" 

 == 8 year old boy == 

 Can we please remove that from the lead? I understand it's tragic, but singling out children as somehow being ""more"" tragic and worthy of special mention is not right.    
 :Done    
 ::Somebody reverted it and it's there again.    
 :::I've removed it.     

 :::That's an odd request. I find it normal for people to find it more important, as  a tendency to protect the needy.   
 ::::But we aren't here to protect the needy, we are just here to document facts in a neutral and detached fashion.  -    Join WER  
 :::::You're here to write an encyclopedia; get over yourself. People want to read if there were kids among the dead and removing that information is quite nonsense.   
 ::::::Once there is some clarity as to who was injured, I'm sure there will be a bit more detail in the body of the article, but the vast majority of it is speculation at this point.  Regardless, listing the ages doesn't belong in the lede, as that would imply a greater value to one human based on age.   -    Join WER  
 :::::::That's off topic. If it's confirmed, I find it non sense to remove it ""for neutrality"" even if it's in the intro. People are perfectly liable to want an encyclopedia saying 'including children' and it's nothing too ""biased"" about that.   
 :::::::::Friend, you are just going to have to trust me that we don't generally do that in the lead and leave that for the body, if at all.  To be consistent and in an encyclopedic style (neutral summarization of fact), this is how it is done.  We let the news stations and newspapers tug at the heartstrings, that isn't what we do here.   -    Join WER  
 ::::::::::I don't have a problem including this in the article once all the statistics are clear.  I agree adding it to the lede is a little much, but numerous news sources are reporting the number of children killed/injured (known so far), so it could be included within the body of the article at some point down the line once we know all the numbers.  The media also routinely do this with the number of injured Police ""officials"" in events like this, as if they are somehow more notable or ""important"".  I'm not sure why they do this, but it's something that can be added once we have all of the demographics.  Right now the injury count isn't even finalized yet, so we can wait another day or two until we know.  -    
 :::::::::::Removed it. It didnt seem germane to the discussion anyway.  •   

 "