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.
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 The information is outdated because at a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.
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-datereliable 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:
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 was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
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
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
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.
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 IzationTalk 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 IzationTalk 19:09, 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 IzationTalk 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
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
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 IzationTalk 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
"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
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 IzationTalk 17:38, 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)
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
In Favour. Adam Lanza was far more globally discussed and analyzed than
Elliot Rodger ever was. His actions have caused billion dollar lawsuits, the biggest
Second Amendment reckoning in modern American history, a President in tears. And his back story, including the killing of his mother, including mass media blaming his video game usage for his actions, are all related to to him as an individual and doesn't fit this current page. If there is any school shooter that is notable enough for his own page, it's Adam Lanza.
Nokia621 (
talk) 21:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. on the grounds that in addition to
WP:BIO1E, given above, Adam Lanza is the
perpetrator of the
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and that the principle set out there is that "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." I believe this is a higher bar than
WP:BIO1E alone. There is no need for an entirely separate article, a biographical section within the main article ought to be sufficient for a biography about Lanza. That way, all the information is in one place and
readers do not have to shuttle between articles to read the full story. -
Cameron Dewe (
talk) 23:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry to intervene but I have recently rejected the draft on grounds of the
WP:BIO1E. I've read the comments above but unfortunately, with many votes in favor from users with no edits or less edits outside the topic area, and proposer
Elizzaflanagan221 disrupting the discussion by casting personal attacks, I can see that there is consensus against having an article on
Adam Lanza. I've seen attempts of reconverting the redirect to the article, including
Nokia621's attempts to have the redirect deleted to make way for move from the draft. Nokia621's actions to this topic could be considered disruptive and could lead to sanctions. I also suggest having the redirect fully protected as this is going too far and against clear consensus.
ToadetteEdit! 16:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Image of Lanza
Re
this edit: Previously there has been a decision not to use this image for
WP:NFCC reasons. Since I don't want any back and forth reverts on this, can we agree whether this image is OK? ♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 07:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:NFCC #8, most mass shooting articles do not have images of the shooter as they don't add much in the way of vital context. This image of Lanza is famous because it shows him looking scary, weird and odd.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 16:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree on the scary/weird/odd aspect. I haven't completely made up my mind as to whether or not the rationales at the file page are sufficient for retaining it in this article but am leaning towards an oppose.
Shearonink (
talk) 20:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
idk i support mostly because i like putting a face to a name but thats just me
Elizzaflanagan221 (
talk) 21:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Strictly Oppose. "I like putting a face to a name" isn't sufficient rationale for
WP:NFCC. Given that the only editor in this discussion who is in favour of adding an image of Lanza vehemently considers themselves a "proud member" of an internet community notorious for idolizing serial killers/mass shooters (
123) and has no rationale based on WP policy for this discussion, I find this to not worth even discussing per
WP:SNOW.
B3251 (
talk) 21:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Agree with
B3251 and Meters. Insufficient reasoning, and on top of this user saying they’re a proud member of the “true crime community” which as shown above is known to glorify mass murderers and serial killers, nearly all of their edits appear to be about mass murders or mass murderers. Clear bias
Justanotherguy54 (
talk) 10:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose If Lanza is determined to be notable enough to warrant an article about him, then the image might be used in that article to identify him. This article is about the incident, not the perpetrator. We discuss the perpetrator, but this article does not need an image of him.
Meters (
talk) 22:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In Favor It's probably the most famous photo of a mass shooter in all of history. That image has been ingrained in people's minds since 2012 and I dont see how it wouldn't be relevant to the perpetrator section.
Nokia621 (
talk) 22:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no definitive answer for what is the "most famous photo of a mass shooter in all of history," and that still would not be sufficient rationale to include an image of the perpetrator on the article about the shooting. If an article about Lanza meets Wikipedia standards for creation and there is enough consensus for its creation, an image of him can (obviously) be used there, but not for the article about the shooting. This is the case for most notable mass shooting articles, such as the
Columbine High School massacre and the
Virginia Tech shooting for example.
B3251 (
talk) 22:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
FEMA Drill
Why is there no mention of the FEMA school shooting drill that was going on at the school during the time of the shooting? The drill is on the FEMA calander of events, water booths and sign in tables were present at the event becauese of the FEMA drill, without mention of the FEMA drill going on, these other aspects could be taken out of context and be used to promote conspiricy theory.
2600:8800:2221:F500:1810:B1D3:30B7:2BA2 (
talk) 05:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply