Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

adam lanza seperate page[edit]

it appears to have been a while since this was last requested but there's a lengthy draft ready to be published. I just need to reach a consesus before it can be published.

Draft here for anyone curious. Lmk what yous think: Draft:Adam Lanza Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of Lanza having a separate page. 71.221.216.157 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current consesus status is: 2-3 opposes favour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizzaflanagan221 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ive updated it heavily since this post. feel free to drop ur thoughts. i need to reach a consesus before i can nominate it as an article Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Lanza here probably isn't free to use as it has been taken from a news article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it was taken by a news article but was released by police Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That image file makes the false claim that the image is in the public domain as the work of an employee of the US federal government. It is a college ID photo, and college ID photographers are not federal government employees, except possibly for those working at the military academies. I do not believe that photo is in the public domain. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to Adam Lanzas own wiki page TheGoodChief (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im in favour of Adam Lanza getting his own wiki page TheGoodChief (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLP1E, which policy does not support a biographical page exclusively for Adam Lanza as opposed to the page related to his crime. General Ization Talk 19:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well known image of Lanza and it appears to be his school ID photo. I'm not an expert but would be cautious about saying that it is in the public domain. Police mugshots etc in the US are usually not free to use unless clearly stated as such.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i understand but Wikipedia:Article size says articles over 9,000 words "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text of this article does not currently exceed 9000 words. [2] General Ization Talk 19:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
says 9087 not including info box Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the link in my comment above. XTOOLS reports the current text as being 8,451 words. Assuming either figure, the length is not excessive given the significance of the case and the multiple facets of its 11-year aftermath needing to be covered in the article. General Ization Talk 19:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
take Nikolas Cruz's article for example. Parkland high school shooting page had 9500 words prior to his article's creation, got reduced to 6000. I read somewhere that the ideal page byte size is 50,000-100,000 per article and Sandyhook page has 200,000. I believe making lanza's page will improve readability. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:BIO1E. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has to be approved. Lanza needs his own wiki page. TheGoodChief (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGoodChief, please explain why you think that Lanza is an exception to WP:BIO1E. Lanza does not "need" anything. He is dead. Cullen328 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does Dylann Roof, Nikolas Cruz, James Holmes and Martin Bryant have their own Wiki pages? Some people have an interest in Adam Lanza, we need a separate page for more info on him TheGoodChief (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Some people' could no doubt be found wanting more coverage of more or less any topic one could think of. Wikipedia is under no obligation to cater to the needs of obsessives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    doesn't answer the question. Also, your statement about summarising topics is flawed. Yes, it's meant to summaries topics, but if they can be expaneded upon in a seperate article, they should. for example, Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or even Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy that states that the same topic 'should' be expanded over multiple articles. Normally, I'd advise those advocating such article bloat to consider starting their own Wiki, but given the subject matter, I'd have to instead suggest that they find something healthier to obsess about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.
    This was taken out of the BIO1E article that you's keep sharing around. If you could explain why Adam Lanza is not notable in one of the most notable mass shootings after columbine then please do so. There is more than enough media coverage on him as there are still articles and researchers talking about him to this day. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam Lanza has no 'notability' as defined by Wikipedia policy, except in the context of the Sandy Hook shootings. If you have trouble understanding this, that's your problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i've clearly lined out where in your pitful argument it states he can have an article, yet you're displaying no argument to it. So unless you've got a better argument, the WP:BIO1E is basically invalid. I'll re-state what it says and even highlight where it says he's eligible for an article:
    In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.
    I've seen you do stuff like this before with Brenton Tarrant's old article for no reason. It's obvious you for some reason just dont like the perpetrators of crimes getting their own articles and if that is the case, you shouldn't use your bias to make invalid arguments in mass shooting talk pages. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's enough with the personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elizzaflanagan221: Please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. You've now heard essentially the same response from 3 editors (including myself) who have a combined 46 years of experience on Wikipedia, versus your apparent 11 months. There's nothing at all wrong with being relatively new to editing Wikipedia, but when you assume you know everything you need to know about our policies and practices here, and start getting belligerent when more senior editors consistently inform you otherwise, that sounds like the beginning of a problem. In any case, please keep it civil. General Ization Talk 03:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i've listened but after reading the BIO1E, i can't find anywhere that says lanza is ineligible for an article. I'll repeat it once more. "he degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it" AND "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." I think many would argue Adam has significant media coverage to this day. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:BIO1E exists for a reason. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, that summarises topics. It is not a venue for documenting anything and everything ever written about a subject, and article bloat is not a valid reason to subdivide articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BIO1E states:
    "In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified."
    BIO1E doesn't seem to work in this case, cheers. Don't use your bias to stop perpetrators getting articles, like you did with Brenton Tarrant. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Persist in making unfounded accusations of bias, and you may find yourself blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah ive heard. anyway, are you going to provide a better reason for the oppose because i've outlined several times where it says Adam is eligible for an article. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:SATISFY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thats got nothing to do wit this bruh. if ur gonna oppose the article then you need to provide a good reason. i've already stated WHY WP:BIO1E wouldn't be valid. im not trying to be "satisfied" im just trying to reach a consesus on whether the article could be created or not. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not how consensus works. As the article Andy shared with you explains, no one is under any obligation to explain their position to you in any detail, much less convince you to agree with them. So far, consensus is against the creation of a separate article for Lanza. Consensus can change as more people participate in a discussion, but that doesn't license you to harangue those who have already participated and demand that they explain themselves to your satisfaction. Also, you have not "explained WHY WP:BIO1E wouldn't be valid". You have stated that you think it "says Adam is eligible for an article", when it says no such thing. It says "separate articles may become justified" (not "is justified"). That determination depends on the specific article involved, its subject, and the consensus of editors involved. General Ization Talk 17:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Facts TheGoodChief (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for multiple reasons outlined above. General Ization Talk 17:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Favor First I just want to say that Wikipedia as a whole should really come to a consensus on which mass shooters get their own article and not others. How does Jared Lee Loughner, who killed 6, have his article but Lanza and plenty others who tripled or quadrupled Loughner do not?. Anyway, I would be in favor of a separate article for Lanza simply because of how many he killed and the subsequent media and gun rights attention the shooting received. I mean, there's an entire article on Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, if were going far enough to create that article, shouldn't we make one for Lanza? - User:Genberg47 (Talk)
  • Oppose. Agree with General Ization & AndyTheGrump & Cullen328. Shearonink (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Favour. I think it’s absolutely necessary that there is a page for Adam Lanza. There is so much information that so many people could learn from his case and prevent similar events from happening again, i.e. parents of children who exhibits traits like Lanza.
There is a lot of misinformation about his case and a lot of assumptions, however I feel that if the information was more readily available for those who aren’t willing to do thorough research, people would have a better understanding of what happened and factors that could’ve contributed. I personally believe that there could have been leaps and bounds of progress made in relation to prevention of shootings, and understanding and support for autistic youth who may exhibit similar traits to Lanza had the correct information been easily obtained by the public, rather than the false info which is still very easily obtainable to this day via google search.
While I understand the logic behind not creating wikipedia pages for people who have committed such acts, I find it very unfair that other shooters have their own pages in that case. I think that either all of them should have a page, or none at all. And as it has been pointed out numerous times, Lanza does qualify to have a page.
It does feel like there is a personal bias, which is non-sensical to me. It looks like this argument is being shut down under the assumption that Elizzaflanagan221 is an ‘obsessive’. Whether or not that is true doesn’t feel relevant to me, as it is a discussion concerning facts. And at the end of the day, the obsessives already have all the information they need. An Adam Lanza wikipedia page would benefit those uneducated much more. It’s also important in my opinion that we don’t assume the reasons for people’s curiosity, and don’t deny people that out of personal bias.
I am new to this, so please do explain (in a more digestible manner) if I’m misunderstanding anything. Fever2tell (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing[edit]

Regarding this reversion, and the previous reversion by the same editor of a similar addition, can we please discuss to reach consensus instead of edit warring?

How do we feel about the inclusion of the Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing page in the See Also section? The reversion edit summary argues that since this attack was a stabbing as opposed to a shooting, it does not fit. However, MOS:SEEALSO states that "articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category." I believe that as both were mass casualty elementary school attacks, they fit in the same defining category, regardless of the weapons used.

The reversion edit summary also argues the following: "...were it not for the fact that it occurred on the same day as Sandy Hook, it would have virtually zero linkage to this incident". This is true. If the two attacks occurred on separate days, they would be linked no more than any other two elementary school attacks, and I would not be arguing for the inclusion of the Chenpeng page. But they did occur on the same day! This coincidence engendered a number of comparisons and commentaries: here, in The New Yorker, here, in USA Today, along with others. A reader interested in exploring tangentially related topics would likely find these comparisons intriguing. Happieryet (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no real linkage apart from the fact that they were on the same day. This leads to the stabbing incident in China being only at best distantly related, and with no direct link between the two.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that a problem? They are distantly related, yes—linking to "tangentially related" articles is an acknowledged purpose of the See Also section as per MOS:SEEALSO. "Direct linkage" is not a precondition for inclusion under the manual of style guidelines. Please root your reasoning in policy/guidelines. Happieryet (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support . Very similar events that occured on the same day. If we can't get it in the See Also i think it would be worth mentioning it somewhere in the article.
Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not very similar because it was a stabbing incident and nobody died. It is only the fact that it was on the same day that has led to a link being made.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is only the fact that it was on the same day that has led to a link being made." It was also an indiscriminate armed attack at an elementary school, fitting into the same category. These aspects of the two cases make them tangentially related, so it is suitable under MOS:SEEALSO.
Regardless of your personal feelings about an edit, when two editors acting in good faith have shown support via edits, one of them reverting your prior reversion, and another has shown support on the article talk page, that constitutes WP:Consensus. Your lone voice of dissent does not alter the consensus that has been established, and repeating the same argument in an attempt to instate your preferred version of the article does not change that fact. I have restored the previous edit: please do not revert yet again in the face of three separate editors who disagree with your opinion (unless, of course, a new consensus is established through further discussion). Happieryet (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
both attacks occured one the same day at an elementary school with 20+ casualties. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting&oldid=1221428811"