Talk:Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

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

Regarding lead[edit]

President of USA is local in the context and has been deleted[edit]

Obama is local in the context and hence his reaction is removed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions around the world includes all nations, even the home team. I have restored that. Dream Focus 05:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thaf is not correct, however I won't revert per my policy of not edit warring, I leave it for other editors to deal with. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a moot point with the recent title change. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of this article[edit]

It may be noted that there was an extended discussion about having this article in the main article but it was split up to here. I looked in the talk page of the main article of the shooting and cannot find it. I hope someone did not remove it because that hurts Wikipedia. Auchansa (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone archived it. [2] Dream Focus 10:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not just have leader's condolences?[edit]

I do see another user's point. They might want the article to be only about heads of government comments and condolences. However, this is not the title.

I say that we should respect the title of the article. In the mean time, let others improve and add. Don't just remove the whole section. Think of how this article started. The leaders' reactions kept on being removed by others and it was hard to retrieve.

Others' opinions? Auchansa (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why use only the leader? There have been reports of tributes and demonstrations by people in Moscow, Bangalore, Karachi and in Monrovia, Liberia. Should those be added somewhere? There is also the reaction by various editorial boards and journalists that could be included, and perhaps even some social media, if it is notable enough.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but sending home a letter about school safety in Nova Scotia and a newspaper story in Adelaide about guns are not notable matters. WWGB (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but they had an organized candle light vigil in India and a make shift memorial set up at the US embassey in Moscow, and both incidents got press coverage, so those should be notable, right?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, good ideas! Let's start writing and make this article better than the main article. That will teach them! Auchansa (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be a lesson in how to determine what an encyclopedic article is, unless by negative example. This article is a list of utterances that by themselves are not notable. BTW, is there a rationale for including "Within 15 hours of the massacre, 100,000 Americans signed up at the Obama administration's We the People petitioning website"? It's not an official governmental response. If that's in, then kids all around the world burning candles should be in as well. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better candidate for Wikinews[edit]

Barring any International entity coming in with direct aid or assistance to the affected families, this is not really a good encyclopedic topic but certainly would be appropriate at Wikinews and something that we can link to from the main article on the shooting. (I'm pretty sure we can transwiki from here to there without a problem; we just can't transwiki the reverse direction). --MASEM (t) 19:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders of nations around the world comment on something, that makes it notable. For other examples of this see Category:International reactions. Dream Focus 19:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the shooting's notable. But if we're just reiterating quotes from leaders or single event displays of compassion, that's itself is not a notable topic, and much better suited at Wikinews: looking through that cat, I'd argue many of the same really are Wikinews topics. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 people wanted to get rid of it because WP:NOTNEWS while yes WP:OTHERSTUFF is there it is worth a mention as the whole "International reactions to" articles have been subject to this. Taking it case by case I think this goes beyond notnews as it is a notable worldwide reaction to not a world leader being elected but a mass shooting in the United States. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just reiterating the same old thing. The burden is to prove that this is notable in the first place. Saying it doesn't make it so. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better candidate for keeping article, 2nd best is to merge to the main article[edit]

The worse thing to do is to support merge then don't really merge it but destroy the article.

This article can be improved by detailing the international reaction, providing sources, like news article mainly about the widespread international reaction, and adding stuff besides some heads of government saying sorry.

Auchansa (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

adding more news articles will make this more NOT#NEWS and inappropriate for en.wiki --MASEM (t) 05:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make it truly international and drop the "international" name from the title, change the focus[edit]

Some other people, not me, have suggested to drop the word "international" from the title. The U.S. is part of international and dropping the international word could open the door wider for U.S. reactions, including policy debates.

But first, there is an AFD deletion debate that needs to be settled. Nobody is going to improve to article with an AFD gun to the head. Auchansa (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Others stated this should be done in the AFD also. Makes sense. Could also be replaced with the word "global", but not really necessary. Dream Focus 13:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

conspiracy theory section in the wrong article[edit]

It is a big stretch to say that the conspiracy theories are a reaction. Instead, consider them for the main article.

Also the term "conspiracy theory" is a biased term. "Alternate theory" is a better term, especially if you think there is some merit. If you don't think it has merit, then "wacky theory", ha ha. Auchansa (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided to merge the conspiracy theories from its original standlone to here since they would disrupt the main article about the shooting. They are a reaction of sources, so is appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like an excessive amount of space is devoted to conspiracy theories in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall any discussion to have that nonsense here. Also, the conspiracy theories listed here, are not in the main article for them. Reaction articles never have conspiracy theories in them. I see it was all added by one user [3] on 17 January 2013. Dream Focus 20:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your two recent edits. The conspiracy theories are such unmitigated trash that I don't understand why they have an entire article devoted to them. Coretheapple (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that "conspiracy theory" is not a biased term. Nomenclature cannot be biased if it's the most technically accurate available, or at least it's as unbiased as currently possible. If a theory involves one or more conspiracies then it is a conspiracy theory by definition. A term like alternate theory is less accurate because "alternate", in this context, is a superset of "conspiracy". Efforts to relabel conspiracy theories as "alternate theories" are little more than poorly disguised attempts at distraction and diversion from one of the primary characteristics of such views.
My apologies for the WP:SOAPBOX.-jss (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The present conspiracy (theory) section is very badly written and unreferenced. --Hugh7 (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Reaction to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "armedNYT":

  • From Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting: Cushman Jr., John H. (December 22, 2012). "N.R.A. Calls for Armed Guards in Schools to Deter Violence". The New York Times.
  • From National Rifle Association: Cushman Jr., John H. (December 22, 2012). "N.R.A. Calls for Armed Guards in Schools to Deter Violence". New York Times.

Reference named "Armed Guards WP":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions[edit]

I say keep it. Notable people such as the Pope, Queen Elizabeth and Putin have addressed the massacre, the latter asking Obama to give the victims his personal respects. Even the Iranian FM condemned the massacre, comparing it to death of children in Syria and Palestine; that's also notable given the relationship between Iran and the US. The section shows that the shooting has had an impact outside the country, how people see the United States and comparative gun laws.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are more responses, particularly from the Spanish wikipedia page, about how this effects other countries perspective of US gun control laws. The response from Venezuela seems particularly interesting, but my Spanish is not quite fluent enough to translate it.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control subsection summarized to Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

Today, I am further summarizing the Gun control subsection of this article. Yesterday, I spent the day doing the same on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article, which is documented on that article's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting&oldid=1209982826"