am not for an extensive international reaction) As for the archives, changing the bot won't matter. I have been archiving manually. When the page gets too long we have little choice. But you can place any and all blame for the archiving squarely on my shoulders. This page is moving quickly, so the archives are probably going to have to be subject to some ignoring of the rules for a bit. But of course, I won't object or revert if someone feels that the archives need to be reverted, but be careful with that. the slower you make this page the harder it is to collaboarte together, discuss and forma consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think we need to detail reactions from every single country. A simple summary that many countries have expressed their condolences is enough. LadyofShalott 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose anything other than a brief one sentence to state the obvious: world leaders expressed condolences for one of the worst mass murders in US history. It doesn't even need to cited. More than this, adds nothing of value and does not serve to inform the reader.- MrX 04:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - the world is watching, but we do not need to add all the comments. It's not a reality show with the worst massacre getting the most condolences.Parkwells (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support It shows the significance of the event. I'm going to have some comparisons here. Tucson shootings and Aurora did not have as much international reaction, if any, as this shooting. The world is watching. Serves the same purpose as the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting mentioning the MPs in India joining ranks in Parliament. Mentioning world reaction and the countries inform the readers that the world is watching, and who was watching. I don't see the difference between showing world reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi for example, and mentioning the reaction to this shooting, except the agreement. We could have simply added "Iran, a, b, c, and d condemned the violence". But we didn't. This is an encyclopedia for an international audience. Would you also say that it doesn't inform readers to mention media coverage in an article like Dunblane school massacre for example? mentioning the international reaction here shows the significance of what happened, the way mentioning Media coverage in the Dunblane article shows the significance of what happened in the Dunblane article..--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Don't reinstate that content without a clear consensus, please. I've already had to block one editor for edit-warring tonight and I don't want to be a winner in that reality show. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's understandable, I won't fight anyone on this. However, I have brought back a sentence that was not against any consensus. The consensus was for either against a bulleted list (with a tie, not a consensus) or a detailed section (depending which discussion is being looked at). The sentence was removed recently and it was the only mention that there was any reaction around the world.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am not at all happy that you did that. I won't edit war....even if you feel so inclined.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's understandable, I won't fight anyone on this. However, I have brought back a sentence that was not against any consensus. The consensus was for either against a bulleted list (with a tie, not a consensus) or a detailed section (depending which discussion is being looked at). The sentence was removed recently and it was the only mention that there was any reaction around the world.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I also don't want to lose that reality show. (Dammit Malcolm should have been in the final three)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It's cruft, but cruft can sometimes be effectively handled by creating a separate article, International Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, also someone removed my comment. Why? Auchansa (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I moved a comment you made up here.. might be what you was talking about. You made a section called "reactions", probably by accident.. And I decided to move it up here. I've been editing since 2006 but I wasn't sure if I was allowed to do that, so I decided to move it back. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, also someone removed my comment. Why? Auchansa (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, you don't create a reaction article out of the blue. I would like to say something about the reactions sections of a number of controversial articles and how they are little more than quote archives and how they usually end up being cut out of the main artcile as soon as they become large enough. This gains consensus because they are not very encyclopedic and many editor would rather have them seperated from the main article just to get them off said article. Wikipedia is not the best place for such writing for a very simple reason....most reactions from notable people are simply attempting to glom onto the subject to boost their own image. Some reactions are notable, but still not encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly! We can't have coverage of the international reaction to these events because non-US nations aren't notable and can't be sourced to reliable sources. Plus, we're a paper encyclopedia, and deforestation increases global warming. Seriously, providing a safety valve can be an effective way to deal with this sort of content. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't valid reason to oppose creation of such an article, and anyone who'd nominated such an article would have an impossible task of proving such an article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Anyway, whatever. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Drmies already said that they hoped it does not happen, not that it should occur. Super Goku V (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I meant to say that "Some reactions are notable, but still not all are encyclopedic".--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, you don't create a reaction article out of the blue. I would like to say something about the reactions sections of a number of controversial articles and how they are little more than quote archives and how they usually end up being cut out of the main artcile as soon as they become large enough. This gains consensus because they are not very encyclopedic and many editor would rather have them seperated from the main article just to get them off said article. Wikipedia is not the best place for such writing for a very simple reason....most reactions from notable people are simply attempting to glom onto the subject to boost their own image. Some reactions are notable, but still not encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support We have an event, the shooting, that was highly notable in the US and a, rare, international reaction to the shooting that hasn't occurred for other similar occurrances. If the international section was unimportant, then why do we have a section on reactions to the shooting? It can be said that it is common knowledge for local reactions to occur, but it wasn't so obvious that there would be an international reaction as the shooting did not effect them. We should not just cherry pick between a national reaction and internation reaction, but we should equally include details and quotes on both for balance. Super Goku V (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Support The International community offering their support which includes people in Moscow setting up a makeshift memorial at the US Embassy is notable and I feel that reactions such as there should be included as it is rare to see with a shooting here in the US. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose No need to document every leaders reaction. The one sentence sums it up perfectly. AIRcorn (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Including a list of the international reactions is how we can show that there has been a worldwide reaction. I thought about a separate article much like Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden but believe the reactions to this shooting will be limited to short statements from various leaders and that the separate article will be an orphan. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I just read a transcript of President Obama's Sunday night speech and believe it should be included as part of the "reactions". That would make "reactions" long enough that we should make a separate page for it. Plus, the gun control debate is picking up and likely should be a section of the "reactions." --Marc Kupper|talk 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, Unnecessary and adds nothing of value.--Mor2 (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support - The article is on the English Wikipedia, not the United-States-Only-Wikipedia. To have the President's reaction statement is certainly important to the article, but equally the reaction of the international community. All the information is verifiable and directly related so intentionally leaving it out is simply a measure to make this article only about the events that occurred on the day and not the aftermath or consequences. Columbine massacre has been the most heavily cited precedence in regards to inclusion criteria and the article is largely focused on the aftermath. Mkdwtalk 07:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Where in Columbine High School massacre is anything that even remotely resembles a list of international reactions? If that article is to be used as precedent, then we should definitely not include such a section here, because there isn't one in the Columbine article. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support Reactions by global heads of states and governments is relevant. Ryan Vesey 08:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion kept open for 24 hours - It appears the previous discussion topics have been closed or abandoned prematurely resulting in very few contributions from a spare sampling of editors. Many with IP's with very little editing history or at all. Also, the decision to proceed with the 'consensus' was usually made quickly and before the discussion could mature. I recommend this discussion be kept on the active talk page for at least 24 hours and any subsequent attempts at creating a new discussion be directed here. Mkdwtalk 08:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per MrX and Parkwells. The one sentence adequately sums up the obvious fact that governments across the globe expressed their condolences. Anything beyond that rapidly approaches a violation of WP:MEMORIAL, WP:UNDUE and also, imho, common sense. And for the love of god, please at least write it up as proper prose, not as a list with gratuitous use of flag icons. That's even designed to look like a memorial. --213.196.218.39 (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Many bloated Reactions sections have been created in response to major tragedies, and this article is no exception. The flag icons look awful, and a summary of reactions in WP:PROSE is the best approach.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Support I agree with all of the statements in Support. It DOES shows the importance of what happened and it doesn't memorialize it. Does the 9/11 reactions page memorialize 9/11? Why don't you say every reaction page/section memorializes? One sentence is not enough to sum up the significance of this shooting. I agree, the world is watching. Is this enough to sum up a reaction? "Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson and a lot of people were sad." How about "People in India was upset over the Sikh temple shooting"? Obviously not.--199.231.184.178 (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support A shooting in America has not had this much reaction before. It seems silly to ignore all the reaction from everyone, the pope, eu, uk, etc.. It's hypocritical. Other articles deemed worthy of an international response section, why not an article about a shooting that killed 20 children? By the way, while I support this, flags isn't something that should be allowed.--Beeman86991 (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support I thought that my !vote was saved last night, but apparently not. Don't tell me for a second that it's a given that Iran would express condolences, or for that matter any of the other countries in N. Asia like Azerjiban or however the heck you spell that. Western Europe is a given, ok, I get that. But the amount of outlandish countries and countries with whom the United States is far from allies, such as Iran, that have expressed condolences certainly is notable. Go Phightins! 11:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with info being presented, I just want to remind us that again, material related to the "aftermath" should be put in carefully, or delayed, as we are still in the eye of the storm and it would be easy to give improper weight. Bringing it here and leaving it open at least 24 hours is the right way to do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose If you put all of the international reactions in there, it would be a significant portion of the article. And these reactions don't really say much of anything. Just how it's bad and they're sorry for the loss of life. No real substance. Having that message repeated twenty times does not add much. I am okay with a single sentence listing all the countries leaders who expressed condolences. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think I mentioned above that I don't see the information as relevant in the first place, unless it's a response that is reported to be uncommon or extraordinary. If the North Korean government sends a check to rebuild the school, that would be notable, but standards expressions of sympathy are not. In addition, I sense the desire for synthesis, original research, and speculation--in the list of responses (now hatted), I read "Also, there is information there other countries have had reactions, such as China, Singapore, Denmark, and Belgium This information may be important because all these countries usually don't comment on a crime in the U.S." First of all, it's bullshit (why would the Dutch ordinarily comment on US matters but not the Belgians?), but second, it suggest that in the selection of what to include there's other things at stake than relevance. Again, are we waiting to include responses from all governments of the world? And single out those unfriendly to the US? But California has a much bigger economy than Bhutan, not to mention more weed and beaches, so should California's governor get a response in? And those of the other US states? It's an all or nothing deal: we could decide to give all the countries a response, and then totally overwhelm the article with platitudes, which may or may not be heartfelt, but are of no encyclopedic relevance except to note, hey, Bhutan is sympathetic but Nepal isn't (however the case may be). Drmies (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Drmies, could you please be respectful to others and their opinions? Your response comes off as attacking when you mentioned that, " '[...] This information may be important because all these countries usually don't comment on a crime in the U.S.' First of all, it's bullshit [...]" (emphasis added). Granted, I do note that you are exaggerating to make a point, but it didn't come off well to those who support this. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok with small section, oppossed to a long or seperate section/article - A small, relevant section of international reactions (not bullet points) summarizing the notable ones, and indicating maybe a number of the rest, is appropriate. But a huge seperate article is out of the question. Shadowjams (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- International reaction to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is where the information is at. International reaction articles are common now for events notable enough to have the leaders of many nations make statements for them. A proper encyclopedia records such historic events properly. Dream Focus 03:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
witness states saw man in handcuffs taken out of woods
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I added this to the site with reference and it was removed. Why is this not relevant? A number of news sources presented this. it is a fact taht someone saw something that was reported. AMDS (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)AMDS
- Give us the sources. We don't do anything without sources, that includes discuss on the talkpage here. If you give me sourcing, I can look at it. More than likely this was 'spur of the moment' reporting that was later deemed false, but like I said show me your sourcing and I'll look. gwickwiretalkedits 04:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of original news stories that reported this. here is the utube video someone saved. [3]
I agree rumors shouldn't be posted but this person clearly saw this and it should be documented. Hopefully someday with an explanation. AMDS (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)AMD
I googled this and the only article on Google News that I could find was [4] which mentions that it was reported that a "second gunman" was taken out the woods. Fox News also posted a picture from a Facebook page of someone that had nothing to do with the event. Details were flowing, and information gets thrown around. I don't think this is worthy of a mention.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- No way. It's a video, it's a local news station in the heat of the moment, it's some individual who may have seen a lot of things, including Bigfoot. Besides, it's not relevant at all, even if it were true. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- For all we know that man could just be a person trying to get his 15 minutes of fame by making this up. This is why we need a news organization to have a staff writer write a story, not a man to be filmed in 'spur of the moment' style saying it. gwickwiretalkedits 04:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Although that wasn't mentioned, 60 Minutes tonight pointed out several initial rumors that were totally mistaken, perhaps the grossest one being that they named the wrong brother. It happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- If this is notable, you should easily be able to find reliable sources (with editorial oversight) to corroborate that first hand account. Just because someone said something on camera does not make it notable. - MrX 04:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Google news for "sandy hook" woods handcuffs gets 773 hits. Apparently someone in dressed in camouflage was intercepted in the woods near the school. He was detained but apparently not arrested. I would not bother with including this in the article unless that aspect of the story gets bigger. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I had created a TP section on this the other day, because I saw the interview with a couple of parents in the parking lot on ABC news over this, and was trying to find out if it was Lance's brother (very confused time in the media). The guy, in handcuffs, passed them and looked at them and said "I didn't do it." (which of course he didn't) - yesterday a friend informed me he was a neighbor living in the area, who happened to be basically in the wrong place at the wrong time, and probably dressed (he had on a dark shirt, camo pants) that - in the heat of the moment - may have triggered some LEO interest. There's no mention anywhere that he was arrested, just detained momentarily per the ABC news clip of a few days ago. I don't think this is notable.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- At this point, it is vague speculation as well. These kinds of side issues, wild goose chases, are common during events like this. This is why we don't include unless there is solid sourcing to indicate that it is relative to the actual event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the guy being detained actually happened - that's not speculation - but he was just a local who was in the wooded area, and police, doing their job at the scene, wanted to know what he was doing there. Questioned, verified, released. The fact is not notable to the story, nor more so than someone is stopped at a police roadblock because the make/model of their car matches that of a getaway car.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're right. It's not been brought up on the national news stories that I'm aware of. Assuming it actually happened, it's nothing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the guy being detained actually happened - that's not speculation - but he was just a local who was in the wooded area, and police, doing their job at the scene, wanted to know what he was doing there. Questioned, verified, released. The fact is not notable to the story, nor more so than someone is stopped at a police roadblock because the make/model of their car matches that of a getaway car.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I believe he was chopping down logs of wood or some such. Some innocent and innocuous activity. Not relevant to the murder or to the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- If nothing else, it tells him how effective his camouflage was. I do recall a clip they showed early in the coverage, of some guy in handcuffs, apparently near the police station. That piece of the story disappeared quickly, for obvious reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Article about school shooting and listing mother as victim of this incident
Although originally Adam Lanza's mother was reported as being a teacher at the school, and that she was killed at the school, neither of these facts were true after all. Therefore, I have removed Mrs. Lanza's name from the sidebox list of victims of the school shooting incident. Of course she should be mentioned as a victim of Adam Lanza, I do not believe she should be placed on the list (let alone at the top of the list) because she was killed elsewhere. People are, sadly, killed in their homes by other family members (much more) frequently than mass shootings in public locations like a school. As Mrs. Lanza's death is clearly reported in the article, I do not see why she needs to be listed among those killed in the school's list. Using rationale such as "place her on the list to avoid confusion" ignores the fact that it can confuse those who read initial reports, that Adam Lanza killed his mother at the school — which would appear to be his motivation for going to the school at all — and this is not what happened.--SidP (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is clear that the scope of this article extends beyond the shootings at the school to all events associated with the shooting including the shootings not at the school. His mother was a victim of those shootings. The scope in this case, is larger than given by the title, but it appears we are intentionally holding off on title considerations until it can be clearly seen what the common name is. Ryan Vesey 04:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's all one event. LadyofShalott 04:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand why this is even controversial. She was victim of her son's killing rampage. Why does it matter where she was killed? Two of the children died at the hospital. Should we omit them also? - MrX 04:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Of course not. Children who were shot at the school and died at the hospital are clearly victims of the school shooting. But Nancy Lanza was NOT a victim of the school shooting, she was a victim of Adam Lanza's crime spree (or rampage), which consisted of her murder AND the school shooting. The crime spree and the school shooting should not be conflated like this, because they are NOT the same thing. Imagine if his crime spree had included a mass murder of dozens of people elsewhere, such as a shopping mall, followed by this massacre at the school. Should both totals be included in the death toll of his crime spree, in that case? Obviously. Should the number of victims at this hypothetical shopping mall massacre be included in the death toll? Obviously NOT, because those additional victims would NOT make this school shooting deadlier than the Virginia Tech massacre. This page should provide the death toll of the school shooting. There should be a SEPARATE page for Adam Lanza and/or his crime spree that includes his mother in the count. She was a victim of Adam Lanza, but NOT a victim of a school shooting. I also fail to understand why this is even controversial, but we're arriving at opposite conclusions, so it obviously is. Deven (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- AuburnPilot beat me to the revert. Their edit summary: "he mother was a victim of this shooting; claiming otherwise is beyond ridiculous". I concur. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agree per Ryan Vesey. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- As above, I find the removal of the mother's name to be ridiculous. The location of her death does not change the fact that she was a victim of this incident. --auburnpilot talk 04:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- While focusing primarily on the school shooting, the article covers the entire killing spree, so I agree that Nancy Lanza's name should appear on the list of victims. —David Levy 04:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, of course it should. Coretheapple (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agree w/David.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Once again, I think you all are missing my point. It is not that she wasn't a victim. It is not that her death was irrelevant or not a part of his rampage. It is that she wasn't involved in the school shooting itself and therefore the LIST in sidebox -- not the article, just the list -- makes it misleading. If this article indeed becomes "The Adam Lanza shooting spree" (which it never will) then putting his mother on the list would be the most significant. For another example, if there becomes an article (doubtful) about Adam Lanza itself, listing his victims, then of course Nancy Lanza would be on that list. Please remember that this is an issue of accuracy; not one of disrespect. And please also recall the misleading information initially in news reports about where Nancy Lanza was killed.--SidP (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that the list is intended to include victims of "the school shooting itself". That simply isn't so; like the article, it pertains to the entire rampage. This is the point that you seem to be missing. —David Levy 16:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
An article about Adam Lanza or his crime spree should include his mother among his victims. This article is currently titled "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" and can be reasonably expected to describe the massacre AT THE SCHOOL. After the basic facts became clear, all recent news sources appear to universally cite the same death toll: 20 children, 6 adults and the perpetrator. (Some include the perpetrator in the death toll for 27 total, others cite 26 victims and exclude the perpetrator from that count.) Including the mother in the count of victims in an article about the school shooting is *very* misleading and contradictory to ALL cited sources. NOBODY but Wikipedia is citing the death toll as 28. The mother should certainly be mentioned as a related crime, but NOT included in the death toll at the school. Deven (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article is about Lanza's spree, from the morning murder at his home until the later murders at the school. It was one entire event. The name of the article may not reflect that very well, at the moment. It has been decided that a rename debate will occur after some time has passed and some dust has settled (as to what the media and news sources will be calling the event). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is a need for BOTH pages -- one about the school shooting and one about Adam Lanza's crime spree. They should be separate, because they are likely to be referred to separately. When speaking about Adam Lanza, the crime spree would be the reference of interest. When talking about the deadliest school shootings, the incident at the school is relevant and the murder of his mother is a separate issue. She should certainly be mentioned on this page, but not included in the count. Conversely, she should be included in the count for the separate page that should exist for Adam Lanza's crime spree. Renaming this page is a poor solution, because there's a need to reference the school shooting as an independent event from Adam Lanza's overall crime spree. Deven (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- How, in your view, is the school shooting an independent event from Adam Lanza's overall crime spree, and what reliable sources have treated it as such? —David Levy 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nancy Lanza was a victim of Adam Lanza's murder spree, but she was NOT a victim of a school shooting. Therefore, her murder has absolutely no relevance to the issue of school safety, even though it was part of his overall crime spree. Hence the need to treat the school shooting as a separate event AND to have a page about his crime spree as a whole. Deven (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- We don't state that Nancy Lanza was "a victim of a school shooting" or that her murder has "relevance to the issue of school safety". We explicitly state, in the very same section, that she was killed at home.
- Again, what reliable sources have treated the school shooting an independent event from Adam Lanza's overall crime spree?
- Are you proposing that we have an article about the school shooting and a second article about the school shooting and one additional killing? —David Levy 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I realize that the article states that she was killed at home. Nevertheless, one of the most likely reasons for someone to be looking up this event in the future will be in the context of school shootings in general, when referencing deadliest school shootings. In that context, the mother should not be included in the count because she was killed at home. Just because the text explains that she was killed at home doesn't justify spreading misinformation about how many people were killed IN THE SCHOOL ATTACK. Why is this so hard to understand? The current version of List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States does explain that the mother was killed at home, but it ALSO lists this shooting in the "List of notable U.S. school attacks" table under "Number of Victims" as 28, not 27. This is EXACTLY the sort of misinformation that Wikipedia should avoid spreading, and the reason why the mother shouldn't be included in the total for the school shooting itself.Deven (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I updated the page referenced above to show the correct count of 27 in that table instead of 28. Deven (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's appropriate, as the article is specifically about school shootings. (Also, the "Number of Victims" heading should be changed to "Number of deaths", as a shooting's perpetrator generally isn't considered a "victim" of the attack.)
- Conversely, this article is about the entire killing spree. Why is that so hard to understand? —David Levy 21:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nancy Lanza was a victim of Adam Lanza's murder spree, but she was NOT a victim of a school shooting. Therefore, her murder has absolutely no relevance to the issue of school safety, even though it was part of his overall crime spree. Hence the need to treat the school shooting as a separate event AND to have a page about his crime spree as a whole. Deven (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- How, in your view, is the school shooting an independent event from Adam Lanza's overall crime spree, and what reliable sources have treated it as such? —David Levy 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is a need for BOTH pages -- one about the school shooting and one about Adam Lanza's crime spree. They should be separate, because they are likely to be referred to separately. When speaking about Adam Lanza, the crime spree would be the reference of interest. When talking about the deadliest school shootings, the incident at the school is relevant and the murder of his mother is a separate issue. She should certainly be mentioned on this page, but not included in the count. Conversely, she should be included in the count for the separate page that should exist for Adam Lanza's crime spree. Renaming this page is a poor solution, because there's a need to reference the school shooting as an independent event from Adam Lanza's overall crime spree. Deven (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sources refer to 27 fatalities (including the perpetrator) in reference to the school shooting. In our article's lead, we explicitly state that the gunman "first killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their nearby Newtown home" and "then drove to the school and shot the students and employees before killing himself." In that context ("the overall death toll"), it would be misleading to exclude Nancy Lanza from the count.
- Your assertion that "NOBODY but Wikipedia is citing the death toll as 28" is incorrect. Recent examples:
- USA Today ("claimed 28 lives")
- Los Angeles Times ("28 dead, including 26 elementary school students and staff")
- Other sources refer to 27 victims (with the perpetrator excluded). —David Levy 20:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. Neither of these sources was cited by the death toll on this page. Nevertheless, it remains patently false to describe Nancy Lanza as a victim of a school shooting when she was murdered at home. Deven (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- She was a victim of Lanza's December 14 spree, not of the school shooting per se. Despite the name, this article is about the spree. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- We aren't describing Nancy Lanza as a victim of a school shooting. I just quoted our lead, in which it's explicitly stated that she wasn't. —David Levy 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. Neither of these sources was cited by the death toll on this page. Nevertheless, it remains patently false to describe Nancy Lanza as a victim of a school shooting when she was murdered at home. Deven (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposed solution to the above "problem"
Some of the above comments and complaints are indeed legitimate. Perhaps an editor can revise the "victim's box listing" to make it clear that the mother was not a part of the school "count". I am not good at fiddling with those boxes and charts, so I will leave that to another editor. But, yes, the chart/box can be confusing and misleading. I can see how some will think that the mother died at the school (by looking at the box, without reading the prose of the article). This is further exacerbated by early false reports that the mother actually worked at the school. It is not a great burden to simply revise the chart a little, with some asterisk or footnote. Great benefit to allay confusion; great reward; little burden. Would someone do so? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Although I think separate pages are probably called for, it would certainly be helpful to edit the page to make it clear that the death toll from the school shooting was 27 (including the perpetrator) and the overall death toll for the rampage was 28 total. That would be a definite improvement. Deven (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine that the murder of the mother at home warrants a separate article. It is part of the entire spree ... and this article is about the whole spree. The bulk of which, of course, occurred at the school. Renaming of the article, perhaps, will be done in due time. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- In the parent section, Dcorzine opined that we should have "one [article] about the school shooting and one about Adam Lanza's crime spree" (not his mother's murder in particular). I don't understand why. —David Levy 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- We already state that in the lead (the section in question). I quoted the relevant text above. —David Levy 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I cannot imagine that the murder of the mother at home warrants a separate article. It is part of the entire spree ... and this article is about the whole spree. The bulk of which, of course, occurred at the school. Renaming of the article, perhaps, will be done in due time. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- This seems like a sensible idea. —David Levy 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've appended such a notation to the infobox and list of victims. —David Levy 21:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've updated the page to more clearly state BOTH death tolls, 27 from the school shooting and 28 total, so nobody is likely to walk away with the wrong number from a quick glance at the page. I think this obviates the need I saw for separate pages for the school shooting vs. the killing spree. Deven (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Should refer to the .223 rifle as an AR-15...
... http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/national-international/More-Details-Emerge-About-Lanzas-Past-183711811.html Clearly lists an AR-15 as a police confirmation of the weapon. So please correct the Infobox accordingly! Thanks... 2602:306:BCA6:89B0:A4C3:70FD:1AF9:23FB (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- "AR-15" is a type of weapon contracted by the US military; the weapon used was one of several third party approximations of that type: it wouldn't be accurate to simply call it an AR-15. The manufacturer and model should probably stand, but discussion of the particular weapon and the relation of it's class to civilian violence might start from today's Times article. davidiad.:τ 05:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I fixed this to both link to the model of the weapon used and to include "AR-15" in its description. Earlier in the day it had only said ".223-caliber Bushmaster" and linked to the Bushmaster article. I had no idea what that was, clicked, and was surprised to learn it's an AR-15 semi-automatic assault weapon. Later in the day, someone changed the infobox to ".223 semi-automatic rifle" which seemed extremely misleading as the picture on that article is of a gun from 1941 and is nothing like the gun used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I've updated the infobox to have ".223-caliber Bushmaster AR-15 rifle" though information it's long enough that it the text wraps. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- AR-15 is a registered trademark of Colt. Unless the brand is Colt, it is inaccurate to use that registered trademark. The gun is modeled after one, but in this context A-15 would be a comparison, not a correct model. I would suggest someone please remove that part. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done Although some sources have referred to it as a Bushmaster AR-15, most I've seen are just calling it a .223 e.g.cnn. Readers can follow the wikilink to get more information on the weapon. NE Ent 12:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Dennis - I'd forgotten that "AR-15" is a Colt trademark. I chanced on this Wall Street Journal article where a law enforcement official identifies the weapon as a "a Bushmaster XM-15 model." I've updated the article plus removed ".233" from the infobox which got made the description short enough that it no longer wraps. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Reactions
The section that says "Obama paused twice during the address to compose himself and wipe away tears" needs to be changed to "pretended to wipe away tears." Zoom on the HD footage showed that Obama was not actually crying.
It may be ok to have some reactions then, when it is too big, to have a separate article. Auchansa (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- See above section: #Consensus Restore International Reaction. LadyofShalott 05:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Blogs and Chinese newspaper reaction
Why are the reactions of the blogs and a random Chinese newspaper discussed on here? These items are extremely irrelevent. It was obviously placed there by someone who wants more gun control and who used a newspaper half way around the globe (which had nothing to do with the story) to support that stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.75.159 (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I added the section regarding the related primary school attack in China because the attack on Sandy Hook was mentioned there. Additionally, please observe WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. My nationality or stance on gun control has nothing to do with my edit. —Entropy (T/C) 07:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that Americans can be somewhat isolationist in their worldview but given that this event has had global coverage... why shouldn't Chenpeng get coverage here? So far, we're seeing state and county reactions, despite the fact that world leaders elsewhere have voiced opinion.
By the way, "Xinhua" is not some "random Chinese newspaper". It is one of the world's biggest newsagencies. That just shows your ignorance. They are a mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist party, but it's still relevant here. I'm going to replace this matter at some point. It is highly relevant. Especially from a psychological point of view, since it suggests that the Chinese are catching a Western disorder just now... (If Maoist violence itself wasn't a manifestation of it)--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The material can be included if it comes from reliable sources and adds to the encyclopedic knowledge of the shooting, the perpetrator, his motive or the aftermath. If, on the other hand, it is merely an expression of condolence or a political statement, then there is current no consensus to include such content. Also the WP:DUE guideline may apply. - MrX 14:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- At Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing#Reactions, the connection is mentioned briefly and succinctly. A discussion on the talk page for that article prevented its removal there. If we're mentioning Sandy Hook on the page about Chenpeng Village, we should mention Chenpeng Village on the page for Sandy Hook-- that's just logical. Note that I am not speculating whether or not there is actually a connection between the events. I just think it's important to mention that there's a substantial amount of discussion from a variety of sources regarding the potential connection between the events. —Entropy (T/C) 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- The connection being potential is what makes it speculation, even if a few sources are talking about it. As we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or blog, we can't include that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia includes critical reviews as sources in our articles. There are sections on many pages regarding public reception and public speculation. This case is no different. A mention should be made. Also, you didn't address the fact that the reference exists on the Chenpeng Village article but not on this one. —Entropy (T/C) 03:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- The connection being potential is what makes it speculation, even if a few sources are talking about it. As we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or blog, we can't include that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- At Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing#Reactions, the connection is mentioned briefly and succinctly. A discussion on the talk page for that article prevented its removal there. If we're mentioning Sandy Hook on the page about Chenpeng Village, we should mention Chenpeng Village on the page for Sandy Hook-- that's just logical. Note that I am not speculating whether or not there is actually a connection between the events. I just think it's important to mention that there's a substantial amount of discussion from a variety of sources regarding the potential connection between the events. —Entropy (T/C) 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The connection has been made in numerous sources, either just noting the tragic coincidence, but some specifically noting 1) That even in countries with gun control, mass attacks happen anyway - BUT 2) Attacks not involving a gun tend to be significantly less lethal.
- 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/
- 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) 03:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- If those are the points that these articles are focusing on, that is sensational reporting to make a correlation without causation. Definitely not appropriate to include in either article. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, these are a combination of opinion pieces and really bad tabloid-style journalism. Worse than that, they are all over the map. What, if any, encyclopedic value can be derived from these? Perhaps the temporal proximity of the events? - MrX 03:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- We do not second guess the associations made by reliable sources. If "Dont include things that are sourced by sensational reporting" is the standard, then this entire article should probably be culled. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes we do, or at least the weight they are prescribing to the connection, as we can't say they are factually wrong. NPOV and FRINGE. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- We certainly do second guess them.That's what editing is all about. We have to judge the quality and the reliability of sources, and these mostly fail on all accounts. There's not even a central theme to some of them; it's more like meandering free-association. For example, statements like "Defenders of China’s non-democratic system point out that even as the United States is lashed by growing effects of climate change, we have failed to compel our elected leaders to do much of anything about it." or "...a 36-year-old man a half-a-world away in China attacked 22 children at a primary school. None of the kids died. The reason? The man in China had only a knife." Really? Only a knife you say? - MrX 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- We do not second guess the associations made by reliable sources. If "Dont include things that are sourced by sensational reporting" is the standard, then this entire article should probably be culled. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- FRINGE can apply to reliable cites as well, if they are primarily opinion pieces build around weakly linked facts. But more importantly, this is not information to be covered in this specific article, but likely in a larger one about school attacks and gun control. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- [5] shows how opinions on gun control is just one way these events are related. I agree that at the very least, articles on gun control should draw a connection between them. However I still think it's worth mentioning in these articles as well. —Entropy (T/C) 03:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- At best, this would be "aftermath" and we are still in the eye of the storm. There is no shortage of people posturing to make political points and statements, which are arguably exploiting this event for their own gain. Assisting them isn't without our scope. After the news cycle is more complete, an "aftermath" section could make more sense but the entire concept of aftermath requires contemplation, and there simply hasn't been enough time for it. In other words, the timing is wrong for adding this kind of material. This is like how everyone reported the perpetrator was Ryan at first, yet that was wrong and caused problems, we exercise discretion in our timing because we are an encyclopedia, not a newpaper or blog. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- [5] shows how opinions on gun control is just one way these events are related. I agree that at the very least, articles on gun control should draw a connection between them. However I still think it's worth mentioning in these articles as well. —Entropy (T/C) 03:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Associated attack in China
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Information I added to the article regarding an attack several hours before the shooting was removed despite a multitude of references regarding the relationship between the events as well as a reference to Sandy Hook on the other article. I disagree with this removal of content. I think it's important to mention the associated event in the article. —Entropy (T/C) 07:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- You used blogs and op-eds, which are regarded as unreliable sources on Wikipedia. There is no known connection between these events. Abductive (reasoning) 07:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- There's zero relation between the two. Unless we are saying that the Chinese knifing affected the event or the reactions to the event, the information is trivial. Ryan Vesey 07:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I disagree. The fact that the events happened hours apart, in addition to the references provided and the fact that the Xinhua News Agency called for stricter gun controls in the U.S. following the Chinese attack, means the relationship should be mentioned in the article. —Entropy (T/C) 07:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cannot begin to understand what logic you are using to draw this conclusion. My mind ... it reels - it's like trying to imagine what lies beyond the known universe. STRONGLY oppose any mention of the event in China in this article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- What connection is drawn by the cited sources? The simple fact that the two incidents occurred on the same day does warrant mention. And frankly, I couldn't care less what Xinhua News Agency has called for. What relevance do they have? --auburnpilot talk 07:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I disagree. The fact that the events happened hours apart, in addition to the references provided and the fact that the Xinhua News Agency called for stricter gun controls in the U.S. following the Chinese attack, means the relationship should be mentioned in the article. —Entropy (T/C) 07:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
There is definitely a strong link between the two events in public discourse, and it isnt limited to blogs and op-eds. See also Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing. Some people in the world are dispassionately discussing these events. However the weight of those discussions are not very strong when compared to the volume of coverage the Sandy Hook incident is receiving, so I question whether it should be included in this article.(I am glad that statements made by some of the religious nutcases have been removed from this article) The call by the Chinese state press agency for tighter gun control in the US however is important and is almost as relevant as the condolences made by state leaders around the world, including China. But weight is a balancing act, and China alone saying this is probably not enough to warrant mentioning it yet. OTOH, the US incident is a strong theme in the public discourse about the Chenpeng attack, and definitely merits mentioning in the other article. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The comments from the mouth of the Chinese government should only be included if the determination to include international reactions is made and it should be limited to that section. It would be undue to give the Chinese any weight in a section on gun control in the US. Ryan Vesey 08:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Again, this article is about the event. In due time, some material will likely work its way in regarding the aftermath but we are still in the eye of the storm. Predicting the aftermath would be just that, predicting, and not encyclopedic. Until there has been time to have the benefit of hindsight to determine what other analysis is properly weighted for the article, less is more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
They are not unconnected. The two killers had absolutely no personal connections with each other, but they are manifestations of a sickness in Western society and a society which is becoming rapidly westernised. People want to just blame the weirdo, but something is wrong in the state of consumerism.
It is somewhat parochial to ignore the international angle here. I notice you don't even have comments from other national leaders on here... A classic manifestation of Americans' introversion.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your post is classic SOAPBOX and FORUM and is not allowed under Talk Page rules. Take your editorializing elsewhere.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Classic example of trying to mug the debate, Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is international. My comments are perfectly valid in this discussion. You have singularly failed to prove otherwise.
- Your views on America are neither relevant or substantiated and are WK:SOAPBOX violations, nothing to improve the quality of the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Classic example of trying to mug the debate, Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is international. My comments are perfectly valid in this discussion. You have singularly failed to prove otherwise.
- The fact that someone actually describes Xinhua above as "a random Chinese newspaper" (or whatever the quote was) shows the general level of debate and ignorance here. This story is no longer just American or parochial. You can thank the global media for that.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- From an encyclopedic POV, the only connection between these attacks was that they happened to students and occurred on the same day. There is no relevance otherwise (and extremely unlikely they are any more connected than that), and thus mentioning here the Chinese school attack is out of place. There might be cause for an article that is critical of the media's handling of this event (a lot of misinfo being put out early) and would include the fact that the Chinese incident was nearly ignored by the press, but again, that's not to be included on this encyclopedic article about the actual shooting. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please bear in mind that this is not an article about "sickness in Western society". If there is content relevant to the scope of the article, that complies with our policies and guidelines, and comes from reliable sources, it can be added. There is currently a discussion about whether or not to include a list of international reactions (mostly condolences) here. Consensus will determine whether or not the international reactions can be included. - MrX 14:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually yes it is. There is always some analysis of why these things happen. If we are discussing the killer's mother, then we should be able to discuss this too.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fundamental misunderstanding: (in the article) we are not discussing anything. We are discussing, on the talk page, what to put in the article and what to take out. There's nothing remotely reliable stating some sort of connection, and while some blog may find it exciting to speculate on the weather and the relative position of Mars and Mercury, we don't include that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 December 2012 [6]
- I very often casually use the verb "discuss" to refer to the content of the article, and so do many editors. --87.79.230.214 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fundamental misunderstanding: (in the article) we are not discussing anything. We are discussing, on the talk page, what to put in the article and what to take out. There's nothing remotely reliable stating some sort of connection, and while some blog may find it exciting to speculate on the weather and the relative position of Mars and Mercury, we don't include that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 December 2012 [6]
- Actually yes it is. There is always some analysis of why these things happen. If we are discussing the killer's mother, then we should be able to discuss this too.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it is worthwhile to note that because these incidents did occur so closely in temporal proximity that they are being being mentioned on opposite side of the globe is an indication that simultaneous debate and concern, perhaps by all corners of the world, is occurring. Merely occurring in proximity is not itself enough of a connection for subject matter, but because these two incidents are being mentioned as indications of coalescing phenomena makes it relevant.--SidP (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's fairly obvious that there is a connection. I suspect winter's something to do with it, but you can't prove that.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
See there. Thanks, Nemo 10:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Mother was a survivalist
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4701837/gunman-adam-lanzas-mum-was-survivalist.html Mother of Sandy Hook school gunman Adam Lanza was a 'prepper' preparing for economic and social collapse, therefore caching weapons. Obviously she was rich and wanted to protect her belongings. --91.6.71.29 (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC) PS: Here is another source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mother-of-sandy-hook-school-gunman-adam-lanza-was-a-prepper-survivalist-preparing-for-economic-and-social-collapse-say-reports-8422298.html
- It's already included, in the Perpetrator section:
- "Marsha Lanza also recalled that Nancy was a survivalist, and that Nancy had turned her home into "a fortress" in which she was stockpiling guns and food to prepare for what she believed was an apocalyptic event associated with impending economic collapse."[7][8] --213.196.218.39 (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic? She would have survived if she had not been a survivalist... --91.6.71.29 (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- She also was a single parent and a divorcee. Middle class men raised by divorced mothers often crop up in these situations. Anders Breivik is another example.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this should be included, too. The similarity is too obvious to be neglected. --91.6.71.29 (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Theses are opinions, not documented facts that relate to this singular event. Adding comments about single mothers or "if she wasn't a survivalist, she would be alive" is so far outside of policy to not consider inclusion. The article exists to document the events as the sources reported them, not to editorialize on social issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's been widely reported that she was a gun enthusiast, and that seems sufficient until more facts are in evidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, as that ties in to the availability of the weapons he used. Not a huge point, but one worth a brief statement as long as it isn't a commentary on her lifestyle or the larger issue of gun ownership. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Heh. This is beyond hilarious.--Daniel Robert Sum (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- There's no question, the irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife. But the reports I've seen indicate she was very close-mouthed about her home life, so it's going to take the investigators a while to get some clues. At least one report said he had killed her while she slept, so presumably she never knew what hit her. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Bugs, are you threatening irony? Drmies (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have time to make any threats. I have too many irons in the fire. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Bugs, are you threatening irony? Drmies (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- There's no question, the irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife. But the reports I've seen indicate she was very close-mouthed about her home life, so it's going to take the investigators a while to get some clues. At least one report said he had killed her while she slept, so presumably she never knew what hit her. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Heh. This is beyond hilarious.--Daniel Robert Sum (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This page is very hard to find when searching.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When I type Sandy Hook elementary massacre into google I expect wikipedia to be at least one of the main articles, but it's not, in order to get the wikipedia article I have to also type in wikipedia at the end. If wikipedia wants to be a fast and accurate source of information massacre should be included 69.243.175.9 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)ham
- Yes, by having a title that is accurate to the event you totally avoid this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.175.9 (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sandy Hook massacre exists. Hopefully we've developed sufficient reputation that users will come directly here looking for information rather than starting at google. In any event after the furor dies down, Wikipedia will come up in the rankings.NE Ent 15:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, by having a title that is accurate to the event you totally avoid this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.175.9 (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Where will they go to school?
This article mentions the topic briefly. It doesn't appear the article has covered that yet. There is also doubt that the school building will reopen.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Probably need more info before adding here, that being one more aspect of the "aftermath", but I'm sure that it will be included in when the outcome is confirmed since that is relevant to the event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Try http://www.wral.com/newtown-plans-burials-as-school-s-future-debated/11886058/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is a much better source, but I would still recommend waiting until the school system actually releases a statement with a definitive answer. It is still speculative at this point, and an answer will probably be forthcoming in the next day or two. Not sure the policy, but it seems a best practice issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)