Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

POV

Presenting wacky theories as if they had some credibility is POV. The NPOV way to present them is to highlight the fact that they're insane. Which is actually what most non-crazy sources have done.Volunteer Marek 23:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You have to plainly state the theory before you can say why it is insane. The article is barely a day old. A bit of time to actually write the content before rushing to deletion would have been helpful. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain your reading of WP:NPOV that makes describing anything as "insane" within that policy? And how does the article present wacky theories as if they had credibility? (On a literal level, they do, because some people believe them.) Are you sure your problem with the article isn't that these theories are presented at all? (cf. WP:JDLI) --BDD (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
An example from the second sentence: Proponents of these conspiracy theories question the circumstances of the shooting with Adam Lanza as the sole perpetrator and are using early media reports that included inconsistencies - this tries to suggest to the readers that there WERE or even ARE inconsistencies in media reports, or even the story itself. I'm pretty sure that while in the heat of the moment media outlets got somethings wrong (which often happens) there aren't any inconsistencies. The language here however is designed to make the reader think that there might be something to these stories.
And that's just the second sentence. I could go through it line by line, but hopefully I won't have to if this nonsense is deleted.Volunteer Marek 00:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
That is something I want to work out. There are inconsistencies in early media reports, simply because they were early. Journalists always want to scoop each other. Reliable sources have discussed this in relation to the conspiracy theories, so I do want to make sure we cite some of them to explain why these inconsistencies shouldn't be taken as actual proof. I'd appreciate it if you helped with this, of course. --BDD (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The inconsistencies were very significant. They got the wrong guy (Ryan), said his mother worked at the school, said he did NOT use an AR15, said there were multiple assailants, etc. While all of this is explainable as scoop-chasing, the conspiracy theorists are not exaggerating the extent of the inconsistancies - just the reason. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

glenn beck interview

I realize many are not going to like this source, but here is an interview with one of the Sandy hook parents (kid not shot) debunking some of the rumors. Good primary source? http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/16/sandy-hook-student%E2%80%99s-dad-calls-in-to-dispel-conspiracy-theories/ Gaijin42 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

By who

I'm not planning to opine on the AfD, but this article has problems. The lead says "A number of conspiracy theories related to the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have been proposed." The use of the passive voice masks the question of WHO has proposed these theories. Youtube commenters? Nobel prize winners? Or, most likely, "primarily by conspiracy enthusiasts." I am adding that phrase to the opening sentence, but open it up to discussion as well. In any event, the currently opening is weak.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Its been changed already[1], and now the problem is back. Who are these "proponents"? Rush Limbaugh? Te'o's dead fake girlfriend?--Milowent • hasspoken 04:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
By people who ask questions and don't accept the official version of the story. USchick (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
So if I post that the underground government of Mars was behind it, will it go into the article? I am sure I can find some "proof" of this. In fact, I guarantee I can make it sound more plausible than these theories.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories are verified by reliable sources. Can you please provide a source for the statement "none of whom have been identified as qualified investigators"? USchick (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Who came up with the theories, though? We all know its basement dwelling internet whackjobs. There must be an encyclopedic way to address this. The article now is deceptive because by not giving any context, it implies someone with any legitimacy may have come up with this. Am hoping other editors -- HEELLLOOOO - can weigh in too here.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with millowent's point in general, but do not think its as big of an issue as he is stating. The problem is that there are many theories, proposed by many people. I'm sure some of the MANY WP:RS we have will have described the proponents of the theories. We should pick the most neutral/widest applicable description from those sources and use it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Who is saying these things? Read on. Now, this is probably a good case for running against WP:LEADCITE, which permits ledes without inline citations. So I'm happy with USchick's edits, even though I don't think they were necessary. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm just frustrated that internet trolls can gin up so much fake controversy. I am pretty sure a number of these people know they are making stuff up, and they encourage the true conspiracy nuts with their silly youtube videos and such.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your frustration, but we are not having an article because of the conspiracy nuts. We are having an article because those conspiracy nuts are being extensively discussed by NON nuts. go complain to the mainstream media to not give oxygen to these types of issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm going to give some of those citations a look. This one, for example, does not in any way support "Others have suggested the shooting was orchestrated by government officials for political reasons." It has a politician suggesting the attacks are being used to "bully" legislators. It takes a huge leap, and a likely BLP violation, to connect this to conspiracy theories. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Changed wording to: "Others claim the attack is being used by politicians to push through new gun control legislation." This conspiracy theory is actually similar to 9/11 theory that claims that the politicians used the event as an excuse to invade Iraq, and in this case pass gun control laws. USchick (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
To me that doesn't even qualify as a conspiracy theory. Thats just normal accepted political practice - "never let serious crisis go to waste" Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
In that case, can we move it to the main article? USchick (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The specific statements of the tragedy being used as political leverage would be appropriate in the reactions section imo. But that would need consensus from that article's editors Gaijin42 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

massive debunk article from the Blaze

Tons of useful debunking on every sandy hook conspiracy that I am aware of, useful as a source, and worthy as an explicit external link (like snopes) imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

doh! http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/23/this-is-theblazes-point-by-point-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-debunk/ Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is called debunking? "the doctor was trying to spare the families the pain of seeing the horrific injuries the children sustained, so photos of their faces were used instead." So he unloaded hundreds of rounds into the children, carefully avoiding their faces? How would that be possible? USchick (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Please talk about how to improve the article, not about the subject of the article itself. --Conti|✉ 21:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Center body mass. Perhaps you've heard of it. Some probably were hit in the face. But not as many as were hit in the body. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, the comments at the end of that article debunk the article as being reliable for many reasons. This is not a link that needs to be included. USchick (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Because comments from random internet people are now WP:RELIABLESOURCES ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

So, what's the point of the tag here? What exactly is non-neutral about how the information is presented? I mean, the lede could definitely be a bit more explicit about the fact that these conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked, but other than that, I don't see any other issues with the article. SilverserenC 17:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Some editors have suggested that the article promotes the theories, but I don't really see article content doing that. I think their thinking reflects some of the delete votes at AfD, which is that covering the subject at all is non-neutral. I haven't removed the tag to avoid being overly combative. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
See the PoV section on this talk page for more details. Especally, "Presenting wacky theories as if they had some credibility is POV. The NPOV way to present them is to highlight the fact that they're insane. [...]" which is likely when the tag was added to the article. As to removing the tag, I think that removing the tag wouldn't be good, though it seems that the tag was applied incorrectly. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
We are not presenting them as though they had credibility. We are just documenting that they exist and discussing the commentary aboout them. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This article should be removed and appropriate content added to List of conspiracy theories. That would cover the factual existence of the new CTs, but perhaps a new page should be created to document the increasingly obvious problem we have (in just America?) where any tragic event immediately creates a batch of new conspiracy claims (with the corollary apparently being that the outlandishness of the claims is directly proportional to the intensity of the tragedy) . I presume someone(s) with appropriate credentials has/is looking into this phenomenon. --jss 18:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
We tried to do that. There wasn't a consensus for it. That said, we don't need to have every conspiracy article linked in this article. The least reported and most off-the-wall should be removed. If they aren't, the article is non-neutral. pbp 20:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think thats quite a stretch to say that documenting of the lesser theories (assuming they are adequately sourced of course) is a neutrality issue. Do you have anything other than your own opinion to back that up? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE would be a good start. --Conti|✉ 20:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
If they're reported on in a high level newspaper, I think that's more than enough to say it's not UNDUE. Besides, there's what, 4 theories currently? That's not many at all. It's practically nothing compared to the number of conspiracy theories about Bin Laden's death. SilverserenC 07:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Official" account?

Adam Lanza shot twenty children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It's incorrect and tendentious to call that the "official" account. Tom Harrison Talk 00:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It is the version accepted by the officials, and reported by reliable sources, therefore until proven otherwsise, that is the official account. official does not mean "proven beyond all doubt true". Gaijin42 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Official account" is tendentious. It suggests this is the account the officials are trying to foist on a credulous public, while the clear-eyed skeptics are looking into what really happened. We should say "the mainstream account," or simply say what in fact did happen, then note that the conspiracy theories deny this. Tom Harrison Talk 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't read any kind of reverse conspiracy in the word "official". the most famous conspiracy theory article (JFK) uses the words "official investigation", "official explination" etc multiple times. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Tom, I'm not sure "mainstream account" avoids those problems. "Official account" is what you read into it. Here, it's to distinguish from the conspiratorial-theoretical accounts. As Gaijin42 has pointed out, these are—well, mainstream terms. You'll find the phrase in 9/11 conspiracy theories as well. I don't doubt the official account, nor do I want this article to make readers do so. But we have to be neutral; it's a pillar. We just can't say, "John Doe says this, which is crazy." We can say, "John Doe says this, and The New York Times has called this crazy." I do note that 9/11 conspiracy theories doesn't use the phrase a great deal, so I'm open to alternatives. I suppose I wouldn't object to "mainstream account," but again, I don't actually see it as an improvement. --BDD (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
"Official account" is often used by Truthers (of whatever kind) to describe to describe the preferred output of the putative conspiracy: i.e., what "they" want us to believe. Its use in the article needlessly (and unintentionally) places Wikipedia into the Truther corner. Acroterion (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to mention, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT does have some importance to do with this article. If you know of a better way of saying it, then it might be included in the article if agreed upon. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Official account" is simply the account released by offical sources. I have read the phrase "official account" used by people who regarded the official account as reliable, probably as often as I have read "official account" used by people who question the official account, although I have not kept a scorecard. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that "official accounts" sounds strange in the context of a conspiracy theory. It hints that we are neutral whether these are accurate or not, and that is not how Wikipedia handles CT:s. See for example Obama birth, Obama religion, Moonlanding hoax, aspartam controversy, SRA, etc. Suggest changing "official accounts" in lead to "events". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories

The AfD discussion didn't mention the option of a condensed content move to List of conspiracy theories, merely outright deletion. In fact, someone on that article's talk page quite naturally questioned why there was no mention of SH. It doesn't appear the option has ever been considered, unless I've missed something (which is certainly quite likely). --jss 23:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The main reason I didn't add anything to List of conspiracy theories when I created this article is that that list doesn't appear to be (or want to be) comprehensive. It's a list "of the most popular unproven theories," and while SHCTs (to coin an abbreviation) easily meet GNG, I think coverage there would probably be WP:UNDUE, though it might be possible to insert a short linking summary there. However, merging would be inappropriate without discussion, given no consensus at AfD and a clear consensus against merging elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting

This was a very interesting article - a nice page of accumulation of guess work and hearsay of news stories. Only in the USA - never heard any of this in Canadian news broadcast. Hopefully in time we can get some real refs in-place over the news ones. Moxy (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What refs would you expect other than News? Way too soon to have any books written etc. From an anthropological standpoint its not surprising that the stories aren't covered as much in Canada, as the US does have a fetish for conspiracy theories. However, according to this google news search there are a few Canadian news sites covering the conspiracy angle as a story (as opposed to propagating the conspiracy itself).Gaijin42 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for those links I have read 3 of them and glad to see the concept is not taken seriously. Yes your correct "Way too soon to have any books written" - its still just news story. Little disappointing to see we have an ongoing news article on this but it was interesting to say the lest. I am going to read up on why this type of conspiracy theory is so prevalent in American society - they are educated - so i wonder why... I will discover lots I bet.Moxy (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


questionable sources

Please identify specific sources that are considered unreliable, and how those sources, when taken viewed in the context of the 41 sources currently in the article justify the unreliable sources tag. If no argument is made, or there is not consensus to change the WP:STATUSQUO the tag will be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't place the original {{unreliable sources}} on the page that you reverted, but the article does contain six refs marked as {{unreliable source?}}, and a quick examination suggests that their reliability is indeed suspect at best. If you feel these references are in fact from reliable sources, you should explain why and (with consensus) remove the tags. -jss (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't dispute that there are those individual refs which are unreliable, but they are already marked as such. There are there to serve as the WP:PRIMARY of the conspiracy themselves, and are not used as the primary basis of the article. he vast majority of the content is sourced by very reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, discussing those same WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't mind the unreliable citations on the individual sources, as an indicator to readers to take that particular source with a grain of salt. I do object to the overall article being flagged as such. If we were to completely delete those few sources, I don't think any information in the article would need to change - the remaining reliable secondary sources are sufficient sourcing for all statements. The unreliable sources are just extra "frosting" to show the primary source. 41 sources. 5 marked as unreliable. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
After examining the article in a bit more detail, the only thing I really have an issue with is "The medical examiner added to the confusion by making contradictory statements.". I don't know if this actually occurred or not but it's stated as a fact, as opposed to an attributable claim, without a reputable reference. (Which is exactly why I can't tell if it's factual) -jss (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe I know the intent behind that statement. I will try and get something more attributable/cited to clarify. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Were you able to find anything more attributable on this point? I did a bit of research and was not able to find an RS that mentioned contradictory statements on behalf of the relevant medical examiner's office. I suspect it's a CT claim at best but, of course, I could be wrong.-jss (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete this article....

Right my view, first and foremost is: this article is a repository for fantasy, BS and the musings of right-wing whack-jobs. It should therefore be deleted immediately.

However I see that a discussion has already taken place and nothing has been done. Why?

There are lots and lots of Wikipedia by-laws that dictate that it should not. I mean why can't a simple but active-voiced statement be added to the main article on this tragedy to say something like, "the shootings created a lot of conspiracy theories among far right, gun-owning groups who are also known as "truthers"." No discussion, no presentation of the theories. Just a throw away line acknowledging that there are people out there who would rather believe in fantasy than common sense, plain-sight facts and over-whelming evidence from multiple independent sources.

Why should getting rid of this article be so difficult? Look at the basic violations of the rules:

  • WP:FRINGE, is it all about prominence? Like the old adage about religion: if one person says they talk to God, they're a nutter; if a few people say it, then they're a cult; but if thousands claim it, then that's religion!

→ which seems to be the reason why this article is allowed, numbers! But this is still fringe, so it must be making a point:

  • WP:UNDUE, is it all about who is saying then? Which is supported by the rules in WP:RS. (Why are a lot of the references all from small news websites? Why are most of the news reports from Canada not the United States?) Things then start to fall into WP:COAT.

→which this article fails because of the topic of this article is not discussing talking points, it's promoting them, hence :

  • WP:SOAP, it right that known falsehoods should be given equal standing? Surely only people who would have interest in the BS contained in this article would be work on this page. I cannot see how those working sincerely on the real page on this tragedy would want to then come here and denigrate that work by adding to this tripe? Therefore this article is only serving as a platform for those who do not have a WP:NPOV.

Look this isn't rocket science. As I noted above, Wikipedia should acknowledge that "fringe theories" do exist but that doesn't mean it should promote them and give them equal status to the reality - with their own articles! There is clearly a marked difference between accepting/tolerating that some would wish to make capital out of tragedy and actually collating and then allowing the dissemination of such material.

If people on discovering that conspiracy theories do exist about the shootings, want to follow up their own research on the topic, what is stopping any individual doing an internet search themselves? By unwittingly defending this article, Wikipedia (given its global stature) gives the topic its approbation. Kudos in other words, a free marketing boost to fringe because it is obvious that nowadays if something - real or abstract - being permitted to be an article on Wikipedia defines it as WP:NOTABLE.

This leads on to the meta-philosophical point about the nature of Wikipedia - is it really about the "child in Africa" - who one day might have access to free knowledge or more cynically - or it just becoming a gateway through which falsehoods can be promoted to the masses?

If this article is allowed to be kept, then I fear it's becoming more about the latter rather than the former!!

:-( 86.179.82.235 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Not this garbage, again.
  • FRINGE states: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." So... yes, it is about numbers. If you have a problem with that, go back to the FRINGE talk page and dispute the guideline there.
  • "Why are a lot of the references all from small news websites? Why are most of the news reports from Canada not the United States?) Things then start to fall into WP:COAT." Time magazine, Newsday, Salon, the Huffington Post, the Atlantic, and the Washington Post are neither small nor "Canadian." Even if they were Canadian, what would be the issue?-- Is Canada a refuge for "right-wing whack-jobs?" COAT might apply if all this were on the actual Sandy Hook article, but it's moot since we have a dedicated article to the conspiracy theories. It's not a coatrack article if the content sufficiently covers the premise of the article.
  • "Surely only people who would have interest in the BS contained in this article would be work on this page." Have you ever heard of the ad hominem appeal to motive? It's not a good sign for whoever is making the argument.
  • "...because it is obvious that nowadays if something - real or abstract - being permitted to be an article on Wikipedia defines it as WP:NOTABLE." I'm not entirely sure that's a grammatically coherent sentence, but you seem to be arguing on the wrong talk page. Take this to the NOTABLE talk page or the RS talk page. That's where the guidelines are drawn.
  • "is it really about the 'child in Africa' - who one day might have access to free knowledge or more cynically - or it just becoming a gateway through which falsehoods can be promoted to the masses?" If we accept this (I think) false dilemma, remember it's all dependent on you to change. -- Veggies (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If you think it should be deleted, start another AfD. I AfDed it once, it was (unfortunately) kept. pbp 18:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
We just need editors to use common sense when creating articles. Need editors to understand the different between news and what an encyclopedia is for. We have sister project that deal with non-encyclopedia content for just this reason.Moxy (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It's probably a little soon to AfD it again, but that's not valid justification for its existence; that's just procedural timing. I really don't think too many of the mentioned policies are applicable but WP:NOT#NEWS certainly is. It's sensationalism, pure and simple, and the evidence for this is the hyperbolic emotional media swarm followed by rapid cooling-off. Just because something is WP:NOTABLE doesn't mean it needs an article. I'm sure the general public, as some type of giant media consuming organism, will have forgotten about it entirely in less than six months, but there should be a lesson here.-jss (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and yeah: WP:RECENTISM. So there. ;) -jss (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
For anyone not interested in this article, there are 410,000,000 other articles you can view in the English language Wikipedia. They're only one click away. USchick (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thats simply very disappointing to hear from a long time editor. So people have raised concerns about many aspects of the article so much so that deletion is being discussed - and the best you can do is tell those editors that have raised concerns is to go read some other article. Do you have anything relevant to say about the concerns raised?Moxy (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There's a process for deletion and this is not it. You have the power to nominate the article for deletion just like any other editor. This talk page is not a forum or a platform for you to state your personal beliefs. If you feel the need to do that, I encourage you to start a blog. You seem to forget that you happen to be in a regulated environment with established rules in place. If you would like to create a different environment, feel free to create it on your own web site. USchick (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
We are evaluating the merits of the article and the POV of its creators - have any opinion on the matter at hand - or just here to tell editors what to do and think?Moxy (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Editors who created this article created it under the same rules as any other article. They are not morons and they do not lack common sense any more than creators of other articles. An Encyclopedia is for information on relevant topics. For anyone who doesn't find this topic relevant, there are lots of other topics to choose from. Is there a specific portion of the text that you would like to improve? Go for it. USchick (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not "for" information on all topics. WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM.-jss (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Just the topics you approve of. USchick (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Approval" has nothing to do with it. Contextual truth, however, should. Regardless, WP:RECENTISM is not about that. I particularly like the "recentism test" in WP:RECENTISM: In 10 years what will people make of this article as it is? Will they think it out-of-date and largely irrelevant? Filled with the specific details of incorrect beliefs of a fringe societal element regarding an extremely sensational event?-jss (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to come back in 10 years and nominate for deletion. USchick (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
In general, I like the 10-year test and find it underapplied. On that basis, I've voted to delete many articles on events. A murder can garner a lot of press coverage, especially locally, but most of the time it's still, unfortunately, routine; it's literally an everyday occurrence. The problem with the 10-year test, though, is that it basically prescribes the use of a crystal ball, which as we all know is frowned upon. You have to judge these issues on a case-by-case basis. And like it or not, this one survived AfD and has a large amount of references from reliable sources. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand that nobody has a WP:CRYSTAL ball and that you obviously cannot make predictions with a great deal of certainty (or perhaps even terribly close to it), but what do you really think the likelihood is that in ten years someone reviewing this content will understand why this has its own highly detailed article when there are numerous other similarly outlandish extreme fringe conspiracy theories relegated to a small paragraph on List of conspiracy theories? The only way that's even reasonably plausible is if there were actually some truth here, the case for which is about as far from good as one can get.
I also understand that it's survived AfD, but it's going to get harder and harder to support this, in its current form at least, as the sensationalism fades away. This will keep coming up and time is only going to make it look more conspicuous, not less.-jss (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Addendum

My names Tom, I was the person who started off this thread. I think it's good that this discussion is taking place because there seems to be a mainstay of common sense that Wikipedia does not need articles like this. I believe that by the law of averages, the more editors a topic has the greater its neutrality. However concerning a subject matter like this, the only people I could see wanting to protect or edit a page like this are those some sort of agenda to disseminate such tripe. And it is tripe. Pure sensationalism for attention seeking sake. This is page is an affront to what Wikipedia stands for "to create a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" not propagate lies and falsehoods.86.178.233.88 (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You do realise "the sum of all knowledge" includes "lies and falsehoods"? Knowledge means that which is known, not that which is true.--Auric talk 10:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Sort of. Knowledge necessitates that one is cognizant of that which is false; merely "knowing" falsehoods without realizing they are false isn't sufficient.
"Knowledge, which is the highest degree of the speculative faculties, consists in the perception of the truth of affirmative or negative propositions." -- John Locke.
Regardless, it's a bit silly to suggest a world is even possible, in this context, where anyone can "freely share in the sum of all knowledge" as that would require, in part, documenting every single individual's world-view. I suggest that patently false views, as isolated topics, should receive significantly less consideration than true or indeterminate views.-jss (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Common sense with editorial discretion should lead our editors.Moxy (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

White Out Press Debunking and other debunks

I don't have a problem persay with an article about conpiracy theories (even though I personally think they're all complete speculation based on very little evidence and overexaduration fueled by a complete distrust of our government). But I think the article should address the debunkings that have been taken place. For example, here is an article from White Out Press, a very centrist news website. http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q12013/sandy-hook-conspiracies-debunked-one-by-one/. - 03:13 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.231.27 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 8 March 2013

The debunking is good, and the site appears unbiased, but I don't think it would qualify as a WP:RS, it seems like more of a blog to me (albeit a well written one). However, the site could be used to find breadcrumbs to more reliable sources that do debunk various theories. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
This whiteoutpress.com article is actually lifted word-for-word from Salon.com and credit/direct link is given at the close of the blog. Wouldn't salon.com qualify as a reliable source? Massenetique (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why debunkings shouldn't be a park of this article, considering it is apart of every other conspiracy theory article. Maybe the authors just don't want to post anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.171.15 (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
1) You misread my comment. I explicitly said we should debunk, but that a blog was not sufficient sourcing. If they lifted their debunking from salon, then we should use salon. I believe that article is already used as a source in the article? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Moon landing conspiracy theories might be a good model for this article. See how they handle debunking. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Questionable/biased wording

Part of the article says "Others claim the attack is being used by politicians to push through new gun control legislation[...]"

But this is a verifiable fact. Numerous politicians, including President Obama, have explicitly referenced the shootings while advocating for new gun restrictions. This is not a "claim" or a "theory", it's 100% verifiable fact. It shouldn't be mixed in with false flag conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.51.51 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not change it to something like< "Politicians have used the attack as evidence that new gun control legislation is needed." Adding that there is a theory that the attack was a staged event for this very purpose. It is being cited by politicians to revise gun control laws.

Debunkings?

This article has nothing about debunkings, even though there are hundreds of publications on the internet now of people debunking these theories. This article feels biased and misleading because there are absolutely no mentions of debunks, unlike other conspiracy articles. (I mean really people, we all know this theory is bullcrap) 21:30, 21 May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.26.245 (talk)

thats your opinion, and those arent allowed here. 205.204.248.68 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
this entire article is based on people's opinions. God forbid you post anything about debunkings like a good conspiracy theory article would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.229.103 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Should not exist

This article should not exist on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for all these nonsense conspiracy theories. It is disrespectful to the dead and to the mourning families. Who ever is in favor of this article being here should be ashamed, period.Wyatt 151 (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I rejected your proposed deletion of the article, for a variety of reasons:
  • Regarding the material being offensive/disrespectful, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers virtually anything of notability and value; with topics on sex, crimes, etc., people are bound to be offended by various topics, but it is not Wikipedia's place to censor. Please see "Wikipedia is not censored" and Wikipedia:Offensive material for an explanation.
  • The article has also already been nominated for deletion here, and the result was no consensus. You can see the long debate regarding whether or not the article should be deleted in the link provided.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

additional sources

Good sources for additional content and criticism/debunking of the theories, and definitive proof of WP:GNG imo.

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Good finds, although the third and fourth sources you've listed are already there. --BDD (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I ended up incorporating all but the last two. The second to last is a bit rambling and tangential to Sandy Hook conspiracy theories particularly, and the last is more of a primary source espousing conspiratorial views. I think it's ok to have one or two of those if they've attracted attention in reliable sources, but at this point, more might be overdoing it. Thanks for finding these. --BDD (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

a few more. Including Time and CNN

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

One more: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/the_worst_sandy_hook_conspiracy_theory_yet/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you fucking serious? That is a legitimate source here in this article? A Fox News article? Time? CNN? As if they would go in depth with the actual conspiracy, they're just going to say it is bullshit or people have no life to make those assertions about this conspiracy, however, it is an biased manner. Do not USE THOSE SOURCES IF THEY'RE NOT GOING IN DEPTH WITH IT. HOWEVER IT HAS TO BE MORE RELIABLE WEBSITE THAT KNOWS THE CONSPIRACY WELL! It shouldn't just briefly say it or say it is bullshit. You could make a section on the negative aspects of the conspiracy, or you should go into the conspiracy overall. panicpack121 16:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


This Article is Garbage

If wikipedia won't delete this article the least it should do as an organization is to include information about the types of atrocious behavior sandy hook truthers regularly commit such as this man http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/25/mentally-deranged-sandy-hook-truther-provides-photos-of-stolen-memorial-signs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.188.243 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious?

The insane, unfounded theories of gun rights activists are not encyclopedic content in any way, and this article only serves to spread misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.100.130 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the title of the page would lead anyone reading it to come to the conclusion that the information should not be taken as fact.Robertvincentswain (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for Deletion

There are several criteria for deletion that this article meets that warrant a discussion on its deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.188.243 (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"The article has also already been nominated for deletion here, and the result was no consensus. You can see the long debate regarding whether or not the article should be deleted in the link provided. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)"

Sometimes it helps to read the comments [2 1]

Robertvincentswain (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories

Employment of Peter Lanza

"Other conspiracy theories have focused on the fact that Adam Lanza's father was an executive with GE Energy Financial Services."

Is his position at GE Energy Financial a fact? I can find absolutely no evidence that any claims made about Peter Lanza are correct. He is claimed to be an executive at that company, in addition to teaching at two universities. The only source for these claims I can find is a LinkedIn profile that allegedly belongs to Lanza, but there is no evidence to suggest it is real. It is only cited in some of the earlier news articles on Sandy Hook. After the initial phase, it became an established "fact" based on no one checking it. Lanza is not listed as an executive officer on GE Energy Financial's filings with the Secretary of State of Connecticut (all corporations are required to report additions, removals, or address changes of officers), nor is his name mentioned anywhere on the company's website. The two universities the LinkedIn profile claims he teaches at--Northeastern and Fairfield--do not list him as a member of faculty, nor does a search for his name on their websites produce any results, nor do the courses he allegedly teaches show up in their course catalog or semester schedules, nor does the degree program he allegedly teaches in even exist at either of those universities.

I have been unable to substantiate even a single employment-related claim made about Peter Lanza by the media. Can anyone find evidence to suggest these claims are in any way accurate? If not, I believe that the sentence I quoted above should be changed to "Other conspiracy theories have focused on claims that Adam Lanza's father was allegedly an executive..." or something similar. As I'm new, can I have some guidance on this? It seems to me that all references to Peter Lanza's employment should be qualified with words such as "allegedly," if no one is able to find evidence of them being accurate. Perhaps unproven claims regarding Peter Lanza's employment are appropriate fodder for this article? SusanBroil (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Having received no input to the contrary, I have changed the word "fact" to "claim". SusanBroil (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"Peter Lanza, who lives in Fairfield County, Conn., and is vice president for taxes at a General Electric subsidiary, GE Energy Financial Services." [1 1] [1 2]Robertvincentswain (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I see that I do not know how to post a source
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/17/140317fa_fact_solomon?currentPage=all
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/10/adam-lanza-dad-wishes-son-had-never-been-born-says-cant-get-any-more-evil/
Thats better Robertvincentswain (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Those sources do not substantiate claims about Peter Lanza's employment, they merely repeat them. As I stated in my original message, "After the initial phase, it became an established "fact" based on no one checking it." I have not been able to find any reliable source document on the issue of Peter Lanza's employment. SusanBroil (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/10/adam-lanza-dad-wishes-son-had-never-been-born-says-cant-get-any-more-evil/
  2. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/17/140317fa_fact_solomon?currentPage=all

Clyde Lewis

Clyde Lewis was added to the "See Also" area. After reading the Clyde Lewis page, and finding only 1 sentence having to do with Sandy Hook, I reverted the page. Robertvincentswain (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It probably would've been better to add one of his statements about the massacre to this page. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I would like to nominate this entry for deletion. Speculation (even that backed up by speculative sources) is still speculation. I think it does a great disservice to the children and adults murdered in this massacre by implying that it was ANYTHING but an evil act by disturbed person. I see no value whatsoever in fomenting conspiracy theories with absolutely no firm basis. Out of respect to those lives lost, I strongly believe this article which trivialised their deaths should be deleted. JohnKAndersen (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Did you read the talk page? This was already tried and failed 19 days ago: AfD -jss (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the AFD notice, since it linked to the previous debate - one I assume you had not seen before putting up your nomination. That debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, was closed as no consensus after a lengthy discussion. While you're certainly welcome to re-nominate this article (following the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO), please review the first debate and see if you have anything new to offer - if you post the same reasoning for wanting the article deleted, you'll just get the same comments and nothing will happen. Better to take some time and come up with a good consensus. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I just became aware of that deletion discussion and I wish I had known about it. I just don't see how an entire article can be devoted to such nonsense. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It's hardly the first article to be devoted to such nonsense. I don't mean that as justification, I mean it as a response to your incredulity.
It is what it is, and the fact is that such conspiracy theories do exist. I don't know that there needs to be a new article every time the main-stream media swarms but I also don't have a clear feeling for where the demarcation should be.-jss (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I would support incorporating this information in the main article. USchick (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Would also support that Idea - we need to trim back these horrible articles that are full of guess work from news updates. Our younger editors need to understand what is proper for an encyclopedia - news for rating is not one of them. Moxy (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Which main article is that, the article on the shooting or the article on the reaction? There was a separate section on the reaction that was far too big. This article is filled with such ludicrous nonsense that I have a hard time understanding why it's here. I've read the discussion and I understand the justification, but it doesn't pass the smell test. Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Either one. The editors there are unwilling to include any information from this article. That's why it exists here. USchick (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've said this before but I support relegating this to a bullet point or two (not even sure I would call that a merge) into an article about the fact that this type of societal dysfunction exists in some countries (such as the US), usually as an extreme fringe. Encyclopedias should provide useful accurate information. The existence of something, even if notable, isn't nearly sufficient for considering something accurate. The argument that this article is merely detailing the existence of these conspiracy theories without making truth claims isn't sufficient because the very essence of the article is about delusional nonsense.

Detailed examination of underlying societal issues from a larger perspective, which would include things like this, is however useful (and can be made accurate).-jss (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, Wikipedia:notability doesn't require usefulness. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If you're successful at incorporating relevant information into the main article(s), at that time this article may become irrelevant and a candidate for deletion. But only then. USchick (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The pertinent word here is accurate not useful (as notability could imply usefulness). The article's essence is about presenting an inaccurate belief but the article is not about inaccurate beliefs regardless of the valiant effort to be WP:NPOV and use WP:RELIABLESOURCEs.-jss (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you. I don't see why it is necessary to drone on about conspiracy theories with no basis in fact. Coretheapple (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
But our content is driven by verifiability. As the article's creator, I can say I categorically reject the veracity of any of these conspiracy theories. I didn't make it to promote any agenda; I only made it because it was receiving extensive discussion in reliable sources. There are all manner of subjects "with no basis in fact" covered on Wikipedia. Besides other conspiracy theories, there are articles on discredited scientific theories and religious ones. Many editors who have expressed opposition to this article seem to simply not like it. If the article "is about presenting an inaccurate belief" instead of being about them, I'd encourage you to help fix it instead of recommending deletion. --BDD (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The fact that other articles exist which have the same general inaccurate basis as this one cannot be used as justification for this one's existence (or non-existence).
If there were mainstream research being done (and I'm not saying that there isn't -- I have no actual idea) on delusionist societal dysfunction in 21st century America then this content would be highly appropriate in that context. Outside of this the article is frankly quite sensationalist and reeks of WP:NOT#NEWS. This isn't the fault of BDD and other editors who have gone to great lengths establishing WP:NPOV and WP:RS. It's a result of the fundamental issue itself which, without an appropriate context, is highly sensational and topical. It's essentially saying "Some people believe that ….".
It's not that I necessarily like or dislike this particular content (and I know you probably weren't referring to me BDD), it's that I have a philosophical problem with presenting falsehoods, even when it's clearly stated they are false, unless the context is one of actually examining the topic of falsehood itself (in whatever permutation). It's important that information be presented in not just a technically accurate way but in a contextually accurate way as well. We live in a society where access to information is cheap and easy; the less disinformation there is the better.-jss (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a brief reference to these conspiracy theories is sufficient. We don't have to have an entire article about it. Coretheapple (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Information saves lives.

What is lost in the flood of "aliens did it" claims is the ACTUAL problem with the Sandy Hook case, and that is the emergency response. Newtown Police never once--not once, not ever--told dispatch of the leap in patient numbers. As far as dispatch knew, for 30, long minutes, there were only a 2-3 adults hit, non-fatally, in the extremities. I say again: Newtown Police NEVER told dispatch they had discovered rooms full of dozens of seriously wounded child and adult victims. If it weren't for volunteer EMT Cathy Dahlmeyer's "call for everything" at 10:03 a.m., many more minutes might have passed before dispatcher Bob Nute was aware that this was a mass casualty event. This is where the problem with the Sandy Hook emergency response begins; it is followed closely by the horrific blockage of the only ambulance route by responding state police. We know the road blockage was a problem, because WTNH reporter Bob Wilson read from an independent review (Connecticut Police Chiefs Association report) of the Sandy Hook emergency response; live, on-air, he quoted from a section on 1) road blockage impeding ambulance travel and 2) recommendations for avoiding this tragic error in future. That section NEVER appeared in the public release of the CPCA report. The Hartford Courant doesn't believe that the CT State Police's official version of events is sound, and neither should we. Only days ago, the Courant pointed out that the state has yet to conduct an after-action review of the state's own response to Sandy Hook, and that the amount of time that has passed long exceeds that of other similar events in recent American history. 01:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)MT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.56.114 (talk)

Emotive / Biased Language in Intro

Thrice now my edit has been reverted on the basis that reflecting the mainstream media's opinion is important (which my edit removed). The reason I removed the language "These conspiracy theories are contradictory, implausible, without evidence, and offensive to those affected," is because it gives the article an encyclopedic tone. Additionally, the cited sources were themselves very opinionated, leading one to question their use in an encyclopedic setting. Is this such a ridiculous edit that it must be reverted repeatedly? Deciduous Maple (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

They represent a consensus of mainstream sources: do you seriously dispute the truth of any of those statements? We are obligated to plainly describe fringe theories as such. Additionally, you appear to be trying to promote a conspiracy theory component without explicitly stating it via "Many of these articles, however, leave out several important components of the conspiracy theories, such as the official police timeline as well as local resident [redacted]'s time spent sheltering children during the shooting." It's unsourced, and it needs to be well-sourced (it's a potential BLP violation), clearly described as a conspiracy theory (and again, BLP), in the appropriate context, rather than as an attempt at rebuttal of mainstream sources. Acroterion (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Acroterion, these statements accurately represent the mainstream view of these theories. I would agree that would be a BLP violation, though it might fit well in the "Harassment by conspiracy theorists" section of the article as evidence. It accurately describes how these conspiracy theorists have targeted and harassed Gene Rosen (though I don't see a reason to redact his name, its in the main article). Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

911 Phone Calls

Close soapboxing unrelated to article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm not a conspiracy nut and believe all evidence suggests this shooting was perpetrated by one maniac named Adam Lanza. That said I have listened to the 911 calls that were released and throughout all of them do not hear any gunshots going off in the background. Some of these calls were made from inside the building while the shooting was still happening. How is it possible that not one gunshot was picked up on any of the 911 phone calls? Shouldn't this be added into the article? 2604:2000:7FC0:1:9803:C510:4091:EA8F (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, I can hear many shots in the recordings of the 911 calls. The calls can be listened to in full, uncensored from here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiiABMjbbW8. Listen closely at the 10 second mark and you can hear a shot. Frankly, I don't know how one can miss them.Equivocasmannus (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)--

Have any reliable sources reported on this? Analysis on of a youtube video violations WP:OR. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There are two sets of 911 calls: The 7 (really 6) released by Newtown on a CD and made available to reporters, and the calls contained in the CT State Police report as Exhibit 329. There are multiple gunshots audible on multiple calls. The problem is not that gunshots are missing; the problem is that shots can be heard long after the "final" shot claimed to have occurred at 9:40:03. The audio expert hired by the investigation, Paul Ginsberg, in fact recorded and noted a very late shot at 9:46:54 a.m., charging $6000 in total for his expert services; he later submitted an amended report omitting this shot. Exhibit 329 is available here: http://cspsandyhookreport.ct.gov/, and the Newtown 911 calls are widely available internet-wide, to include via the New Haven Register's Soundcloud account. 144.92.99.209 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)MT

Have any reliable sources reported on these inconsistencies? Using your own analysis is original research. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It's actually not analysis--just simple facts, presented in public documents. Those documents are: 1) the CT State Police final report on the Sandy Hook shootings and 2) the Sandy Hook 911 calls released by the town of Newtown. Case in point, custodian Rick Thorne's 911 call, the general content and exact length of which are described in multiple sworn statements in the final report, where the call is verified as a "genuine and continuous" document. This content and length (text only) differs from the audio released by Newtown (three minutes of audio are missing from the end). This is no more analytical than looking at two copies of a book and seeing that pages are missing from one. It is typical of a lawyer's tampering, unfortunately, that simple facts are rendered into a convoluted mess. Tampering with evidence is a major, major crime, and will only be risked by someone who trusts that the public will be too confused or lazy to expose the problem. Judging by the Hartford Courant's continued attention to the case, however, I think we can be confident that a clearer picture of the events of 12/14 will continue to emerge, however slowly. The alleged felonies being committed by NPD personnel within Newtown Police headquarters before, during, and after the shootings (the recently-busted international drug ring) may improve the public's chances of obtaining internal documents for the time period in question. 96.42.27.12 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)MT

NPOV Issue

I have no problem with this article as it is well sourced but it needs to be checked for NPOV statements of opposing views referenced and added to balance things out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. This article is about the fringe theories. The mainstream article content does not have to be repeated here. (although specific refutations/debunkings should certainly be included if sourced. From the point of view of this article, the mainstream view is WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH, unless sources are directly commenting on the fringe theories and debunking them. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe that most of what is said here needs to be deleted from anywhere on the Wikipedia. Somebody said that the government was behind the shooting. La de da! Can they prove it? No! Then should it be mentioned? No! When you get rid of all the windbaggy claptrap of "he said, he said", you've got about 2 sentences left. Those sentences should be merged into the main article. Oh, and did I mention this is an unnecessary content fork? pbp 01:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you also think we should remove JFK conspiracies, area 51, or Obama birther articles? Thinking the theory is false, or even reprehensible, is not the same thing as thinking the theory is not notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
PBP, do you understand Wikipedia's criteria for deletion? At all? Against the current (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not a particular theory is deemed by others as "fringe," the fact remains that the theories exist and have been exhaustively discussed for two years and counting. I do agree that in order to provide a decent Wiki entry worth of the current title, the content will have to be as exhaustive and broad as the issue itself. This means that it will need to include debunkings/rebuttals, as well as less "fringe" perspectives to include those of 1) the families who are currently challenging the final report, 2) organizations such as AbleChild who have challenged the report, 3) mainstream media articles which have challenged the final report, etc. It is not--nor has it ever been--the case that the only people challenging the final report are "fringe" theorists. The title may be problematic: "conspiracy theories" is a loaded phrase which implies lack of critical thinking. That shouldn't be the case, but unfortunately, that is the bias that comes along with that phrase. It may be more useful to entitle it something like "Challenges to the Sandy Hook official report," or something to that effect, as that covers a better gamut of perspective. 96.42.27.12 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)MT

  • Comment WP:FRINGE is the appropriate guideline. We have strict criteria and rules for how patently fringe subjects and beliefs are covered in order to prevent the project from being used as a platform for the promotion of fringe theories. Fringe theories can only be introduced if they have received extensive discussion in mainstream sources and they must contain material rebutting the theories and explaining why they are fringe. Also fringe theories cannot be given more weight than the mainstream view. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit War - Inclusion of Wolfgang Halbig

Bear with me - I am not familiar with how this side of Wikipedia works and have not been in this position before.

I am currently waiting for admin guidance on how to proceed, but in the meantime have now found I can place some details on this talk page regarding the situation that led me into a recent 'edit war'.

I object to my material (which does something to redress the outright bias and lack of objectivity on this page) being deleted by someone purely because they consider that the source referred to represents 'craziness'. This is personal opinion and not a valid reason for deletion. I am also concerned at the speed in which my posts were being taken down - something is not right here, there appears to be some kind of organised attempt to prevent the publication of a different point of view. This is outright censorship, no matter what your guidelines claim. Wikipedia readers have a right to know about all researchers and their work. My entry merely mentioned and provided a link to the work of the person in question, it did not concern itself with discussion or debate about exactly what his views and conclusions may be, leaving people free to make up their own minds about that.

Also, later attempts by other readers to reinstate my material have been similarly deleted on the grounds that it represents a 'fringe view'. Are you being ironic? This is a page specifically on conspiracy theories for heaven's sake! What other kind of views do you expect?

I note from this talk page that other readers have expressed similar concerns in the past and in June there was debate regarding 'Fringe View'. The person and link I gave in my addition to the article fulfills the criteria for inclusion as he is recognised as the leading authority on what may or may not have happened at Sandy Hook and has produced substantial evidence and reasoning to back up his theories, as well as having the impressive and relevant credentials and experience I outlined by my addition of his details to the article. Go to his website and see for yourself. [www.sandyhookjustice.com]

Apologies if this talk is not full of the (to me, confusing) jargon and abbreviations I might be expected to use but as I say, I have no real knowledge of how this editing process works. I do however believe in free speech and from the way my postings were deleted almost immediately, I am in some doubt as to whether all other readers of this page share the same sentiments.

I will now wait for further advice as to what I need to do now to progress this matter.86.165.233.82 (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be only one mention of Halbig in the mainstream press [2], which isn't enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines for the individual or to provide a basis for inclusion in the article as a significant point of view, far less as "the leading authority." Wikipedia is not an outlet for free speech, it is an encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So you and/or Wikipedia's guidelines are saying that all entries here have to be ratified in the mainstream press? Which is a way of you saying that you consider the mainstream press to be honest, reliable, trustworthy, comprehensive, unbiased and free from political interference? Or that it reports on all topics impartially and without censorship - all the time? And that it would definitely report on the research of Wolfgang Halbig if he were a more 'prominent' figure? Conversely, are you also saying that the mainstream press would never fail to mention him - for whatever reason(s)? If you don't mind me saying so, you appear to be very naive about how the mainstream media operates if you genuinely believe that.

If we follow your logic, and Wolfgang Halbig's research does become more prominent in the mainstream media (as it could well do), then when would it be considered acceptable for him to be allowed an entry here - after three mentions; six mentions; six months' mentions in the mainstream press? The whole concept is nonsense.

I would also remind you again that the subject of this particular page is such that any attempt to ratify entries by citing coverage in mainstream media is totally inappropriate. Furthermore, you cannot deny the existence of a strong, growing and well-read alternative media which is a valid and credible source of news and current affairs to thousands - and probably millions - of people. And in that sphere of alternative media - and within the specific field of reporting and examination of events at and concerning Sandy Hook - Wolfgang Halbig is 'a significant point of view'. Are you saying, to return to my earlier point, that only the mainstream media can be allowed to determine who is or who is not considered to be 'a significant point of view'?

You say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an outlet for free speech. I totally agree with you. But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present facts - all facts - relevant to the examination, explanation and understanding of a particular subject or topic. That requires a balanced and non-judgemental submission of relevant content irrespective of where those sources may have originated and irrespective of the personal opinions of those compiling what should be as acccurate an account as possible. 86.165.233.82 (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP. You appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to discuss fringe material as fact. Wikipedia policy is to treat fringe theories as they are treated by a consensus of academic and mainstream media, which means that Wikipedia will clearly discuss the fact that the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are described as grossly offensive, untrue and patently ludicrous by scholarship and the mainstream media. If a topic is covered in mainstream media, it should be covered here, but given the same credibility and proportionate weight that the media give it. Wikipedia is not a congenial home to conspiracy enthusiasts, and neither this page, nor anywhere else in Wikipedia, is a forum to argue that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged and that the victims are conspirators, a gross violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of the living and recently deceased. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Then why have this page at all? 86.165.233.82 (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia covers notable fringe theories. This conspiracy theory and the harassment of victims, victims' families, those who sheltered victims and of public officials by adherents has received extensive coverage, as indicated by the references. Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Veronique Pozner

There are some allegations around her having been a staunch anti-gun activist all along, something with the family photos, etc. Is there a particular reason, why this isn't included?--41.150.95.209 (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It would need to have been discussed in major media and comply with Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Wikipedia doesn't publish Internet rumor or speculation. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Wolfgang Halbig via WP:BOLD

About me, once was a highly active wikipedia editor from 2003 - 2008 over 8,000 edits. I was around back before this and I was among the group of editors/admins who vanished after the horrible consensus-thwarting community-breaking policy which led to many high quality editors quitting in protest from that disastrous year. I only say this stuff to differentiate myself from random newbies who know nothing of wikipedia policy and its criteria for inclusion, notability, verifiability, while notwithstanding the landmines which delineate random verifiable notable information from being justifiably excluded on the basis of WP:NOT. Having contributed to hundreds of AFD discussions, I know this stuff forwards and backwards, and will likely carry this useless knowledge with me for another 10-20 years -- (still know all the shorthand jargon which we regulars at AFD used to cite to save time and keystrokes).

I don't want to start an edit war, nor wish to trigger a battleground effect with any editors who own this article. I'd wish to engage here on the talk page in a civil, courteous, slow process (because there is no rush, I was always an eventualist) and have no qualms if the current version of the article exists as it does in the current state. I really couldn't care less. I just want to hereby initiate discussion about the scope of the article and to discuss the encyclopedic merits of including perhaps the only non-batshit-crazy person whose name is virtually eponymous with the sandy hook conspiracy theory "justice movement". Cheers ex ante, 72.196.99.114 (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

72.196.99.114, you say you want to initiate discussion, but you don't say anything. Unless you're saying Woflgang Halbig should be mentioned in the article. With that, I agree completely. He's sueing people over the case, how can that not be significant? He is not just talking about it on a webpage, he has inserted himself into the story by legal action and interaction with Newtownians. GangofOne (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC) reedited GangofOne (talk)

"Allegations.... by Veterans Today"

Based on what I can make out at Veterans Today website, they do not have overarching editoral policy or control. Seems any of their writers may say anything, without implying any other writers endose it. All comments must be attributed to the individual writer. Therefore I will change wording from "by Veterans Today" to "in Veterans Today" GangofOne (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but not necessary. When any mainstream newspaper publishes something, it's common to say, "According to The Washington Post", etc. I don't think any reasonable person would conclude that everyone associated with the newspaper has to endorse the story. Such clarification would only really be necessary if there was documented dissent within the publisher or newspaper. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist Arrested for Death Threats Against Sandy Hook Parent

  • Silva, Daniella (7 December 2016), "Conspiracy Theorist Arrested for Death Threats Against Sandy Hook Parent", NBC News, retrieved 8 December 2016

Source can be used to add to section "Harassment by conspiracy theorists". Sagecandor (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Lucy Richards was scheduled to appear in court on March 29, 2017, but failed to turn up and there is now a warrant for her arrest.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

BBC News article

There is an article on BBC News today about Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists.[4] Many of these theorists have harasssed Lenny Pozner, the father of one of the children killed in the shooting. This is what Lucy Richards (see above) was accused of doing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference #4 is incorrectly dated

Reference 4: " Moynihan, Michael C. (December 12, 2012). "Newtown Conspiracy Theories: Obama, Iran, and Other Culprits". The Daily Beast. Retrieved January 9, 2013." identifies an incorrect date of the original article. The article was written December 27, 2012, NOT 12/12/12, which was 2 days before the incident. 65.175.240.161 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  •  Done Thank you for catching that error. --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Misinformation about Alex Jones

The man, in all his videos about the shooting, repeatedly states that he doesn't claim that no one died as a result of the shooting but that he doesn't know what happened. --65.152.162.2 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Scott Baio tweet

There has been controversy over a post on Twitter by Scott Baio.[5] Baio retweeted a meme suggesting that Sandy Hook was a hoax, leading to criticism from one of the parents and other recrimination. I'm not sure if this meets the standards of notability, or whether it has WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Not yet, we need multiple RS for this. Even then I am not sure it is worthy of inclusion here.Slatersteven (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
There are approximately ten zillion tweets on Twitter saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax, and it is only the fact that Scott Baio is a famous actor and pal of Donald Trump that led to this controversy. Baio apologized for the retweet on 24 August.[6] Baio also retweeted a meme suggesting that the death of Heather Heyer was a hoax perpetrated by crisis actors, in the same way as Sandy Hook.[7]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump part is unrelated

The Trump part seems to be added as an attack against him, not as actual information to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.250.144 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I wish that were true. I'm not entirely sure Trump believes this garbage, but he seemed way too buddy-buddy with Alex Jones during the 2016 election, and Jones did contribute to his campaign. As it stands now, many of the conspiracy believers are convinced they have an ally in President Trump. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
IN two minds, I think it should be mentioned, but not to this degree.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I have merged the Trump stuff with Jones' views as that is what it relates to. I cut the excessive quotes to just leave the facts, no references removed Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right

The alt-right template is at the bottom of the page. While I do not doubt that practically all of these conspiracy theorists are right-wing and many are even further right, "alt-right" is not mentioned in the article. This needs referencing. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The search "Sandy Hook alt-right" mainly results in references to Jones and InfoWars, therefore attributing the alt-right belief to them rather than the whole conspiracist movement. Again, I do not doubt this but references must be found. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Origin of the theory is missing

Encyclopedic entry needs more than a listing of theories. I wanted to know where the Conspiracy first originated, where was it first posted. Would really appreciate if someone has or can find this information and include it in the introduction. Did it come from InfoWars? or elsewhere?

Thanks in advance researchers out there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.82.18 (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone could pin down an exact origin of the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. If you look at the Las Vegas shooting, people were coming up with all sorts of weird and wonderful theories on the Internet within hours. Some people are professional tinfoil hatters and will always do this in response to a major event.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I remember reading ridiculous conspiracy theories about the Boston Marathon Bombing turning up on the web 15 minutes after news of the attack broke. So I'd say you're about right. Even if they're not professional tinfoil hatters, they're definitely chronic ones. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad grammar

"Suzanne Collins, the author who lived in the Sandy Hook section of Newton, Connecticut[47] wrote The Hunger Games and in The Hunger Games 22 children are "ritualistically" killed, and 20 children were killed in the shooting, and "Sandy Hook" can be seen on a map in The Dark Knight Rises."

This doesn't sound right. Someone should rephrase it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:ED02:A200:704C:4379:86F5:78AD (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Although this is not a grammar related matter per se, the phrase "Snopes.com also debunked several claims of alleged United States government involvement in the shootings." Should read "Snopes.com also falsified several claims of alleged United States government involvement in the shootings. It is more formal language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.128.18 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It alters what it means.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories/Archive_1&oldid=1142321116"