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 Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
firearms 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.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms 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 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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Make it truly international and drop the "international" name from the title, change the focus
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.
DreamFocus13:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)reply
conspiracy theory section in the wrong article
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
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.
DreamFocus20:14, 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.
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.
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
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