Talk:Adam Lanza

This article should not contain claims that are not verified by reliable sources. The CNN source does not say that is is Lanza's voice in the call to the radio station, only that it may be him. Likewise, the claim that Lanza had a YouTube channel has never been verified by mainstream sources. There is a risk that this article will become a dumping ground for unverified claims that have been rejected repeatedly at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. KungfusockandMJfan (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I fixed it, the fact that his voice was in the call in the radio station was deleted. KungfusockandMJfan (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Noting that KungfusockandMJfan has been checkuser blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

So. This is an article now? Don't have the mental bandwidth to chase the various particulars down but isn't this article a WP:CONTENTFORK? Hasn't having an Adam Lanza article been discussed at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at least 6 times? The various discussions are mentioned in the talk page FAQ, and the editorial consensus has been to not have a standalone article on Lanza? It seems to me that there maybe needs to be a formal RfC or some kind of discussion about the creation of this article. Am also posting about this on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting talk page. - Shearonink (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Lanza to Oppose or to Keep. - Shearonink (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• CulturalPhilistine channel.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It is entirely predictable that this new article has been used to rehash the claim that Adam Lanza had a YouTube channel. This comes from Reddit which is not a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. There is a consensus not to have this at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting so rehashing it here is unhelpful. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Personal thoughts on the alleged YouTube channel(s) aside, as far as I know no reliable sources have confirmed they belonged to Lanza. Happieryet (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

True. That does not automatically invalidate this article's existence, however. NesserWiki (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

It was also entirely predictable that you chose to revert my edit, which cited Peter F. Langman, a PhD psychologist and one of the world's foremost experts on school shootings. If Langman is not a reliable source to verify Lanza's YouTube channel, then I really don't know what is. Langman's publication regarding the YouTube channel easily trumps what any news outlet has to say about it. Editors who won't accept Langman as a reliable source, even in spite of his academic credentials and expertise, probably wouldn't accept anything at all as a reliable source for verifying the YouTube channel. At this point, it seems that their goal is to suppress verifiable information, rather than to follow reliable sources.

The consensus on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is irrelevant because it has not discussed or acknowledged the source by Langman.

Your edit summary claiming that no major news outlet has ever covered the YouTube channel is equally wrong. My edit cited two news articles, out of many which mention the YouTube channel. Zero Contradictions (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

By major news coverage, I meant sources like CNN, BBC etc. There has always been a consensus at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting not to have this, because it involves rehashing something that was published on Reddit in September 2021. WP:RSPREDDIT is not a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia, and the claim is also WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I already know that. You said that at least a few dozen times. I'm not talking about Reddit. I'm talking about the publication that I cited made by Peter F. Langman, a PhD psychologist and one of the world's foremost experts on school shootings. Langman endorses the existence of the YouTube channel. He personally verified its existence independently of Reddit. Again, the consensus on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting says nothing about Langman's source.

It would be more productive if you address that directly. You are not addressing my source. You probably never even read it, as there's no evidence that you have. Zero Contradictions (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is also a key principle of WP:REDFLAG, which says "Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources"

If the YouTube channel was as as important as its supporters say it is, it would be possible to find multiple mainstream reliable sources endorsing the theory that it is Lanza's voice in the YouTube channel. Like the assassination of JFK, Sandy Hook has become a magnet for "experts" who have made all sorts of claims that are not backed by the official investigation or mainstream reliable sources (CNN, BBC etc). When the alleged YouTube channel was published on Reddit in September 2021, the two questions that critics asked were a) why did this take such a long time to turn up? and b) how do we know that it is Lanza's voice in the recording? The answer to a) is unclear, and the answer to b) is that supporters of the YouTube videos say that it sounds like Lanza's voice. The reality is that the claim that it is Lanza's voice in these videos has never been established with any degree of certainty and it is largely speculative to say this. This is why there has always been a consensus at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting not to have this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Mainstream news sources are not the arbitrator of truth or certainty. That is a partisan dogma, not a norm of rationality. The answer to a) is that Lanza had a long and deep Internet history across anonymous accounts, so it was difficult to find every account that the had. The answer to b) is that it's the same voice that appeared in the phone call to AnarchyRadio on 2011 December 11 about Travis (chimpanzee), a phone call which Lanza personally referenced on a forum under his "Smiggles" alias: "I wish that I hadn't spoken nonstop about Travis for so long, but I didn't want to seem crazy by randomly bringing up a chimpanzee for unknown reasons".

Again, the consensus on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is irrelevant becuase it says nothing about Langman's source. The consensus never discussed his source. Why are you refusing to discuss or acknowledge Langman's source?? I shouldn't have to write three comments to get you to acknowledge, review, and say something about it. Zero Contradictions (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ianmacm, that this YouTube channel belongs to Lanza has been reported in The New Republic, The Spectator, and Tablet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, the source(s?) by Peter F. Langman, a subject matter expert, are clearly reliable. It seems settled that this account belonged to Lanza, and a handful of reliable secondary sources have given that fact significance. This is clearly well beyond Reddit speculation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It is similar to the John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording. Various experts claimed that it contained gunshots but this was disputed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable sources that dispute the attribution of this YouTube channel to Adam Lanza. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It is not the disputing that matters, it is the considerable lack of mainstream coverage. It would help, for example, if the Hartford Courant had covered this, because they are the major source of local news about Sandy Hook and would be considered reliable. The claim that it is Lanza's voice in these recordings has been a damp squib with major news organizations, because On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think Tablet, The New Republic, The Spectator, and the work of a subject matter expert together more than support the inclusion of the channel on this article. Those are all reliable sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It also helps that a subject matter expert, Peter F. Langman endorses the YouTube channel's existence. For some weird reason, you keep ignoring Langman's endorsement. You won't even acknowledge it. Zero Contradictions (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

"Experts" have said all sorts of things about the assassination of JFK that are not endorsed by the official investigation or mainstream news stories. Peter Langman has gone out on a limb and there is a worrying lack of third party endorsement for his theory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Really? What "experts" are you talking about? Zero Contradictions (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. That unsupported JFK theories exist has no bearing on the attribution of this YouTube channel to Lanza, which is supported in reliable sources (and not contested in any). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

But what is being argued about here? There's mention of the channel on the article, and Ianmacm didn't revert that. They did revert your revision, Zero Contradictions, which I think was gratuitous, cited unreliable sources (a self-published book on Amazon, for one), and included a long blockquote from one of Lanza's videos that wasn't necessary. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

IanMacM didn't revert your edit simply because IanMacM didn't notice it. Now that you've brought it to IanMacM's attention, it's probably going to get reverted.

As for the so-called "experts" about the JFK assassination that IanMacM mentioned, I'm pretty sure that IanMacM is talking about naive conspiracy theorists, not actual experts.

I don't believe the Lucifer's Question book on Amazon is an unreliable source. Van Allen's books on Amazon are self-published, but that does not necessarily invalidate their reliability because there are three other considerations for what counts as a reliable source (WP:SOURCE) that have to be taken into account as well. Van Allen is a Canadian philosopher and biologist (and among the greatest philosophers of all time, in my opinion).

You may not think the blockquote from Lanza's video is necessary, but I think it's very valuable because: 1. it shows the term that he gave for his philosophy ("Eulavism"), 2. it explains why he disagrees with the Efilists (my wiki draft is on hold) and how Eulavism is a unique philosophy in its own right, and 3. it explains Lanza's philosophical motivation for dying by suicide, which Van Allen identifies as part of Lanza's motivation for the shooting. Zero Contradictions (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Van Allen is not a subject matter expert and has no relevant credentials that I can find. It's just a self-published book by some guy that you think is smart. That doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing requirements (see WP:RS and WP:SPS).

If that blockquote were significant, it would have been given such weight by reliable sources. This is an argument for pulling that quote for your own work analysizng Lanza; this is an encyclopedia whose goal is to summarize reliable sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't care if you don't like Van Allen's work. It's your loss.

Wikipedia's sourcing requirements are flawed and suboptimal. Even you would agree with me on this. It's only a matter of time before IanMacM reverts your edit since it apparently doesn't satisfy WP:RS according to IanMacM. And IanMacM's edits will probably win out since he said that the last consensus taken on this topic decided in IanMacM's favor.

No, I was not making an argument for promoting my work on Lanza. That's very presumptuous of you. I am not Van Allen, nor would I include any links to my own site inside a Wikipedia draft or article.

I don't care if you don't think the blockquote is significant. As IanMacM would probably say "If the YouTube channel were significant, then it would be covered by mainstream sources like CNN or BBC". Most of Wikipedia doesn't think that your POV is optimal either.

I support mentioning the YouTube channel in the article. And if you support that too, then it's a waste of your time to argue with someone who supports keeping the current article version as is, with your edit included. My suggestion would be that you stop wasting your time. Zero Contradictions (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

You can take it up with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you want to fundamentally challenge Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy, but I think you'd be wasting your time. In any case, the policy is in place, and we're not going to ignore it because you think it's flawed.

You misunderstand what I meant about your work. I'm saying that your argument for the apparent significance of that blockquote is wholly original and has nothing to do with the state of reliable secondary literature on it—so, it's irrelevant to Wikipedia, but it's a fine justification for you to include the quote in your own secondary source about Lanza, on your own blog (or for any publisher who wants it). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 10:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Truth is subjective and perspective-dependent. Your sense of truth is different from my sense of truth, which is different from Wikipedia's sense of truth. According to Wikipedia's official policies (i.e. Wikipedia's sense of truth), your edit is unsupported. We both think that Wikipedia's sense of truth is flawed. Yet, you ignored my suggestion and continued wasting your time. You did this even when I said that I support your edit and didn't want to argue with you anymore. I'm not interested in debating with you on whose sense of truth is correct, so I need to do something different with this article than what I previously thought. I'm also doing this to prove a point (I don't like Wikipedia's policies and you don't like them either). But my main motivation is end this pointless argument with you.

Your perspective on so-called "reliable sources" is technically unsupported by Wikipedia's policies. As IanMacM already wrote on this talk page, "By major news coverage, I meant sources like CNN, BBC etc. There has always been a consensus at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting not to have this, because it involves rehashing something that was published on Reddit in September 2021. WP:RSPREDDIT is not a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia, and the claim is also WP:REDFLAG". Your edit thus has to be reverted. You may not like that, but the official policy and past consensus on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting both imply that Wikipedia cannot state disputable claims that are unsupported by mainstream media. Zero Contradictions (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

No, my edit is supported by Wikipedia's reliable source policy. Tablet, TNR, and The Spectator are all reliable secondary sources and their use here is kosher and proportionate according to the relevant Wikipedia policies. See WP:THENEWREPUBLIC for example. Ianmacam's name-checking of CNN and BBC doesn't constitute a policy (Wikipedia's sourcing is not limited to the absolute most-popular online newspapers), and his invocation of a pre-existing consensus at another page is also not a policy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

You may feel that way, but the past consensus on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting doesn't agree. Another argument that IanMacM has given in the past is that the YouTube channel is not mentioned by the official investigation or any government reports, even in spite of their years of investigation on the case. That's another reason why the last consensus doesn't support citing the sources that you want to cite in the article.

You can take it up with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you want to fundamentally challenge Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. I don't think Wikipedia's sourcing policy is optimal either. That's the point that I'm making here. It's really bad, and it has no philosophical understanding of truth, but it's hopeless to change it. Anyway, I'm done arguing here. I need to work on User:Zero Contradictions/Freiland. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Ianmacam's arguments are not policy. You're arguing that Ianmacam's eyes condemn both your revision and mine, which is true, but I don't care, because policy matters, and Ianmacam's view alone does not. The YouTube channel doesn't need to appear in the final report to be included on Wikipedia; that's an invented standard by Ianmacam. All the past discussions on the Sandy Hook Talk page did not refer to these reliable sources, but instead to Reddit. They did refer to schoolshooters . info, but maybe it wasn't clear to the respondents that that's an expert's site. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to argue with IanMacM then. On Wikipedia, the people who enforce the policy matter just as much as the policy itself. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't gotten this topic off my mind yet.

According to the official policies, there are several problems with your position:

1. The info box at the top of WP:RSP states that that page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, so referring to WP:RSP doesn't help your case much.
2. Even if it did, it's the Perennial sources page. Perennial sources are frequently debated. Even if a consensus on TNR as "general reliable" is listed on that page, you said that "invocation of a pre-existing consensus at another page is not a policy", so deferring to the consensus on WP:RSP doesn't help your case.
3. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, per WP:VNOT.
4. Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing, WP:REDFLAG.

So as I've said before, the sources that you want to cite are not supported by Wikipedia's official policies. Langman's source is probably currently the most reliable source which can be cited, but citing Langman alone still doesn't pass the policy due to WP:REDFLAG and WP:VNOT. If you believe that the official policy is suboptimal (as do I), then we are better off raising awareness to reform it. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Zero Contradictions, that RSP's table is not a policy does not mean that its reported assessments of sources are irrelevant to policy-based usage of reliable sources. When someone contests a source's reliability per the relevant policy, prior consensus on reliability according to that policy does support a policy-based counterargument. Number two is wikilawyering and seeks to poke holes in internal logic rather than argue consistently from your actual POV (actually, this whole maneuver, including your edit-warring does that), and the RSP consensus is different from the Sandy Hook consensus because the latter referred to a different page and the three reliable secondary sources were not raised at the time. A consensus that something is undue for inclusion because it has never been reported in reliable sources can be overcome with the later discovery (or publication) of reliable secondary reporting of the information in question. Your third point is meaningless absent an argument to exclude this information independent of its verifiability, which neither you nor any other editor has made. That Lanza has a YouTube channel isn't an exceptional claim, because plenty of people have had YouTube channels, and no reliable source has ever alleged that Lanza didn't have a YouTube channel. Even if it were exceptional, the sourcing, particularly by Langman, is more than solid enough.

You arguments here are poor because you're demonstratively arguing to try and recruit me to challenge Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. I'm not doing that, and you should self-revert. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Being discussed now here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's true that prior consensus on reliability according to that policy does support a policy-based counterargument, then why did you write in a previous comment that "invocation of a pre-existing consensus at another page is also not a policy"? I am confused.

I am not wikilawyering because I have genuinely changed my mind. It was a mistake for me to cite a self-published book, even if I admire the book. I should have known better. Since every editor rejects citing that book and most other editors are challenging the sources that you want to cite, the consensus and policy is that they should be excluded, unless new reliable sources are cited and/or the talk page comes to a new consensus.

To the contrary, the sources that you want to cite have been mentioned on the other talk page before: Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_10#Reliable_sources_for_Lanza's_CulturalPhilistine_YouTube_channel_and_eulavism_philosophy. They were rejected as being not sufficiently reliable enough, for multiple reasons.

Saying that Lanza has a YouTube channel is an exceptional claim. Most people don't have YouTube channels, let alone ones where they talk about philosophy of a hatred for life and culture.

If you really do believe that the sourcing by Langman supports the text that you want to add to the article, then it's weird that you didn't cite it yourself. It's also confusing that you're reprimanding me for including unreliable sources, when I was the one who cited the Langman source, before I changed my mind.

I cannot self-revert. It is bad practice to include contentious information when a discussion ongoing, per WP:STATUSQUO. A majority of editors who have commented on this topic do not support mentioning the YouTube channel, including me since I changed my mind and regret my previous unwise edits. Zero Contradictions (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I saw this discussion mentioned at ANI, and FWIW, the "YouTube channel" sections seems undue: his channel isn't not covered by mainstream RS and the last sentence comes across as speculation for his motives. Some1 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

What is wrong with The New Republic, The Spectator, and Tablet? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

At most, I would be fine with including one sentence about the YouTube channel, something along the lines of Lanza was reported to have a YouTube channel where his video uploads consisted of him monologuing about his philosophical beliefs, influenced by antinatalism and a fringe strand within it called efilism. But anything more than that seems UNDUE. Some1 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Go for it ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to slow down and exercise caution. So far, most of the editors on this talk page and Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting don't support mentioning the YouTube channel at all, even if the Langman source is cited. Zero Contradictions (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's better to leave the whole YouTube channel stuff off this article. I can't help but think that including even a sentence about it may lead readers to think that his motive for the shooting was due to his antinatalism/efilism beliefs or whatever, something that doesn't have strong enough sourcing per the lack of mainstream coverage of it. Some1 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I already explained what's wrong with them on WP:ANI. But I'll do that here as well, since you asked and so that onlookers can see it too:

• For WP:SPECTATOR, the last prior consensus has said "The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOG."
• For the Tablet (magazine), WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 502 and other prior discussions seem to have concluded that that magazine is of mixed reliability.
• The New Republic is the most reliable of the three sources that you provided, according to the consensus stated at WP:NEWREPUBLIC, but even its reliability is dubious, especially since it's not a mainstream source like CNN, BBC, or an official government report.

The "reliable" sources that you want to cite are simply not as reliable as you think they are. Those sources are too unreliable to mention the YouTube channel in any Wikipedia article. You may be disappointed that the alleged YouTube channel is not mentioned in Adam Lanza, but the rules are the rules. As it stands, all claims about the YouTube channel are WP:FRINGE claims at best. Zero Contradictions (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

What makes TNR dubious? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Other editors have already explained that on this talk page.

I didn't understand the gravity of their explanations until quite recently. It was eye-opening when I saw that there was an alleged impersonated Jordan Lasker on Talk:Jordan Lasker. I totally thought that that was really Jordan Lasker himself, until I saw another user(s) claim (with credible evidence) that it was actually a troll, and I thought about it some more. Stuff like that really makes me doubt that we can say with certainty that the CulturalPhilistine YouTube channel really belonged to Adam Lanza, even if it's tempting to speculate, as I had done.

As IanMacM has repeatedly said, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Nobody has made any argument that TNR is dubious. Can you explain to me why this reputable source, perennially evaluated by the Wikipedia community to be a high-quality and consistently reliable source, is dubious? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The TNR article that you want to cite is not about Adam Lanza. It's about Edward Bartkus, the perpetrator of the 2025 Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing. The article mentions Lanza, but only in passing reference. Out of the 17 paragraphs in the article, only two of them say anything about Lanza's alleged YouTube channel.

According to WP:COVERAGE, "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable". A source (preferably two or three) documenting Lanza's YouTube channel in deeper depth is required in order to establish notability. The TNR source does not accomplish that. It does not give in-depth coverage about CulturalPhilistine or who owns the channel at all, so it's not a reliable source for that topic.

And as other editors have already said, all three of your preferred sources (including the TNR source) fail WP:REDFLAG. Zero Contradictions (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I‘m sorry, but that picture of Lanza is terrifying. I know it’s a great picture, but could we maybe use something slightly less infuriating? RykW (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a weird objection. I'm not sure how a picture of Adam Lanza looking nice would improve the article. The biggest problem in the past has been copyright, and this image is currently nominated for deletion on Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't blame you for finding the image unnerving, but it is the only public domain image of him to my knowledge. NesserWiki (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The only reason I have seen so far for deletion of this article is that he commited a single crime, which isn't true if you count him murdering his mother separately. I have also seen other mass killers have their own articles such as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Seung-Hui Cho. Yessyesss (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Bastante acertado. Además, respecto a Lanza hay demasiada información como para ser comprimida en un solo articulo respecto al Tiroteo de Sandy Hook. ~2026-10491-24 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

her wiki page was deleted, i'm assuming this is temporary? if not then the redirects for her name need to be changed/deleted Xtergan (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The conversion of Nancy Lanza's wiki page into a redirect is not temporary. I agree with you that the links to Nancy Lanza should be updated, so I edited the article accordingly. Zero Contradictions (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not know if it is an issue of mine only, but Lanza's picture appears blurry and low quality unless clicked on. PetrosMantalos (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

PetrosMantalos - There's a reason for that - take a look at File:Adam_Lanza.png.

Per the File's Summary of Media data and Non-free use rationale Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#3 - "This image was uploaded in a lower resolution to display only necessary detail of the photo." Also refer to the File's Licensing section.

Shearonink (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. PetrosMantalos (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that as well, but it seems to be more blurry than usual. The last several days it was in low resolution, though not as blurry. There seems to be an issue with every non-free image on Wikipedia now. BretHarteChitown (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes it does look blurry. It should be re-uploaded at the correct resolution.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• It's odd, because the full size version is ok when viewed as the original image, but for some reason the version accompanied by text is blurred. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the actual image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This has been raised at WP:VPT here. It looks like a problem with PNG images, let's see if it gets fixed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Done: Back to non-blurry image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Under the "Early life and education" section there is a paragraph titled "Birth and neurodevelopment disorders". The correct terminology is "neurodevelopmental", not "neurodevelopment", as it is an adjective that describes the nature of the disorder. Someone should edit that in my honest opinion. PetrosMantalos (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for saying something about this. I just fixed it. Zero Contradictions (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Despite the template being removed, the WP:LEAD is still too long. Three or four paragraphs are usually considered to be adequate, and the lead is only intended to be a summary of what follows. There is way too much detail in the lead that properly belongs in the article body. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The lead section is now four paragraphs long and does a better job at summarizing Lanza's life. Zero Contradictions (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence in the lead has the statement "was an American mass murderer who perpetrated the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, one of the deadliest mass shootings in the US."
Actually, this characterization/statement is not supported by any cited sources in the main body. Now, you & I probably just know that yes, this mass shooting is one of the deadliest in US history, BUT this statement is not cited within the main text of the article. And per MOS:LEAD & MOS:LEADCITE & MOS:INTRO, that's a problem. - Shearonink (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I fixed it. The body now has a sentence and a source confirming that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is the deadliest K-12 school shooting in US history. Zero Contradictions (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)