Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page. Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. General concerns and questions Q1: I have an issue with the name of this article. A1: You can post a message on this page about your concern. Please note that renaming of the article will be limited until after some time has passed so that it can be looked at with some retrospect. If you would like to suggest a certain name for the article, then it might be recommended to wait until the renaming process begins. If you would like to make sure that your name hasn't already been suggested, then please first look at the various Archived Talk pages (such as Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 1, Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 2, Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 3 and so on), and the current talk page. Q2: I have an issue about the Bath School disaster being mentioned; I have an issue with the disaster not being mentioned. A2: As with the above question, you can post a message on this page about your concern with the wording of the sentence. If you would like to suggest different wording, then make sure to detail why your change would be an improvement in your post on this talk page. However, it is recommended to check the archive first to see if the specific suggestion to the wording has not already been discussed. Q3: I have an issue about the mother, Nancy Lanza, being mentioned or not being mentioned as a victim of the shooting. A3: Before posting a message, please check the article's various archived talk pages (like Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 1, Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 2) and check the Talk page's Archive index along with the current talk page before adding a new section. Discussion has occurred on this matter before, so please make sure that your point hasn't already been covered by past discussion before opening a possibly redundant thread. You can still post a message on this page if your concerns were not answered by past discussion or you believe that there is something that could change consensus on the issue. Q4: I heard there was an NBC News report that said only handguns were used. Why isn't that in the article? A4: This issue emanates from an NBC TODAY Show Pete Williams report early on the morning of December 15th. The information is outdated because at a press conference at 3:30 that afternoon, the Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner stated that casualties were caused by a long gun/rifle, which was later confirmed by various media reports as well as a definitive press release from the Connecticut State Police on January 18, 2013, giving details of the weapons recovered inside the school. In this video from December 15, 2012, Dr. H. Wayne Carver II, the Chief Medical Examiner of Connecticut, is asked about the wounds. At 1:13 he says "All the ones that I know of at this point were caused by the long weapon." The NBC report now carries the following message: "Editor’s note: Later on Dec. 15, officials updated the public on this story. For more details see NBCNews.com/shooting-update." On March 28, 2013, MSNBC, along with other news organizations, published court documents showing that the Bushmaster rifle was the primary weapon used in the school shooting.[1] The NBC report has been discussed before on this talk page and continues to be posted about at Article Feedback. Talk page/Archive3/Bushmaster rifle Talk page/Archive 3/Weapon used was a rifle Talk page/Archive 5/Handguns or Bushmaster? If this information does not answer your questions, you can perform a search of this Talk page's Archives by typing your search term into the white box above and then clicking on the Search Archive button beside it. You can still post a message on this talk page if your concerns were not addressed by past discussions or if you think that there is something that could change consensus on this issue. Q5: I have an issue with Asperger syndrome being mentioned in the article. A5: Various people told investigators and the media that Adam Lanza had received a diagnosis of AS. Medical experts have said that even if he did receive this diagnosis, it would not provide an explanation for the shooting. The article attempts to put this into context. Q6: Why does the article not give a motive for the shooting? A6: Investigators have not made any public comment on what the motive might have been. The media has suggested several possibilities, but they are all speculative at the current time. Q7: I heard [something] about [someone] who supposedly could have some [possible] connection to the crime...why isn't this in the article? A7: Since the shooting occurred, news reports, especially the early ones, have reported on connections that various people might have had with the crime, but those reports have usually turned out to be erroneous and have maligned innocent people. If you have come to this talk page to post a theory that is not supported by multiple up-to-date reliable sources, please note that Wikipedia policies about living persons apply across the entire encyclopedia. Posts that are judged to be against Wikipedia policies will be removed. Q8: I heard that Adam Lanza's death record said that he died the day before the shooting. A8: Numerous blogs have claimed this, but they have all cited a page on www.genealogy.com, which is not a reliable source and has a disclaimer about its accuracy. Unless this is confirmed by mainstream media sources, it will not be added to the article. Q9: Why isn't there a separate article about Adam Lanza or other members of the Lanza family? A9: This issue has been previously discussed at least four times on this talk page as seen in the following Archive pages: Archive 2 at Adam Lanza article? Archive 4 at Separate article for Adam Lanza? Archive 5 at Adam Lanza standalone article? Archive 7 at Separate article for Adam Lanza?. The general editorial consensus of these discussions was that there is not enough notability for an Adam Lanza Wikipedia article to be sustained on its own and that, unless new information from reliable sources is presented, any possible Adam Lanza article would essentially be a WP:CONTENTFORK of this article. Also, this Question/Answer is being posted here in the FAQ to let present and future readers that this matter has been discussed before, not to forestall any further discussion. Q10: I heard Adam Lanza's YouTube channel was discovered. Why isn't it in the article? A10: Despite compelling circumstantial evidence, no reliable sources have reported on Lanza's supposed YouTube channel. As such, any speculation regarding his YouTube activity is original research, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia articles.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Connecticut C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph of many requests from Article Feedback be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Schools C‑class Mid‑importance This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

A news item involving Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 December 2012. This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "How does Wikipedia deal with a mass shooting? A frenzied start gives way to a few core editors". Nieman Journalism Lab. December 18, 2012. This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: speedy keep, 15 December 2012, see discussion. speedy keep, 14 December 2012, see discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The victims list table was recently removed. (If you'd like to see what the table looked like, it can be found here.) The issue of having a table or list of the victims in this article has been discussed on this talk page before, but it might be time to revisit the matter again. The most relevant previous discussion is found in Archive 6: List of victims revisited (Do we need it? Opinions sought).
As I said in the last discussion about the list, in my opinion WP:MEMORIAL is not applicable. The victims list had only the names & the ages of the victims, it did not give personal or hagiographic details for the individuals such as would occur within an obituary or a memorial, of the type like the person loved their pet dog or was the wonderful mother of three and so on. Also, WP:MEMORIAL only refers to article subjects and says nothing about content within articles, stating that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements". Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, things like MEMORIAL in WP:NOT are casebook items, but they do not fully include all possible things that WP is not. The issue here is mostly that save for some of the teachers that died that made steps to save the students as best they could and thus discussed in the context of events of the articles, most of the other deaths are thus only presented in that article. In 5-10 years, the only significant people will be Lanza (unfortuntaely) and those heroic teachers, while the names of the rest are footnotes. We can let other sites document those victims for us, but we should avoid details like this as a tertiary source. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that people often cite WP:MEMORIAL as if citing it alone proves their case without delving into what exactly the guideline might mean, I wasn't stating that the guideline includes every possible contingency but it seems to me a discussion is in order as to whether or not this victims' table-list belongs in this particular article. I do think it is odd that the very people who were most concerned with this crime, the actual people who were shot and killed (as in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting) do not have a list of the dead individuals within the article. Shearonink (talk) 17:34 27 January 2014 (UTC)

However, their point is in line with the concept of NOT, that at some point, just listing out victims of mass incidents for purposes of "memorializing" them is a problem. If knowing about those who died is necessary to describe the event (as in the case of some of the teachers) or the aftermath of the event, that's reasonable to include those names. But there's a point of balance to this (as see below..) --MASEM (t) 18:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I propose one of two actions; either add back the list making it a separate collapsible box that defaults to being closed when first viewed, or, create an edit protected List article, Victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. These are in order of my preference. WP:MEMORIAL not-with-standing, for future reference sake I suggest that the information be kept. In 5, 10, or even 20 years, readers may want to know this information. Granted the list does not need to be featured or even made prominent in the article, but why remove accurate and sourced content? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like the idea of making the table-list into a show-hide box and aree with the fact that the information is sufficiently sourced and accurate. Re:separate article-list, I do not think these people are notable enough for a standalone article, that would veer into true WP:Memorial territory in my opinion. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An expandable table would be reasonable, as it would not weight down the article by default. If this is done, it would probably be necessary to make sure that the running prose assumes this list is not present in giving out the names in the discussion of the event. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am working on a collapsible option in my sandbox, but the coding is proving to be quite a challenge for me. If anyone else wants to figure out a show-hide option for the editorial community to weigh in on, have at it...tables etc are not my strong suit. Shearonink (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the Sandbox that the collapsed list is being setup? Link please... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scalhotrod, I tried to set a table up in my personal sandbox that was a duplicate of the previous one, but the code is beyond me. The previous version did not use the usual WP table format so I couldn't figure out how to do the show/hide option and didn't save any of my efforts. I'll have another go at it this week, but as I said above tables are not my strong suit. I'll be able to figure it out but I am sure doing so will take me a while.Shearonink (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is Glaringly incomplete without a list of victims, at the very least there should be a prominent link to such a list. The list of victims is one of the main things people are looking for when they come to this article.John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 13:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

OK everyone... Over there on the right is the victims list as it previously appeared in the article. I wanted to post the table here so fellow editors can see what it looked like. I liked this table, I thought it presented sourced material about the dead in a factual manner without going into too many details, I just don't understand how to give it (in this state), a "Show/Hide" button.
I tried to find some WikiProject or think of some superduper editor who could help me do this and couldn't find a Wiki page or think of anyone so it's going here. Surely one of the 304 editors who have this article on their watchlist could lend a hand...please? Shearonink (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I initially posted the table, I was editing by section and didn't realize the table would impinge on the other posts' space. I've added some spacing to the bottom of this particular discussion for visual clarity. Shearonink (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph of the perpetrator's article has a sentence repeated.

Fixed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the removal of the table of victims, apparently the casualty total has also been removed. I just read the article from top to bottom and I only see mentioned in passing that one girl survived. I was unable to find out how many people died.208.127.245.193 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Since I cannot edit this page for some reason I would like to tell someone who can that the Photo of Adam Lanza on this page with the blue background is labeled incorrectly. It says that is a yearbook photo which is NOT true. This photo is the photo from his Driver's License. It's a DMV photograph. So can someone please change that because its driving me nuts!

Kaynbread (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence from a reliable source that this is a DMV photo? I note that an anon IP recently changed the description to the image file, [2] claiming the same thing - but again without providing evidence - which I've reverted as unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I've removed the word "yearbook" and now it simply says "Lanza's photo". You'll have to come up with a RS if you want it to say "DMV". — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, if you click the photo and check its attributes, it clearly says that its a yearbook photo. Unless we get the uploader of the image to change this, we have no credible reason to doubt this. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we not include stuff about Adam Lanza possibly using "Kaynbred" to edit Wikipedia and post on gun-related online forums if it's well sourced? [3] If there's a good answer, I think it should be added to the FAQ. Jinkinson talk to me 05:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected, but not borne out (either way), and a trivial note to the larger situation. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several online accounts which may have been used by Lanza, but the key word is "may". Due to the length of time ago that this is said to have happened (2009-10) Wikipedia had no IP address records which would have helped to verify this claim, something the Hartford Courant and other media sources lost in translation when writing the story. The evidence that Lanza was Kaynbred, Smiggles etc is largely circumstantial and based on writing style and interests rather than hard evidence. See also here and here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, does it seem weird to anyone that the account posting in the section directly above me has the username "Kaynbread", i.e. the same as the supposed Adam Lanza account except with one letter added? Jinkinson talk to me 13:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Its someone with knowledge of the incident making an account specifically to comment on this page Special:Contributions/Kaynbread Jonpatterns (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: Since it was not vandalism, it should not have been reverted with no indication of what the problem was. During the investigation, law enforcement officials told the media a whole load of things that were not backed up by the final report. This was previously discussed at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_7#Influences_on_Lanza. The ABC News citation does not mention the 2011 Norway attacks at all, and the final report considered that only the Columbine High School massacre was a particular fascination for Lanza. The ABC News cite says that he had a "large amount of materials relating to Columbine shootings and documents on mass murders". The Amish and Illinois shootings are mentioned elsewhere in the article, but are given only a passing mention in the final report, and do not support the claim of a strong fascination.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the final report being issued, just about anything that the police said officially or unofficially to the press was speculation because they had not fully investigated it. Since we have the final report, we should be deferring to it as our common reference. Ian's edit is correct. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on this revert. I didn't realize Hunger Games was a video game! So sick. If the cops found it maybe they repressed it because they didn't want bad press for a big selling author living in their town. Anyway, I did have the conspiracy theory link and wonder if a conspiracy theory section relevant here; some such incidents have them, others don't. Not a major wikipedia editing area for me, just a morning when I was disgusted and wanted to get some of this info in here somewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Suzanne Collins lives in Sandy Hook was considered to be an amazing coincidence in the blogs in December 2012,[4] but it was never a factor in the investigation or mentioned in the final report. In the past, The Catcher in the Rye and A Clockwork Orange (film) have also been linked to events which they probably did not cause. The Suzanne Collins link is mentioned in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories where it is more on topic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed that link! I guess most big incidents end up with such articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for not understanding the WP copyright policies better, but is there a way to use an image of the artist rendering of the new Sandy Hook School that is permitted within WP guidelines and such? I've added paragraphs about the two recent announcements and the image pertains to one of them. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to this? On a different note, there are already a few too many images in the article and not all are 100% necessary. A copyright free photograph of the new school could and should be taken when it is built, but the proposed plans are not completely necessary per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we could use some image pruning, my thought is that the new school image could replace another. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Flowers for the victims from people of Newtown" and "Minute of silence observed in the White House on December 21, 2012" could go because they basically repeat the same theme as the other two images in the Reactions section. There is also undesirable MOS:SANDWICH caused by these images having left and right placement. The plans for the new school are probably copyrighted in some way and are unlikely to be suitable for a Creative Commons license.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we wait until the new school is built and replace something then. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit to remove the political debate related commentary from this section, and two Users have been reverting it. This is the simplified version I am in favor of that removes remarks from any politicians and commentary by the NRA. The article is about the shooting and the section about gun control related activities that came about as a result. We have plenty of factual information in the article about guns and gun legislation already, can't we keep the gun debate out of this article? Your thoughts? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources discuss gun control issues in relation to the subject of the article, then so should we, regardless of efforts by the gun lobby to avoid people making the obvious connections between availability of firearms and mass murder carried out using firearms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was significant gun control debate directly linked to this incident, it should be covered here, but we should not be making the broader arguments pro/con that are not linked by reliable sources/notable voices. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying my comment that I just left on your page, since it sums up my view on this topic. I do also want to add that you didn't initiate this with an edit, you initiate it with a revert of my edit. You then decided to remove an entire chunk of the subsection in direct response to someone else reverting your revert. Further, while I disagree with Andy's assessment I do agree with Gaijina, and I feel the article as it stands now meets his/her criteria.

From the OP's user page:

The entire section is about commentary. It's the subsection under "Reactions" covering "Gun control". The push for more gun control (and resultant push against it) was perhaps the most prominent national reaction to Sandy Hook. The section opens with a direct quote from the President explaining his intentions, the body of the section contains quotes and reactions from various politicians and groups on both sides of the debate, and the closing covers the defeat of the only Bill that saw a vote at the national level, and quotes from both sides of the aisle, including the President. That's not just neutral, that's good writing, I think. The only part I took out was a single word that treated Obama's words as fact (and since he was criticizing Republicans and the NRA, that's clearly not neutral), and adding the NRA, since in the quote he specifically directs his criticism at both Republicans and the NRA.

I'm note sure what you're classifying as rhetoric, but your suggestion to keep politics out of a section specifically covering a political issue confuses me. If anything this section should cover legislative reaction to Sandy Hook (ie, new gun control laws in Colorado, New York, Maryland and Connecticut) in far more detail. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage here should be limited to things that reliable and notable commentators have directly linked to Sandy Hook, preferably by the authors/supporters of the law saying that was their inspiration, and not just a talking head saying that these laws were passed after Newtown (causation vs correlation). Colorado's laws are much more closely linked with the 2012 Aurora shooting. NY Safe Act does have linkage though. Not sure about the others. (Although a generic statement saying that the event generally galvanized gun control efforts is obviously supportable)Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the main arguments by one side have been omitted. Asserting that it was about gun control advocates trying to capitalize on the situation rather than about people reacting to it. 21:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - are you talking about the 'gun control' subsection of the 'reactions' section in this article? I just reread it and it seems pretty neutral to me, and I don't see any talking points, nor do I feel there really should be. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence suggests that Lanza entered Soto's room, before entering Lauren Rousseau's room. The two jungle-taped magazines were found in Soto's room, and they were the two mags that were in the rifle when he shot through the glass entrance. It only makes sense that he entered her classroom first, before moving on to Rousseau's room. Consider revising to support this? Hatzing (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need authoritative sources (like the police) to make this claim, we dare not make it ourselves. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because that would be WP:OR... Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, clear WP:OR, also even if it was reported reliably, I would say the level of detail about which rooms he entered first and who got shot first is probably too close to trivia, unless there were some significant notable/rs discussion about why that order was important. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are persistent problems with the sequence of events in the shooting, due to confusion and panic at the time. The sourcing has never established the sequence of events clearly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these edits - [5] [6] - the use of the terms assault weapon and high-capacity magazine is common practice in these and other gun-related discussions. They're the terms used in hundreds of - probably thousands of - reliable print and broadcast news stories and they're the terms our readers are likely to search for on the subject. They're lead-worthy because the Sandy Hook shooting is notable for two things: the horrible tragedy itself... and the fact that it kicked off another national discussion about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and (universal background checks for that matter). Therefore, I am reverting the good-faith reversion of the good-faith addition of these common terms. I am open to tweaking the wording, as long as it's not re-worded to play up the politics. (The wording is WP:NPOV as is.) Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" are vague. Specifically, the failed proposal by Dianne Feinstein wanted to "ban the sale and manufacture of 157 types of semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition."[7] Since the lead section is intended to be a summary rather than to go into detail, the addition of the vague terms "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" is not really necessary. Other comments welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]