Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting

READ THIS FIRST

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. This policy also applies to the recently deceased out of concern for any living relatives and other persons closely connected to them. Contentious or questionable material should be removed from both the article and its talk page.

I quoted some of this from the hat note buried in the top of the page and entered this post at the top of the TOC. Editors should read the policies and guidelines and possibly think about edits before posting. Wikipedia has strict policies and guidelines about what comments can be posted on this page. I have done this boldly and in good faith in the hopes to keep this page under control. If another editor wishes to move/delete/edit this post, please feel free to do so. In other words treat it like an article section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Title

I believe the appropriate name is "2012 Aurora shooting" (singular), corresponding to something like "2011 Tucson shooting", which was also a single event, not like "Toulouse and Montauban shootings", which was a series of three shootings. DillonLarson (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this, by the way - my semi-protection of this page was to stop IP nonsense but I think the title should be singular, it would be constructive if people stopped edit warring over it and discussed, though. - filelakeshoe 10:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please compare 2012 Tulsa shootings. Meph^talk 10:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, please don't move articles by copying and pasting content. Meph^talk 10:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is another article at 2012 Aurora shooting. one needs redirecting. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion Aurora shooting or Denver shooting is more accurate than shootings. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be 2012 Aurora shooting, and redirected this page to that one. Can we please have some agreement on this? Robofish (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Any change of title should be accomplished with a move, not with a redirect to a mostly copy/pasted version of the original. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there's no concensus over 'shooting' and 'shootings' among similar articles, I'd suggest deferring to whatever title was originally given when first created: [1]. Meph^talk 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The singular should be more appropriate.--Coekon (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shootings is the older article by five minutes, so let's keep it at that for now. I still think the singular title is more logical though. Robofish (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed this is main article but at wrong title. it should be shooting, but i do think it worth considering if this should be Aurora or Denver. The international media is heavily referring to this as Denver. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

But domestic media is referring as Aurora, such as CNN. In my personal opinion, the domestic media shall prevail.--Coekon (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If there's no convention let's leave it here for now - I merged over the extra section + stub cats you added from the other article, when more media usage comes out we can move it if necessary over one of the other redirects. - filelakeshoe 10:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the plurality is accurate nomenclature. While there is a convention on WP:PLURAL for adopting the singular, it's also the case that 'shooting' denotes an instance of a shooting, rather than multiple shootings, and hence the singular fails to signify properly: [2]. Meph^talk 10:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that while the media may be using 'Denver', that's actually inaccurate - Aurora, Colorado is a separate municipality, although it is part of the broader Denver metropolitan area. Robofish (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Aurora shootings article (which began as 2012 Denver shootings) was created 42 minutes before 2012 Aurora shooting, not five. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say that I'm glad it was moved back to shootings so quickly. Massacre is an emotive word and not appropriate here. Douglasi (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Massacre would be appropriate if that was what people were calling it (Srebrenica massacre) but otherwise, yes, I agree. - filelakeshoe 10:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What people? The ones on wikipedia? Just 'cause CNN has it as a headline doesn't mean that it's not a sensational word. In fact, I'd argue that the fact that a major news outlet called is such means it's designed solely to attract clicks and views. It should stay shooting and be part of the canonical Spree Shooting entry.--Possum4all (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Different media organisations saying shooting.. . Daily Telegraph, BBC, CNN, Fox, Sky news, Guardian, CBS, ABC News, NBC news. The overwhelming majority of sources are saying shooting not "shootings", which implies more than one incident. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC) few more.. Reuters, AFP , MSN, AP BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we just change it to shooting and create a redirect for shootings.. ?? Wouldn't it make since to adjust it sooner then later and then we can all just stop talking about the titleMantion (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to name the article "2012 Aurora Theater Shooting" or "2012 Aurora Theater Massacre?" 75.57.176.68 (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I argued for Virginia Tech's Tragedy, and still would, that the term "massacre" is biased / loaded and shouldn't be used for spree shootings of this nature. --Possum4all (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what reliable sources say. GiantSnowman 15:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Give me a break. It's a sensational word and shouldn't be part of a reference entry here. Just as it shouldn't be part of the Virginia Tech title. --Possum4all (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I'm not sure how "tragedy" is any better than using "massacre." But I have taken care of major alternate titles by creating the following redirects: Colorado theater massacre, Colorado theater shooting, Aurora, Colorado theater massacre and Aurora, Colorado theater shooting. It took me several minutes to find this article under its current title -- 2012 Aurora shooting. And although it should have dawned on me that it was using such a title given my experience with the 2011 Tucson shooting article, I had to click on Aurora, Colorado to find this article. So these redirects should help the majority of our readers who will be searching this case under one of its more WP:COMMONAMES. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe a clearer fuller wording for the article name would be "2012 Aurora shooting massacre" rather than just "shooting" because "shooting" alone doesn't make clear enough that it was not just a simple one or two gunshot shooting. But massive. Just my opinion. the name of article should be enhanced a bit. Per logic and facts, and thoroughness and clarity. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that the articles for Virginia Tech and Columbine High School tragedies are labelled "massacres" in their titles, and that the Aurora tragedy has been confirmed as the largest mass shooting in American history in terms of total number of victims (wounded and killed), would it not be most appropriate to title this article "2012 Aurora Massacre" or something similar using the word "massacre" instead of "shooting"? Is there some magic number in which something goes from being a "shooting" to a "massacre"? 70 people were shot in this tragedy, 12 of whom have died. I'd say that qualifies as a "massacre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.44.248 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Batman movie massacre

Some news sources are referring this event to the Batman Movie Shooting or Batman Movie Massacre. We, in Wikipedia, should not make up our own name. That is original research and prohibited. Auchansa (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. MahdiTheGuidedOne (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The keyword there is "some". — Moe ε 20:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think as the story progresses the preferred media title will change and eventually settle on some variation of the Batman lore. It will end up being called universally the "Batman Massacre" or "Joker Massacre". Something like one of those. I think the title of this article should change to reflect that instead of giving a more technical name. In either case the article should have redirects coming in for those various titles. Additionally James Holmes should be listed under the "Joker" disambiguation. I'm guessing he will likely get his own article soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.239.68.236 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because the media stylizes the name in order to get better ratings does not mean it is original research to give it a technical name. The current name follows Wikipedia's standards of naming conventions in the few days and weeks after an event before a broad consensus by authoritative organizations has determined a name. It is very possible that in a few months it will only be called one thing, but that day has not yet come. In the meantime, we will redirect all of the stylized names to this article so people can find it. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 10:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Youngest victim

The youngest victim reported was a 6-year-old being treated at Children's Hospital Colorado...

Many credible reports describe a baby being shot and killed at point blank range.Mantion (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just reported by 9NEWS the youngest victim is 3 months old at Universal Medical Center 5:16. Information is on http://www.9news.com/news/article/278707/71/1-in-custody-14-dead-in-Aurora-theater-shooting "University Hospital confirmed to 9NEWS the youngest patient they have in their care is 3 months old. That baby's condition is unknown at this time."

Y Done --w^{L<speak·check>} 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Says 6 years old on that link now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.95.43 (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is the youngest death, not the youngest injured. WWGB (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUM but, What kind of idiot brings a 3 month old to a midnight showing of an R rated movie with craploads of violence and lound noises that will just make them cry and annoy everyone else? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate comment, I suggest you retract it. GiantSnowman 14:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We can redact such comments from talk pages, but im inclined to leave it here. Its also possible, of course, that reliable sources, or the public, will express such sentiments, so watching for that and discussing adding it to the article is appropriate (though unlikely)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Tragic either way, but what are the parents doing keeping their baby up at midnight to watch a loud, violent movie? Frankjohnson123 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Gaijin, the movie, despite the intense violence, was rated PG-13 by the MPAA, but still the above question is appropriate. — Glenn L (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Brian Williams asked almost that exact question ... substitute "parent" for "idiot."TjoeC (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"an R rated movie with craploads of violence and lound [sic] noises"? Thanks for the spoiler. NOT! Let's keep this talk page clear of movie spoilers, please. 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Total killed

Okay, sources are repeatedly jumping between 12-14-15 killed. Perhaps a better wording, until the facts get straightened out, would be to reflect this range. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Almost all the sources ive seen say 14, i think we should stick with what the most sources say unless there is far more conflicting sources. I saw one fox article url or headline say 15, yet the article it self and fox news at the time were saying 14. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm BBC has just changed theirs to at leaast 12. [3] so maybe we should change to the range and say conflicting reports. BBC had been saying 14 for hours. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Now Fox on TV and the CNN article are both stating the figure has been revised down to 12. Guess it's still a wait-and-see thing. I'm wondering what set off the "14" figure. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mass casualty triage often requires a first count of the people who appear to not be breathing, who only receive attention after more viable casualties are treated, at which point they may be found to be better than initially assessed or resuscitated. 69.140.116.44 (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. BBC declares it is 12 now --Coekon (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Media outlets likely reported 14 based on an initial scene assessment. Adhere to current reports, in which case the appropriate figure is 12. Meph^talk 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC).

The local news station (9news.com out of Colorado I think) just stated there were 12 confirmed deaths so I'd have to support the first guy suggesting that multiple counts be mentioned for now. 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.68.210 (talk)

I don't want to start some sort of pro-life debate, but does wiki recognize a pregnant women as 1 death or 2?Mantion (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no position about this (WP:NPOV). We report casualties as they are reported by reliable sources, i.e., the media and authorities.  Sandstein  12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Aside from Wikipedia policy, it may be appropriate to mention special attributes of the victims that help describe the incident's impact. So it may be appropriate to mention that a pregnant woman was among the victims, if that has been confirmed, or a child or infant, as has been mentioned in some stories. One would not count a pregnant woman however as two victims for numerous reasons, including that one may not necessarily know if she was carrying one or more fetuses (or children, which the media may choose to describe her as carrying).[[User:Ssc] (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fox News reporting a young girl, six yrs old iirc, succumbed to injuries, so waiting on written source saying count has ticked up. :( — Huntster (t @ c) 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that the victim died earlier in the evening, and is included in the current counts? Most reports said 2 died in hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregV (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12861792-6-year-old-girl-confirmed-to-have-been-killed-in-colorado-theater-shootings?lite&__utma=14933801.1183770967.1342399929.1342875852.1342888051.15&__utmb=14933801.4.10.1342888051&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1342797696.8.3.utmcsr=newsvine.com%7Cutmccn=%28referral%29%7Cutmcmd=referral%7Cutmcct=/_nv/publish/blog&__utmv=14933801.%7C8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=107077250 <-- 6 Year Old confirmed dead. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregV (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're talking about the shooting not the movie. Again, let's keep this talk page clear of movie spoilers! 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of Mitt Romney?

In all reality, why is Mitt Romney's opinion on the matter relevant? We could put the opinion of the Governor of Colorado, Hillary Clinton, the Pope, LeBron James, or any 'important' person. 192.91.173.42 (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source has provided another person's reponse, feel free to include that as well. GiantSnowman 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of balance Romney should be quoted too and the media saw it notable enough to state his response. There should of course be other reaction too. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This sort of section is standard. As to LeBron James, no, but if the Colorado Rockies cancelled a game or held a ceremony, that would likely be relevant. Basically, the info is there for those interested, but can be skipped by those who aren't. If you aren't interested, skip reading it. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 192. Obama is the elected representative of the country where this happened, Perlmutter represents the district, Warner Brothers represents their film. All relevant. Romney has nothing to do with the story. This isn't an election debate. There's no need for "balance". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hulk, this isn't a political issue, and 5 or 10 years from now Romney may just be another guy that ran for President of the U.S., but didn't make it. Or he may make it. Who knows. But just running for President doesn't make your comments on unrelated matters "encyclopedia worthy." Now if he was the police chief, or the governor of Colorado, or something like that (relevant), I could see including it. But as far as I can tell, his only immediate connection to Colorado is to get their votes. And this isn't a political article, or shouldn't be at least. JeffreyW75 (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's for history to show whether Mitt Romney's comments on the event are particularly notable in that context. In the current context however I think there's no doubt they are notable at present. As Romney's story develops the question of whether his role in this event and this event's role in the election and his campaign is encyclopedic can be reassessed, but for now I think his response is relevant to a great many people and should be included. Sumguysr (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rockies wore black wristbands in their Friday game against San Diego. 75.94.63.254 (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Theyre still notable figures and not "just another guy."Lihaas (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

They (eg. Romney) may be notable people but they aren't relevant to the event the article is about. EryZ (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The Romney comments should be removed. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Something like this should not be politicized, but these things always do, just as this event has already been politicized. Many media outlets have already run articles and stories dedicated to Romney's response, as well as how it will affect the presidential race (even if Romney is some washed-up nobody 10 years from now), and how it will inevitably be brought up in the upcoming presidential debates. The weight of notability, from the media perspective, and the contention in the Talk here, seems to fall toward the side that Romney's comments and opinions on this topic are nearly as notable as Obama's (although, in reality, what significance does either of these persons' perspectives have on the actual event? none. but their perspectives connected to this event have an influence outside of this event). I'm not sure if the point of views against Romney inclusion is due to "across the pond" perspective or anti-Romney perspective, but it would seem that Romney's perspective is significant enough to have inclusion following that of Obama's. Just IMHO. :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My objection isn't anything to do with anti-anywhere or anyone. Just a relevance thing. Obama's reaction is more important since he's the guy "at the wheel" of the country where this occured. Romney just wishes he was. I don't mean that condescendingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney is at present the de facto leader/representative of a very significant faction of Americans. Also, Romney wishing to be 'at the wheel' may prove to be very relevant historical context for this event. As the various stories progress we can reassess the issue of relevance, but right now I think the response from the head of one of America's 2 major political parties is relevant to a great many people. Sumguysr (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney represents nobody. He has nothing to do with this apart from trying to garner votes from it. Leave him out, please. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

He's the Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election (de facto) - please, be serious. Whatever one's political leanings, especially in an election year, his view and Obama's view are relevant (in small doses) to the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability of victims

Krford has repeatedly removed references to Jessica Redfield, a sportswriter that was tweeting from the theatre until the film started. It's relevant curiousity of our digital age, and for that reason, it seems relevant. Previously, she escapes Toronto Eaton Centre#2012 shooting, another shooting in a public area. Opinions? -- Zanimum (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source mentions one of the victims may be a person of (some) note, or that they were at least present, then so should we. Escaping another shooting is interesting but only trivia. GiantSnowman 13:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think she is notable enough to be on this article. United States Man (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Her tweets have been the subject of news coverage in Canada, the United States, and Britain. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

US Man - I have reverted you - we do not decide if she is notable enough, reliable sources do. GiantSnowman 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Does she have a wiki page? United States Man (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a subtle difference between 'notable enough for a standalone article' and 'notable enough to be mentioned'. GiantSnowman 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a far more important distinction between the notability of a person and the notability of a fact regarding that person's role in an event. When reliable sources devote articles to one persons activities prior to a major event I think that's a decent indicator that that fact is notable.

Okay, so what's the concensus? It seems the concensus is that there doesn't have to be a Wikipedia article on someone to justify mentioning their actions in a notable situation, but is it agreed that her tweeting is relevant enough for the article, given the media coverage of it? There's hundreds of articles now about her, apparently she's also the first confirmed victim. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Her real name is Jessica Ghawi. Jessica Redfield was her pen name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.7.156 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, do you have a source? (probably not) United States Man (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, USMan? Try Googling. There's 1750 references in Google News to her, currently. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well then a source needs to be put on here. A google search is NOT a reliable source. United States Man (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of linking to sources, on the talk page? if there is a concensus to add this information, then the source would appear in the article itself. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm pretty sure that's not what Zanimum was implying. He was merely showing you that there are plenty of sources available since you doubted the existence of any. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre includes a list of the slain, along with brief personal details for the purpose of identification (full name, age, hometown, and major or status at the school). I'd think that a similar list of confirmed dead including the first three pieces of information would be appropriate for this article, for similar reasons. Given that Ghawi was apparently fairly widely known by her pen name, it would probably be appropriate to include both names for her entry (i.e. Jessica Ghawi, AKA "Jessica Redfield") in the interest of clarity. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As the victims are identified, news sources will have profiles of them. We should refrain from creating stand-alone articles about previously non-notable individuals known only for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and becoming a shooting victim. Edison (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No one was suggesting this, while in the early stages of success, her career wouldn't qualify as notable. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Her notability is not at question, the notability of the fact that she tweeted from the theater prior to the event, the contents of her tweets, her casualty status, and if she was the first person shot is at question. I have not yet examined the contents of her tweets so I don't have an opinion about that. If reliable sources devote articles to the contents of the tweets I think that's a pretty good indicator that they're notable though. If reliable sources report she was the first shot I think that's definitely notable and relevant. As a slightly separate issue, I think it'd be a good idea to include a full list of all the victims when that information is published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumguysr (talk • contribs) 08:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It has already been established that at least one of the deceased was a member of the military; and possible others injured were aslo members of the military. Should this be listed in the article? How relevant would this be since this may add additional federal level charges. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/pentagon-aurora-shooting-batman-premiere_n_1689885.html and http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123310826 Teddyr (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Terrorist attack

Is this terrorist attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.154.204 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"FBI [... said no terrorism link had been established". GiantSnowman 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.154.204 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No idea, I'm sure more details will be forthcoming with time. GiantSnowman 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Describing things as a terroist attack is a gray area. The FBI is using it to mean that it is not associated with a known terror group, or being done for political motivation (as far as is known). However that means that "terrorism" is restricted to motive and not method, which is somewhat ambiguous/confusing. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

By definition, it most likely fits the description of "domestic terrorism". But it's unlikely that a major terrorist group such as Al Qaeda was involved. Though right now, it's all speculation. We need to let the police and FBI do their research. WTF? (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it certainly appears to match the definition of a terrorist attack, but that isn't for us to decide. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The FBI response pretty much translates as "not an organized terrorist attack," I think. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

isn't it they call it a terrorist attack when they find a link to a grouping that either formerly claimed violent attacks , or they consider an organisation on the terrorist listing themselves? 62.163.248.13 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, see Lone wolf terrorismLihaas (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a shooting. Let it be called a shooting for now. That speaks more to the motive of the shooting, which at this point remains unknown. Theo10011 (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Our opinion shouldn't really matter, if the officials and experts don't classify it as a terrorist act then we should go with it. I personally don't think it is a terrorist attack. Although it has caused higher levels of fear we have no reason to believe the motive was to Create Fear. Although we don't know the motivation, it is likely he only acted for attention, its all speculative and debatable, so let the experts speculate and debate and we can include the relevant conclusions.Mantion (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda also kills for attention and fame, so what? Its called terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.154.204 (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In the broad sense, all these things are terroristic. Columbine was in a broad sense a terrorist attack, as those two shooters also used (or tried to use) little bombs and things too. It was terroristic, but not technically officially "political terrorism" per se. Because then we'd have to call ALL the mass shootings and rampages over the years "terrorism" and the perps "terrorists". But they're not considered that in a LEGAL sense. Jots and graphs (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We all know that calling something "terroristic" is purely for political sake. But, it's the world we live in :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.155.207 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The terrorism title is reserved for when the perpetrator is brown or muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.167.136 (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the terrorism title is reserved for politically-motivated violence by non-state actors against civilians. Please do not accuse other Wikipedia editors of racism. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, we just roll a dice, and what ever we call it to begin with is never challenged. It's true because you know you wouldn't challenge it, and by "you" I mean anyone who would read this. If no one challenges what we call it, then it won't be challenged. So now, at this time, it is already too late to start calling this terrorism because the dice has been rolled, and if you challenge it, you are wasting your reputation on something totally not worth it. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For something to be considered technically or legally "terrorism", there'd have to be a political or sociological rhyme or reason, not just because someone is lashing out at the world in some psychotic breakdown. Those 19 hi-jackers who murdered 3000 people in America, on 9/11/2001, or those IRA terrorists in the past, blowing up things in Britain etc (see, they don't have to all be olive Arabs or Muslims necessarily, to be considered "terrorists", though some Arabs are light-skinned too, but they could be white Europeans also) did NOT have Holmes' pathology and mental situation or motives. And it was just done differently. The IRA or Muslim Brotherhood blowing up or shooting at people is not done because of psychosis per se. And usually would be coordinated differently. They didn't have the mental problems or motive that James Holmes had. In the end though, murder and mayhem are murder and mayhem, regardless of the nuances. I understand that. But there are some differences...is the point. Jots and graphs (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Resemblance to Bane?

Is it important to note that the gas mask resembles the main antagonist of the film? SwimFellow (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we need to keep speculation out of Wikipedia. --Petercorless (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Source it and include it, or don't source it and don't. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to find some reliable sources on the resemblance. -- Luke (Talk) 16:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I heard Matt Lauer say something about it, but it's a stretch. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a comment by one of the moviegoers. "Holmes was caught by police in the parking lot of the movie theater shortly after the shooting still dressed in his riot gear, an outfit eerily similar to a villain in "The Dark Knight Rises." I am not sure that's enough to say it's ok yet. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The only phrasings I can think of to put that in run afoul of WP:WEASEL, I think. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree to not put that either. It sounds like speculation. BTW haven't any of you guys heard of the news that guy supposedly claimed he was the Joker? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems more like an opinion, that he resembled bane even from the link cited above. I'm assuming he was wearing a gas mask, since it was reported he threw in a gas cansiter of some sort. The article already mentions "He appeared to be wearing a costume" which doesn't appear in a lot of sources I saw. Theo10011 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if sourced, I think it's a stretch. We are supposed to use judgement. Use gas: use a gas mask! Are we supposed to link Sherlock or Mycroft Holmes because of the perp's last name? Sure, Holmes might have been under pressure because Sherlock (fictional) and Mycroft (f) are both geniouses, do we decide James has an inferiority complex because of the fictional Holmes's? OR much? Laguna CA (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, SPOILERS! Thanks a lot! 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rampage by Uwe Boll

I don't want to indicate anything, and admittedly this can be a mere coincidence, but Holmes' outfit, as it is described by the media, reminds me of the one worn by Bill Williamson in Uwe Boll's Rampage, especially because gas masks and helmets, other than bulletproof vests, are rarely parts of a rampage killers equipment. Also, this is the second such incident that is more or less connected to a Batman movie, even though in the other case, the Dendermonde nursery attack, this connection has proven to be unfounded. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC))

I see what you mean, but until reliable sources confirm any inspiration / even mention the conncection, neither should we. GiantSnowman 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lord G that the other incident (Dendermonde nursery attack) should at least be briefly mentioned on this page. The possible relation to The Dark Knight film is mentioned on THAT wikipedia page, proving that it is notable enough to be included on the wikipedia site. So, why shouldn't it be mentioned on the Aurora page? Just because it occurred in another country and had a lower death toll and less notoriety, doesn't mean it isn't important. It reflects the possible psychiatric aftermaths of such films and will add to the heated debates about violence in pop culture that will most likely follow in the coming days. (Side note: It's sad how callous people can be unless something happens in their own backyard.) Writerchic99 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Enough of the spoilers, please, even if they're spoilers of other movies. 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Theater versus theatre

I disagree with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#English spelling comparison chart that theater is the US way of referring to the building. Both are used in my experience. In this specific case, I feel that we should change theater to theatre throughout because it took place in Century Theatres. Wouldn't a building operated by Century Theatres be a Theatre not a Theater? I feel that in a case where the regional spelling is not strict we should go with the way it is described by the company that owns it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A fair point well made. GiantSnowman 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) The actual name of the building is called a "theater" in American English. In my opinion, I think we should leave it as "theater" if it is describing the actual building. -- Luke (Talk) 16:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm about as 'merican as you can get, but I probably refer to the building as a theatre 9 times out of 10. At the same time, I did some searches and sources like Fox news were referring to it as a theater and theater 9. Perhaps the most appropriate change would be "Century 16 Movie Theater"→"Century 16 Movie Theatre"? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The actual name of the company name is "Century Theatres", however we should use language consistent with the location. I'm not too sure how much MOS:TIES goes into this, but I would think most people in the USA use "theater", according to Movie theater#Spelling and alternative terms. -- Luke (Talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulate me, I scan both versions as correct. No idea how that happened; "colour" and "labour" still look wrong to me. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A "theater" is a building. "Theatre" is what you see when you're there. 75.94.63.254 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

QUOTE 'A "theater" is a building. "Theatre" is what you see when you're there.' Quote sources! M-w.com??? As near as I can tell, in the US, "theatre" is solely pretension much like "olde" for "old", "ye" for "the" (should be "þe" for "the". With respect, Ryan, you're trying to make sense of English is which is a hopeless cause! Consider "ough": slough (sluff/rhymes with rough/tough), slough (sloo/rhymes with boo/true), slough (slou/rhymes with bough/cow)--slough your slough in a slough ("cast off your depression in a ditch"); bough, cough, dough, fought/bought/thought, ought/wrought, slough (sloo), tough--seven different pronunciations of "ough"! Why is English special? Because it comes from Latin, Greek, French, German, Angle, Saxon, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, etc., etc. etc...! it doesn't borrow words, it mugs foreign languages in dark alleys, and rifles vocabulary from them!

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. " --http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Nicoll

Occasionally? Habitually!

HOWEVER: "Century Theatres is now Cinemark Theatres": http://www.centurytheaters.com/

This (I think) is a valid reason to change to "theatre".

Laguna CA (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

However, the link is at centurytheaters.com not centurytheatres.com. I vote theater. The elephant (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because a business has named itself "Ghoti Toiz" doesn't mean we need to spell "toys" as "toiz", or "fish" as "ghoti" in the store's article. There are many reasons for a business to use spelling in its name different from the current local language uses. The accepted American spelling (the spelling applicable to the article) of the word in question is "theater" therefore that should be the spelling used. Using convoluted rationalizations to justify using one's own preferred spelling is not on the list of reasons, in the WP guidelines, to spell a word one way or another. I normally spell "color" as "colour" but when editing an article which his set to American usage, I use the word as "color" because that's the guideline. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A theater is a movie building; a theatre is a building where live stageplays are presented; theatre generally means stageplays, you know like "a life in the theatre". Hope this helps clarify the issue. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:A90A:38CD:A92:DF34 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this would have any real relevence in any case but actually both http://www.centurytheaters.com and http;//www.centurytheatres.com work and neither redirect to the other. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Outside proper names (such as those of cinema chains aspiring to seem classy), it's unusual in American English to refer to a building in which motion pictures are exhibited as a "theatre". As noted above, that typically refers to a venue for live performances (or to the medium in general). —David Levy 15:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would add, Americans use "theater" for both live stage plays as well as screen plays. Although "cinema" is the more appropriate word for the screen plays, American habit at the dawn of cinema kept "theater" as the most often used word. As for the claim about "theater" for the building and "theatre" for the actual performance, a few people may make that distinction, but that is not accepted in any official way (such as by American dictionaries, linguists, etc), nor is it accepted by the overwhelming majority of the people. The fact is, early in American history, there was a large movement to de-Europeanize English, the number one things they attacked was the use of "our" (such as in "colour"»"color"), "oe" (such as "foetus"»"fetus"), "ae" ("encyclopædia"»"encyclopedia"), and "re" (as in "theatre"»"theater"). In each of these cases, the respelling became the officially accepted American spelling (they did not make an exception for "theatre" for any usage). Try any American English specific spell checker, they will most inevitably mark "theatre" as a misspelling. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

2012 Aurora shooting → 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting – The city should be followed by the state name per WP:USPLACE. Thechased (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose That guideline is about articles about settlements, not events. The title is long enough already. --NYKevin 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The page has already been moved so i'm closing the discussion. United States Man (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be reopened, since the move was REVERTED. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please do something about this page? I was in the middle of replying and its ended up on a new talk page lol Talk:2012_Aurora,_Colorado_shooting BritishWatcher (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed: The page has been redirected here. --NYKevin 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - There is more than on Aurora in the U.S. so the state should be added to distinguish from other Auroras. United States Man (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone should feel free to reopen the discussion, but please don't move the article until there's a consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing and move rights are tied together, it seems. If you lock an article down, so that it can't be moved by anyone but a sysops, you're also blocking the page from edits by anyone but a sysops. We'll have to rely on trusting others in this situation. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite possible to move protect a page. But there's no need unless everyone is going to fight over it. --NYKevin 17:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• support there are many aurora's, many of which are more famous/well known than this one. While they have not neccisarily had shootings in them it is unlikely that this event will become known as the "aurora shootings" like "columbine shootings" are. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - if the article title is to be changed it should be to something that references the incident, like 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, rather than simply adding the state. No other Aurora has had a shooting incident like this one worthy of an article BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose the move. "Aurora" is sufficient until the press can figure out a WP:COMMONNAME. The Colorado thing is in the lede. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Further comment: Find me another notable shooting in 2012 in another town named Aurora, and I will change my vote. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)

I've fully protected the page per WP:WRONGVERSION now. _→AzaToth 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose existing title is sufficient, nothing is gained by lengthening it. Ronnotel (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. More than one Aurora in the U.S. Shark96z (talk · contribs) 18:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Years from now more specificity will be helpful to readers. ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support While it is likely that the media will generate a unique name for this event in the next few days, for now the disambiguation is appropriate given the number of places named Aurora in the US, some of which, like Aurora, Illinois (setting of Wayne's World) have become somewhat well-known already. siafu (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

*Support We need specificity over ambiguity until a common name is established. I see no reason to retain this page with an inappropriate title just because it will be moved again. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support More than one Aurora in the US. Lugnuts (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  If ambiguity is a problem, what about the ambiguity of the fact there have been previous shootings in Aurora too? There is no ambiguity problems with this notable event. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  like this one at a church [4] which is a shooting in 2012 in Aurora, Colorado too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  Unless an article about that shooting is created I don't see a problem.--24.138.41.146 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It is clear enough as it is. It just takes a glance at the article to find out what state the event took place in. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The story is too big to have any confusion. KISS. As was said earlier, show me another famous Aurora shooting in 2012, where there might be confusion, then we need to make a change. Trackinfo (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a Columbine in Alberta as well, but that doesn't mean it requires specification in the title. This article is the same. --Old Al (Talk) 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe the title is specific enough (compare 2011 Tucson shooting) as it is and should not be weighted down unnecessarily. Furthermore, WP:USPLACE seems to indicate that its prescriptions apply to articles solely about places, not articles that happen to contain names of places in them. DillonLarson (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support The title is ambiguous because it's too broad of a location (a relatively small theater within Colorado's third largest city)... not to mention that there are many Auroras. If any sort of place is attributed to the title, it should probably be the movie theater's name? Look at Virginia-Tech, for example. Otherwise, perhaps attribute the event, e.g. "The Dark Knight Rises massacre" or something? --chris.rider81 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support The title should have the city and state name in this case because the city is not instantly recognizable, such as New York City or Los Angeles, to a worldwide audience. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's good right now. --Stryn (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, though I support aliases of other possible names to point to this page, "2012 Dark Knight Rises shooting," or "2012 Aurora, CO shooting," etc. Rather than move the page, just make a pointer. --Petercorless (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As said before, the guideline refers to the place articles, not necessary other articles that refer to that place. Full name is bulky and unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose while there may be more than one Aurora in the US I don't think this should be moved unless there is another notable shooting in another city named Aurora this year.--24.138.41.146 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Existing title is perfectly adequate, and the location of Aurora in Colorado is clearly identified and Wikilinked within the article. — O'Dea (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should go by WP:COMMONNAME here, the average reader would see that this took place in Colorado as it's in the first sentence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, i thought of this first, too, but after checking Category:Mass murder in 2012, i see we dont include the state/country, just the city, in titles for such. I understand the nominators rationale, but thats so that the title indicates which aurora we are talking about. in this case, we only need to worry about which killing in a city named aurora we are talking about. theres only one. same reason we dont name this article "July 2012 Aurora shooting" as we dont anticipate more this year in this city. we can always go rename articles later if more events occur with similar names (also the reason no one named the Great War "world war 1" when it happened.)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think that the current title adheres to protocol, yes, yay, woot woot, but really just isn't descriptive enough. I'm not American and when I found my way here I was initially at a complete loss as to why the article was called '2012 Aurora shooting" because I had no idea what Aurora is. We aren't an American encyclopedia, and I don't see the detriment of including a tiny bit more detail to make the title more informative at first glance. Sure the info will be in the introduction, but the argument to leave necessary clarification out of a title is like saying books should have ambiguous covers (because it's protocol!?) and force the reader to read through the first few pages to understand what the book is about. I suggest something like "2012 Aurora movie theatre/theater shooting", which is the best option. Gives necessary clarification. "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting" is not so good but at least still better than the current one. EryZ (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  Further comment Actually, why do we have 2012 here? Why can't it just be "Aurora movie theatre shooting"? EryZ (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Somewhat support The city of Aurora is not that well known. The current title is not good. Some news sources have called it the Batman Movie Massacre or Shooting. This is preferred for now. Auchansa (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Somewhat support The city of Aurora, CO seems to be the biggest Aurora, but it is a popular city name (even in cities without auroras). I support 2012 Aurora Shooting -> 2012 Aurora, CO Shooting [main article]. Additionally, as pointed out by the previous support, a "2012 Shootings" (or events or whatever--but shooting(s) should link to it) should be created. It's tough to overdo indexing if you're not making an index entry too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, "Aurora" is too vague, adding "Colorado" or "theater" would be helpful. I've been following this story in the news, but if you'd asked me to say what town in Colorado it happened in, I'd have failed. Two years from now, it will be even harder. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: With the year and the city, I believe it it sufficient for the time being. If the year stamp was removed, then I would argue for a more descriptive title that would include the state or the theater. NoCitations (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: As already mentioned, there is no other Aurora which has had a significant shooting in year 2012. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  It's not that there is no other Aurora which has a significant shooting, it's that the general audience don't actually know what Aurora IS. So, the title is, I guess, sort of clear in the sense that there is not much ambiguity, but NOT clear in that it doesn't fulfil its purpose of being a title that people can understand. I elaborate more on my comment above. EryZ (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  If they don't know what "Aurora" is, adding "CO" or "Colorado" after it is not going to help those people much. But, if they are typing in the name "2012 Aurora" in the search box, with WP autocompleting with ",Colorado shooting", they obviously already knew what "Aurora" was else they would not have typed it. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral There are no other major cities called "Aurora" but this one but if the current title redirects to the new one, I see no problem in doing so. Electric Catfish 11:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely unnecessary. Doesn't need disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As noted above, the guidelines for titles of articles about places aren't necessarily applicable to other articles whose titles happen to contain place names. In this instance, no further disambiguation is necessary unless and until another notable shooting occurs in a place called "Aurora" this year. —David Levy 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A rename might be necessary, but not to this. I could see 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, or something along that line, but I don't find Colorado necessary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

James Eagan Holmes article

I feel that there are more than enough reliable sources t ohave this person pass the WP:GNG guidelines, I propose an article be made o nthe suspect, a mugshot is also around on the news. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To have an article about the suspect before he is formally convicted of a crime violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy, specifically WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. That article SHOULD NOT exist. Period. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To expand on that, can an administrator speed up the deletion on James Holmes (Aurora Shooting)? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesnt make sense to me. Lets look forward a year. hes not convicted yet, and we still dont have an article? My understanding of blp is we simply cannot make an unsourced statement about a living person, either in an article on the person, or an article which references them, as this does. We can have an article about a suspect in a crime, as long as the article doesnt give the impression that WE KNOW something about them thats not known outside these pages (this would include categorizing the person as a killer, etc). the relevant policy is notability, per Knowledgekid. I think we know perfectly well that we will have an article about him eventually. I would be inclined to wait until we know a bit more.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Too bad. The rules of BLP, firstly, say that no one is notable for one event. Period. Secondly, no one is notable for a crime they have not been proven guilty of in the court of law. Read the links I gave above. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:BLP1E (BLP 1 Event) and WP:BIO1E (Notability 1 Event) which clearly layout situations where a person may indeed be notable for one event. Secondly, one can be notable for a crime they did not commit, and many have been. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Holmes has not been convicted, therefore he has not committed a well-known crime so, for now, he is not notable. There is no mugshot doing the rounds yet. The Aurora police chief stated explicitly at midday today that the booking photograph would not be released today. The picture of Holmes in the media shows no Joker-red hair and the suspect is not shown wearing a booking number around his neck. — O'Dea (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

These discussions are sprouting every time there is a major mass shooting, and so far it has always ended in a defeat of those arguing in favour of WP:BLP1E and against an article about the shooter. There should be examples at the talk-pages of Jared Lee Loughner, Nidal Malik Hasan, Anders Behring Breivik, and Robert Bales, or the respective talk-pages of the articles about their crimes. I think it's about time that folks here on Wikipedia reach a definite decision on how to handle cases like this, because it's getting really annoying to have the same discussion over and over again. (Lord Gøn (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

Then they're against policy. Quite frankly, WP:BLP1E isn't my problem with this, WP:BLPCRIME is. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Those articles that have the individuals are better termed as content forks than simply separate articles. These articles tend to get pretty long and eventually there is just too much information for one article. -- Avanu (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If they are against policy, then it was the community that has voted numerous times against it. There have been many discussions about this and in all of those cases the community has reached the decision that neither WP:BLP1E, nor WP:BLPCRIME actually bites here. I think policy should reflect community consensus, and so far consesus has always been that high profile mass murderers, convicted or not, should get their own articles eventually, because in the end there will be simply too much information about them to include it all in the article about the crime. Consensus is what policies should be based on, so it's the policy that is in severe need of a revision, and not the other way round. (Lord Gøn (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

Having read through this, I agree that WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME are irrelevant—1E states specifically that it applies "when each of three conditions is met", the third of which reads "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." Holmes is already a suspect, and given the statements made by the police to the effect of "we're convinced this guy worked alone and he was the only one involved in this", it is unlikely that anyone else will suddenly pop up and diminish Holmes's rôle here. Those criteria listed in the policy are, then, rather certainly the case, so the third of the three conditions does not exist (and the second one is somewhat debatable here, too). BLPCRIME doesn't even read like a notability guideline, stressing only that editors must be careful not to include any material suggesting that someone who has not been convicted of a crime is guilty of that crime. As long as we don't do that, I don't see why it's even an issue.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 05:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I broght this up because sooner or later the question is going to be "To make or not to make" although not convicted this person is getting alot of media attention and more is being uncovered about him. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that WP:BLP1E should apply, at least until his history is disconnected from the incident (e.g., detailed charges and/or a trial.) He easily meets the first two criteria. As I understand the third criterion, we really can't say whether or not this event is significant, first of all...so that alone may meet the case. Even if it is "significant," it seems to me that the individual's role in it may not be substantial enough to warrant a separate article. I guess, he's intrinsically tied to the event. He's not notable unless he's part of the event history, unless there's further media coverage when a trial starts or whatnot. Furthermore, I think WP:BLPCRIME may apply in that any article would be based on the premise that he is in fact the killer, not that he is a suspect (even if the only one) in an ongoing investigation. I'm not sure that's what the previous person who brought up BLPCRIME meant, but it could certainly be construed as a reason NOT to make an article: because it violates BLPCRIME to use him as more than "the suspect" to create an article, and that alone may be enough reason for him NOT to be notable enough for a separate article...since upholding it would require a BLP violation, even if the article itself does not violate BLP/BLPCRIME. (In other words, if that made no sense, the new article would have to use the fact that he's "a killer" and not "a suspect in a killing" as the reason for existing, and thus the rationale for the article itself would be a BLP violation.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll concede that if the article were created, it would be tempting (at the very least, and most likely a reality) to write the article with it in everyone's heads that "this guy is obviously the killer" or whatever. Whether we intend to or not, it is all too easy to think about it that way. It may be easier to avoid presenting the opportunity for that to happen by waiting until there is at least a trial in progress or something, and just creating the article then—that seems like a reasonable compromise between making it right now and waiting however long until the guy is put in prison (or not, for all we know).  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can keep this discussion short, because all the relevant arguments have been exchanged in the not so distant past here, here, here and here.

A short note regarding WP:BLP1E: We should not forget that WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. At least in my eyes James Holmes ceased to be a low-profile individual when police arrested him as the lone suspect in the shooting of 70 people. (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

quote from blpcrime: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." this says nothing about whether an article should be created. anders brevik had an article (a very small stub) created the same day as the killing. I think WP has made up its mind: highly publicized crimes resulting in a media frenzy for info on the suspect, mean we can create an article on the suspect as soon as its more than a minimal stub.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on Jared Loughner. He hasn't been convicted or even tried yet (indicted yes). Ajoykt (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If you notice in the examples above almost every one of those articles were kept, I expect an article to be made by Monday when the suspect has his day in court and new info is released about him. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment:. Luka Magnotta had the opposite discussion, archived in the talk page if you want to view the points made there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I saw the archives and one of the discussions was archived without a proper close reguarding splitting off the article, makes a diffrence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

[Merging . . . ]

The relevant section is WP:BIO1E The guy is a major player in a notable event; already high profile and likely to remain so. We should have a page on him. The specific guideline is "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Ajoykt (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, there is relatively little known about Holmes. It can be addressed within the incident article, with a redirect from his name page. As investigations continue, and issues such as motive and mental state start to emerge, then there may be a case for a separate article. For now, it would just be a subset of the incident article. WWGB (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta had the opposite discussion, buried in archives now. Even a split did not reach consensus I don't think. As long as redirects get readers to all the info we have does it really matter?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is already a section reguarding this here: Talk:2012 Aurora shooting#James Eagan Holmes article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we can't add info on the guy here because of a lack of relevance (even his parents' names were taken out here). With a separate article that isn't a problem. Articles do start out as stubs; that isn't unusual for WP. What is the case against a separate article? WP:BLP doesn't cut it. Ajoykt (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are BLP1E/BLPCRIME not sufficient reasons? That they don't "cut it" isn't really any sort of point. I agree he will achieve more notoriety as this goes on, and more information will be available than can be added here. But his parents names are trivial, and everything we know about him is basically relevant to the incident. I imagine there will be a correct point at which to create an article, much as with other events. Perhaps after he's charged with something, and actually more notable than just being a suspect in the shooting. Creating an article essentially to include minor trivia is silly. I've already argued my BLP1E/BLPCRIME point further up in the merged thread, so I'm not going to get into that much further. But unless your article has significant details that aren't here, it seems redundant in any case. Edit: And in just a copied-and-edited form, it makes it impossible for editors like me to easily add/edit information about him...because it has to be done in both articles. Another reason why you need more than just some extra trivia. Basically, it shouldn't just be created as what could be a valid merge. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP1E is relevant and it says there should be articles for major figures involved in major events, even when that is a single-event notoriety. As for his parent's names, that is trivial for an article on the mass shooting. That isn't trivial for an article on him. Ajoykt (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's not trivial for an article on him, it's not a good reason to add an article that has little added past trivial information. As for BLP1E, again, he meets the first two criteria: he is covered only in the context of this event, and he is a low-profile individual. As for the third, I would say his role is not "well-documented" at this point. The facts are unfolding, we don't know much past initial reports which are changing, etc. My other point still stands: you're forcing editors to basically edit two copies of the same article. I realize you created the other article as a "stub" to be edited, but "stub" doesn't mean "duplicate another article word-for-word and hope people edit and improve both copies." – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to rush things. Most articles are in less-than-perfect shape at the beginning, but develop over time. If it remains that way it can be merged again in, say, a month or so. Until then, keep in mind that this happened less than three days ago and comprehensive articles don't come out of nowhere.

Regarding your concerns about WP:BLP1E I can only say again that it would be quite a stretch imho to say that Holmes is still a low-profile individual. And WP:BLPCRIME specifically says that it concerns people who are relatively unknown. With the media eagerly scrutinizing Holmes' life, reporting every half-way interesting piece of it, he shouldn't be considered "relatively unknown" anymore. Besides that, WP:BLPCRIME never says that we must not include anything that suggest a person was accused of committing a crime, but suggests to seriously consider not doing so. It also says that is true for "any article" so basically we should consider not to include such information here either, but it's hard to not do that, since he's the sole suspect, and police more or less says that they don't think anyboy else could be the perpetrator in this case, but Holmes. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

He is absolutely a low-profile individual, at least as described at Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual; that's not the same as the standard definition, but is what is used for BLP1E. "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event." Unless you can state that he committed the crime to seek media attention, he's a low-profile individual. Anyways, technicalities aside, I agree that doesn't mean he doesn't merit an article; I'd say his role is *becoming* well-documented (or he could just merit one irrelevant of BLP1E.) I'm actually not unhappy with the split article as it is now; my previous points have been more towards what was known a day or two ago. We do know more about him, and I did note that I expected more information to unfold to merit an article. My only suggestion to the editor who created the article: create the base in a sandbox and do the needed reference and context edits and other copyediting, then replace the redirect. That will cause much less strife; part of my frustration was that this was done as active edits on a high-traffic topic, that resulted in the suspect's article being poor-quality while it was worked on. In any case, the article is created, and I'm fine with that; I expected there to be a separate article at some point...mainly, I was trying to keep it from being forked too soon. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the article has been made please try and not place it up for AfD as it will most likely not be deleted but kept or merged back here. A merger discussion would be better if you are opposed to the new article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in section

 Comment:. Would all agree that we create a tiny tiny stub at the re-direct. Just a sentence that he was arrested following.... type thing?--Canoe1967za (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a sentence would probably be redirected by someone in the future. The info in the article now should be enough. No need for a separate page. United States Man (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This happens far too often in Wikipedia. The Canadian [BLP comment removed - Canoe1967] has a bio article. Generally, consensus is such that people like Holmes do not get a separate article. A general consensus should be made and uniformly applied, not debated every time it happens. Auchansa (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This should be brought up and discussed in another forum like the BLP board. Should we close it here and bring it up there?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

From what ive seen its been the opposite with the AfD history of the type of articles involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't resolve bad refs

Hi (if that is appropriate considering the tragedy of this event),

Based on the c. 19:00 20 July news conference: Total casualties are 70 (exactly): 12 dead; 58 wounded. He did, indeed, dye his hair red or orange, and say to the police he was the Joker.

References:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12850048-police-weeks-of-planning-went-into-shootings-that-killed-12-injured-scores-at-batman-screening-in-colorado?lite&__utma=14933801.440235379.1342834949.1342834949.1342834949.1&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1342834949&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1342834949.1.1.utmcsr=%28direct%29%7Cutmccn=%28direct%29%7Cutmcmd=%28none%29&__utmv=14933801.%7C8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=72595859

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I can't make the refs work, possibly because of simultaneous edits. I. Give. Up. !. ;)

KUSA: http://www.9news.com/video/player_live_2.aspx ff, seems to be a reliable source.

Note on timing: it appears (not Original Research [OR], but obvious) that he started shooting before his ____ [I forget genre] music ended at his apartment. So (OR?) he was trying for a two-fer, demolishing his apt. building and the theater. Of course, this will depend on the result of the apt. disarming. I have my own judgements about it.

IAC, thanks to those who are more adept editors and tighter in with WikiP than I!

PS: R.I.P. PPS: "difficulty finding a job? says who?" KUSA for one. (from memory)

Laguna CA (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty finding a job came from a neighbor in SD, I believe - probably already referenced. According to the girl in the apartment beneath him, it was Techno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.22.185 (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Peacetime" shooting

The lead had the following:

...the largest number of victims of any peacetime mass shooting in the United States.

Just curious about using that wording. Technically, we are still in conflicts related to Operation Enduring Freedom, with troops deployed actively all over the world, including still in Iraq, and as a consequence, do we say that this is "peacetime" or simply something like "non-military" or "civilian" or something else? -- Avanu (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I used "mass murder" when trying to flesh the lead back out. That seems more correct, and also less ambiguous. It's also what the infobox describes the incident as. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason "peacetime" was added was because of the possible "larger shootings" while we weren't in peacetime. I think the phrase should be added back, or at the very least, it should read "largest shooting in us history" because I can't find any non war incident (a battle) larger than this. Correct me if I'm wrong. --74.235.208.74 (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wartime shootings aren't "murder", as gruesome as that is, unless it's done by someone acting contrary to international rules of warfare or whatnot. So by correctly classifying it as a "mass murder", we avoid needing to use "peacetime" at all, because it's no longer relevant. I'm not aware of any war-related mass murders in recent US history (e.g., it would have to be American soldiers murdering a bunch of civilians on their own, or whatever. Those incidents have certainly happened, but not in recent history at the scale of this one. More like shooting one or two civilians or whatever.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a soldier in March who killed 16 Afghans. Not in a "collateral damage" way, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

100 to 140 civilians in a wagon train were shot and killed by Mormons in "peacetime" in Utah, then a US territory, in 1858 in the Mountain Meadows massacre. How is this a "larger mass murder" or a "larger shooting?" To clarify, any hyperbole about this incident being the "biggest shooting" or "biggest mass murder" would have to rule out actual wars and cases of multiple shooters, then be clear about "most killed" or "most victims shot." Edison (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Most victims by one gunman, anyway. Would it be synthesis to assume that's what is meant? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, no. It would be synthesis to not just take the source at face value (since it's reliable) without pointing to sources about the counterexamples. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The corresponding sentence is now gone from the article lead. Arided (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo on flickr!!!

Free photo [5]? Should I upload it? – Lionel ^(talk) 05:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because it is on Flickr doesn't mean it is free (unencumbered by copyright concerns). -- Avanu (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is released under a compatible license, but I feel like it is copyvio there. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, because it bears all the hallmarks of Flickrwashing. It looks like it has been taken from a web news story somewhere. The text underneath the photo looks like a copyvio too.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to re-use the original photo from the university: [6] (there's a link to a PDF with a higher-res version...I don't feel like figure out how to mangle and upload that properly.) I don't know what the license on that is, but it's in a press release and certainly fair use in any case. It may just be public domain if the university's policies specify that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Unless otherwise noted, all materials contained on this website are copyright protected. Materials may be downloaded and/or reprinted for personal use only" Legal notices. Images of living people cannot be uploaded under fair use. There are very few exceptions, for example, if an image existed of Holmes with red hair dressed like the joker, that could be uploaded as fair use because there is no free equivalent. A generic image of Holmes can still be taken. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a "to do" list which includes a photo of Holmes that does not require WP:NFCC. A police mugshot is a possibility, but it should comply with WP:MUG. Also, it would be helpful if someone could take a photo of the movie theater and upload it to Commons. The map in the infobox is clunky and uninformative.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, is a police mugshot covered by federal copyright law? I'm not entirely sure about this, but I feel like only mugshots taken by the federal government (or a state like florida) are PD. Am I wrong? It would be great if we could use it though, can anyone point me to something that states the copyright status of a mugshot? Actually, I just found {{Ir-Mugshot}} which I believe concerns my thoughts. Unless the mugshot is taken by the federal government, rather than the Aurora PD, it will probably still be copyrighted. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We have had this argument before with articles like Jared Lee Loughner. Broadly speaking, US law enforcement mugshots are copyrighted and require the use of Template:Ir-Mugshot, but FBI mugshots are public domain.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• The image at [7] (widely used in media coverage), does not appear to date from the time of his July 2012 arrest. Police have stated that Holmes has red hair, and this image does not have red hair. If an image of Holmes from a law enforcement agency in July 2012 could be found, it would be suitable for use in the article even if it required WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• webmaster@uchsc.edu is the email for the copyright and permission to use the image. They may allow a 'free license' for it if someone wants to send them an email?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Gun control

Dozens of sources about Aurora and the gun control debate, and not one word in this article. Thanks for proving Wikipedia does not have a liberal bias. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Like was said on the Piers Morgan show tonight, it's too early to discuss this issue. Let people grieve before going hard on gun control. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please check the news indexes. There are dozens of articles about Aurora and the call for and against gun control. To summarize, people are asking, why is it so easy to acquire automatic weapons, and why do we have them in the streets? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources are mentioning the gun control debate and rightly so. How anyone can think an incident with an alleged legal gun owner going on a rampage doesnt justify debate on "why" he was able to get hold of those guns i do not know. It is clearly relevant now that it has been made clear it was legal firearms, had it been illegal firearms then there would be less need to mention it. Either it should be included after the mention of the fact it was legal firearms, or it should be in the reaction section for now. Such a terrible tragedy which could have likely been prevented with proper legislation. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should definitely be noted that he was using legal firearms. They can be wikilinked to what legal firearms are, in the US. Again (echoing my own message below), there's no need to bring up the gun control debate in the article, other than perhaps a brief bit on the reaction...because it's not relevant to the shooting, other than surmising on things like "what if he couldn't have bought guns?", and it's not our place to do that. I'm too tired to find the sources that note he had legal guns, so feel free to stick it in. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it might be appropriate to comment on this in the "reactions" section in a general sense; e.g., just noting the general messages of both pro and anti-gun groups. The gun control issues you bring up mostly don't belong in the article, though. There are many articles on gun control. If this incident leads to some sort of gun control changes, then it's certainly relevant...but for now, it's just people discussing the incident. That's not really encyclopedic, past a brief mention. It appears he got his guns legally, but if that changes that would be appropriate to include as well, I imagine. I think it's actually nice that gun control hasn't really come up and dragged politics into the article, and it reads relatively neutrally. Politics simply don't belong in this article, as it hasn't had any real political impact (yet, but we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL), nor have any political motivations been ascribed to the attack. (Signed, a liberal who likes nice, neutral, non-partisan factual articles.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In most of the world gun control isn't a political issue. That it happens to be in America shouldn't prevent the issue being mentioned in the article. This is a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not it's a political issue in the US. It's whether or not it's relevant to the shooting incident. I don't see how it really is, other than that both pro and anti-gun folks have spoken out after the incident. Their comments can be noted in the reactions section as I suggested. If the shooting does end up with a political connection to gun control, then it's relevant. Otherwise, I don't think it's relevant to do much more than wikilink to what US gun laws are and things like that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly legislation (or lack of) that allowed the guy to obtain legal firearms that then were used to commit a crime is relevant. But id accept a mention of legal firearms in the appropriate section and then simply a sentence or two about debate, including possibly criticism of lack of gun laws followed by statement by the NRA, or just its led to some debate in the media. But at present the article doesnt even say it was legal firearms last time i checked. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said above...please do add in the bit about the firearms being legal; I agree that belongs in the article. I'm going to sleep now though, rather than finding sources. :) (Existing sources probably cover it, but I'm not sure.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas - There were no automatic weapons involved. Every weapon was semiautomatic. Automatic weapons are not easy to obtain. BritishWatcher - The weapons, although they may have been procured legally, were in the movie theater illegally. Public places such as that are designated "Gun free" zones by statue is most places, for the general wellbeing of all. My question is, what if it weren't a "gun free" zone. What if it were a place where people who legally can carry a concealed weapon could carry it. That person could have taken this man down well before he managed to kill half as many as he did. Two days before, in Florida, a 70-something year old man shot armed robbers as they attempted to rob the internet cafe he was at. Why is there no big news about that? Because it's someone using their constitutional right to defend themselves. In this case, one bad apple uses legally bought firearms, and everyone wants to take them away from the average citizen. Why? If anything, I say allow people to carry in MORE places. It might have made this guy think twice if he could have possibly been going up against armed people instead of helpless unarmed people. --Fbifriday (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I was referring to assault weapons but typed automatic by mistake. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas Assault weapons are automatic weapons. Specifically a weapon that is designed to fire more than 1 round of ammunition with a single actuation of the trigger. He used Semi-Automatic weapons, not Assault or Automatic weapons. Meaning he had to release the trigger after every shot to reset it and pull it again. Hence for every trigger pull he is culpable for attempted murder regardless of the number of people he actually shot. Please do not confuse the issue with a buzz word or jargon, use the correct nomenclature. Mark l anderson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. Assault weapons were legally defined in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and included semi-automatic weapons under this definition. In California, for example, the AR-15 assault rifle used in this shooting is still classified as an assault weapon.[8][9] Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Federal Assault Weapons ban has expired and is no longer the law of the land. And since when does California Law take precedence in Colorado? Or Missouri? Or Arkansas? It doesn't. Just because one state attempts to identify something as what it is not, does not mean you can use a broad brush everywhere. In Texas a Vibrator or Dildo used to be banned as obscene, so should it's definition be used in California? Under the Laws of Colorado there is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon" Local cities, towns and municipalities have enacted their own ordinances, which have been modified by the courts, but the state Legislature has not enacted any laws restricting or identifying "Assault Weapons" There is a ban on magazines with higher than 20 round capacity, which the shooter had and used. Please do not pick and choose laws or terms that do not apply to the incident at hand. Mark l anderson (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your response is so predictable, I could have written it myself and signed it with your own name. The point that you keep missing is that the it is the very status of the availability of guns classified as "assault weapons" that is under discussion in relation to the Aurora shooting. You've admitted that the AR-15 assault rifle that was used in the shooting has been and continues to be classified as an assault weapon. The question under discussion by the sources is 1) why is it available to purchase in Colorado and 2) is a new assault ban needed to prevent further shootings. I am not picking and choosing terms that don't apply, I'm directly quoting the sources. There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees the right to own assault weapons. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you. I will just ask this. "What is the actual legal definition of an 'Assault Weapon'?" And please cite your response. Mark l anderson (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think turning this into a debate on whether concealed (or even open) carry should be an easy thing or not is a good idea. Or turning it into a gun control debate in general. Arguing whether we should cover gun control in the article is fine...anything else is going to turn into a mess. This is a Wikipedia talk page, not a political forum... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The key point is not how they were produced or where they were taken, it is that they were obtained legally. that is absolutely notable for this article, and im afraid to say its the reason this incident was able to take place. The article must mention it was legal firearms, if that includes simply a few words like "leading to some debate in the media on gun control". or if there are a couple of sentences in the reaction section. Either way both things need mentioning. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It was able to take place because a crazy man was crazy. Even in nations where the laws would have prevented this, there are still acts of mass violence. You are correct in saying that we need to follow what the sources say, but as always, context matters for whether a source is "reliable" or not per Wikipedia policy. If we introduce the issue of gun control into the article, what sources does that make "more reliable" (aka more 'in context') for that subject? I guess the point is, for each topic you add into an article, you add potential sources for that topic that might be relevant in context. Major media tends to gloss over and sensationalize issues without truly digging into the details. Less well known media stays relevant to readers by being a better source of information. -- Avanu (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It was able to happen because that man had guns.. guns obtained legally. As for sources, look there are tons of articles that reference the gun debate, Wall Street Journal, CNN, San Francisco Chronicle , Huffington Post, MSNBC,CBS news LA Times BBC News... and a lot more. It is clear there is "gun control debate in the wake of this incident, and the article should reflect that. Im not saying the article should take sides or go into extensive debate. Simply a 1 line saying he owned the guns legally, and this has renewed debate in the media about gun control would be enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are not a Forum nor for Soapboxing - please keep personal opinions off here and only discuss what the Reliable Sources say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 09:21, 21 July, 2012 (UTC)

We are, genius. Have you looked at the sources? Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have, o non-civil one. The comment I was referring to was above mine and has been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 July, 2012 (UTC)

I added in a bit on him purchasing them legally, since there seems to be consensus that should be there...I don't think I've seen one person suggest it's not. Seems silly to keep arguing that point when most people appear to agree it should be in there! (And it is factually important whether he had the guns legally or not, irrespective of any gun control issues.) Article could still use a short blurb about gun control issues in reactions. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We have to be aware of one major thing

Well, two major things.

One, the eyes of the world are upon Aurora right now, and people will come here for updates. This is the worst spree shooting in the history of the US. Not the deadliest, but worst in terms of overall injured, with 70 greatly out-pacing other recent mass shootings, like Virginia Tech and Columbine. Only the Bath Schoolhouse Disaster has more casualties, but that was not a shooting.

Two, this is a unique circumstance in the history of US spree shooters in that the suspect is still living. Thus, the police are going to be very stingy with details due to the trial that is certain to come. The chief of the Aurora PD has made it very clear that even if he knew things people want to know, like motive, he wouldn't release them, due to the ongoing investigation. Therefore, we have to be aware that this page is going to remain very empty while the police do their investigation. This is fine. We shouldn't find the need to add more and more info into the article just so it doesn't feel so darn short and lacking important info. I see many people talking about adding frivolous information in just so it can have more substance. This is the wrong way to go about it, as it clouds the article. Let's just let the major facts come out in the case. Go to Aurora's official website and look at their Media Updates page, they've got all the information they've managed to confirm there. But we shouldn't be trying to add stuff just to add it. Don't get edit-happy with stuff. Just form consensus, let the facts come in as they will, and go from there. And from this, we can become the clearinghouse for any information regarding the tragedy. But we've gotta stick to facts. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This article will be handled like all current events Wiki articles, Fbifriday. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Three, NO MOVIE SPOILERS please. Surely we can all agree on that. 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless actually relevant (like if there's some aspect that's being copycatted), fine. Movie spoilers can go in the usual place - the article about the movie. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Tables appropriate?

I don't like the tables listing "victims" by age, sex etc. To me they show no regard for the privacy of the people who were caught up in this event. I propose to remove them. --John (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Articles for Fort Hood shooting, Virginia Tech massacre, and Columbine High School massacre all list the names of the deceased. Each entry in this article was properly sourced. --Cheesemeister (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I cut the injured and support John having cut the rest. This is highly inappropriate. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it inappropriate? We are not here to place our own judgements about things. Wikipedia is not censored. It is not up to us, as neutral editors of articles which display information, to decide - based on privacy concerns - what we should or should not add. Relevant? Yes. Sourced? Yes. Adds depth to article? Yes. There is no reason as to why not to include it. EryZ (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree. It's not like people are digging into people's personal information; the information is in published sources. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dont include victim names, we dont normally list victims unless they are notable (normally indicated by having an article). If people are that interested they can follow the links to reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The above listed pages would seem to disagree with you, as they have victims listed. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I did say it was normal practice but we do have some articles where editors ignore WP:MEMORIAL, for some reason prevalent on American mass-murder articles. I would suggest they are few exceptions to the general trend not to include non-notable victims. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"American mass-murder" article violate the rules by a listing of victims? How about the Brits in Cumbria gunned down by Derrick Bird? How about Dunblane school massacre? How about the Hungerford massacre? Your complaint is rather ill-founded. Edison (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force to see if we can centrally reconfirm the validity of NOMEMORIAL in a case like this. Without getting hung up on whether other similar articles currently do this, what would be the encyclopedic benefit of including this information?--John (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the information should be added wikipedia is not censored and the victims in names and brief info only are covered in many reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Victims' (those who were killed) names need to be included as they are for dozens (hundreds?) of articles of this nature.Rail88 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The victims names should be added. Coverage on wikipedia should be as comprehensive and as unbiased and reliable as any other major media outlet. All major media outlets are releasing the victims' names, one by one. However, the victims are NOT notable enough for their own pages or even for any biographical info. (That includes the sports reporter. Just because she had a large twitter following doesn't mean her life was more important than any of the other victims'. The media is just using her youth and beauty to fluff up its pieces just as they did with Rachel Scott during Columbine.) Writerchic99 (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not a media outlet. Wikinews is that-a-way. --John (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We might not be a media outlet, but I don't see how it is helpful to leave out a huge piece of information like the identities of those who died. It would be like the article on Abraham Lincoln's assassination leaving out who killed him or who was with him at the time; it's basic information. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You argument is self-defeating, as the two examples you give are both notable enough to have their own articles. Unless you are arguing that the people killed in Aurora are also notable, your argument does not make sense. --John (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I support keeping the names, so long as they are properly sourced and stated in reliable sources. Using NOTMEMORIAL here is inappropriate, because that is referring to creating separate articles on non-notable victims. It is saying nothing about including a list of victims in the article about the shooting. Silverseren^C 10:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My point was not that the victims should have their own articles, they should not; my point was that this information is just as important to include in this article. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? --John (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is just as important to know who died as it is to know who the perpetrator is, where it took place, his background, etc. It's a major part of the story. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was actually asking Silver seren, but any cogent reason would do from any proponent of ignoring our usual policy on this article. So far I have not heard one. Think about what you have said, 331dot. Would it be ok for our article on the Holocaust not to include all 6 million names? At present it does not. What about our article on the September 11 attacks? Should we list all 3000 names there? At present we do not. The victims are important, but they are not individually notable. Being killed by a serial killer does not make one notable. I do understand the urge some people are having for us to ignore our own guidance here, but Wikipedia is not the place to create a memorial to the victims. There are undoubtedly other places on the Internet that will fill this role but I do not believe we should, and existing policy supports me. --John (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is for SUBJECTS of article. (and clearly, the focus in this article isn't about the victims...) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, you can include a list of victims with ONLY sex and gender, nothing else. That should balance the privacy vs not censored issue.- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Listing who was killed is not a memorial; it's documentation. We list the Passengers of the RMS Titanic. If we had a list of the six million Holocaust casualties, I don't see why it couldn't be linked to or be on Wikipedia, but that's another discussion. In this case, we don't need anything about their lives or background. I don't think anything other than a name and age should be listed, as the above person says. 331dot (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that listing is not an invasion of privacy. Many of the families have talked to the media about their loved-ones and want them remembered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdi2811 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Where does anybody apply WP:NOTMEMORIAL to this? That is about not creating obituaries for those who have died (or articles on them solely because they have died). This information is documentation on the deaths in this incident and I am unaware of any policies prohibiting this. Absent that, I find the information to be relevant and important to include. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please unlock this page.

Please unlock the page. If it becomes the subject of repeated vandalism, it can be locked again. There are enough people watching the page to ensure that any vandalism will quickly be reverted. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

When administrators semi-protect a page they have a good reason. I can guarantee that they know more about Wikipedia than you do :) Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 10:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What a crass remark. You can guarantee no such thing, with wikilove and little pink baubles. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I somehow don't think the admins would agree to such a request when it's only from an IP address, and not from a user account. Wikkedit (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, only an ip address, so clearly of no consequence. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:IPs are human too. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I would actually request that this page be locked until we have more information. I have already read conflicting accounts in the media that disagree with what is here. Please keep it locked until we know more of what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.116.39 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. You're saying that the article as it stands has problems, and therefore we should limit further contributions to only those editors who brought it to its current state. Personally, I think the article is okay, but I don't see the need to keep it locked. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the lock - if it is removed, the loons will vandalize the page very quickly. Anon IP 87... - why not register? Then, after a few edits that show you are a good citizen, you could edit semi-protected articles yourself. Admins have to watch out for banned persons trying to evade blocks via anonymous logins, so protected pages also serve a purpose in that regard.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The page should only be unlocked if we can guarantee that nobody will post movie spoilers on it. 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Anon 87: I did not say that they know more about Wikipedia than you do because you are an IP, I said it because you made request that had no chance of being realized, a request that you ALREADY MADE just hours before on this very page. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 06:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right: even with semi-protection bad edits get through. Imagine how bad it would be if there were no semi-protection. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 06:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Just make some random account and repeatedly undo your own edits to get enough edits and leave it to become autoconfirmed after some time. Use it only for locked articles. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

7th US mass shooting this year

Aurora is the seventh mass shooting in the US this year, so far: [10] Lisa Pascoe, a criminologist at the University of Denver, has said that it was the fifth mass shooting in Colorado in six years, and was due in part to there being no public drive to revise gun law in the state. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Relevant to a gun-control article, perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 15:51, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, HammerFilmFan, although I think "fifth mass shooting in Colorado in six years" could also belong here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely relevant to this article and should be included. Also, a section about gun control will be added. I count 20 reliable sources on the subject of Aurora, gun control, and assault weapon bans in just in the last 24 hours. The usual NRA reps. will no doubt respond with the expected replies. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be on the verge of going down some sort of soapbox path here (predicting 'usual NRA reps') - please don't use this article as any sort of agenda pro/con. Again, I think the reactions or op-eds along the lines of gun control should be put in those type of articles, not here. The various criminal laws (such as those involving MURDER) made no difference to this individual. HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And, you sir, seem to be assuming bad faith or have failed to understand basic English. There's absolutely no "soapbox path" here; I'm simply observing that the NRA is on this like flies on shit, and we can expect the usual suspects to pull the usual deny, distract, and delay tactic, as I've already witnessed in the above thread. I have neither discussed a reaction nor op/ed's of any kind. Gun control issues are 100% relevant to this topic as the reliable sources demonstrate. To recap, that this is the seventh mass shooting in the U.S. for 2012, and the fifth mass shooting in Colorado in six years is an encyclopedic observation that is completely relevant and on topic. That your POV is interfering with your judgment is understandable, but it is you, sir, who needs to get off the soapbox. The sources are clear on this subject: gun control issues are germane, and an entire section will be added to discuss them. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

OR and SYNTH. Le sigh.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this article, the qualifier "fifth mass shooting in Colorado in six years" ironically explains that it's actually less significant than it might otherwise be. A mass killing such as this would be far more unusual in other countries or even in other US states. This is quite regardless of any concerns or discussion about gun control. Nevertheless, the criminologist quoted had no doubts that lax gun control was a main contributory factor to this tragic event. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Auroragov.org material to add to article

I found a lot of good material on the city's official page for the shooting, which we don't have any refs or links to, so I'm not sure how thoroughly editors have looked at those updates. They're here: [11] There's a ton of good information that can be used to improve the article. E.g., they have more information on his court appearance, weapons, his apartment setup, etc, than we already have...I'm done editing for today, but other editors may want to take a look and update the article as appropriate. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Speculation

The full-body armor suggests that he had possibly planned to have a standoff with police. The timed music blaring from his apartment (and the fact that he left the door unlocked) suggests that he had initially planned for someone to become curious about the music and attempt to enter his apartment, setting off the explosives. The fact that he gave up without a fight and admitted to having a booby-trapped apartment suggests that he changed his mind partway through... Just speculation, though.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.246.238 (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You may very well have a point there—however, this policy doesn't allow us to include mere speculation in Wikipedia, in most cases, and this one prevents us from adding things we've come up with independently, without having them first published somewhere, basically. While it's entirely possible that you're correct, we'll have to wait and see what information comes forward on this, if any, before we can discuss it in the article.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 02:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I know that. That's why I posted it here, on the talk page, while the thought was fresh in my mind instead of being an idiot and attempting to add it to the actual article. I just wanted to put the information out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.246.238 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't wearing body armor, just a load-bearing vest: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31290458/detail.html. The "Blackhawk urban assault vest" mentioned in that article lacks any armor whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.86.140 (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you research 'the joker' as per the last instalment 'Dark Knight", one of the things the 'Joker" does is have an escape plan, for example dressing himself in a manner that means he is not detected. Fox News reported that Police at the scene, found him more out of luck as he blended in with riot gear of our Police members at the scene, and that the two officers who detected him did so due to their close observation skills. Furthermore, with Police reporting that his detonation devices rigged to about the time of the shooting, it could be further supported that like 'The Joker", he planned on there being another crime scene to further take his detection away. Former FBI profiler Candice De Long has stated that this alleged offender wanted to live so that he could 'enjoy' the limelight that his crimes would bring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.213.45 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... But, from what I have heart, they did find him just sort of sitting on the curb outside the theater, next to his vehicle. Maybe he had second thoughts, but who knows? I'm watching footage from the court hearing right now, I'll see if I can gleam any information from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.246.238 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Creating a page for James Holmes

The relevant section is WP:BIO1E The guy is a major player in a notable event; already high profile and likely to remain so. We should have a page on him. The specific guideline is "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Ajoykt (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, there is relatively little known about Holmes. It can be addressed within the incident article, with a redirect from his name page. As investigations continue, and issues such as motive and mental state start to emerge, then there may be a case for a separate article. For now, it would just be a subset of the incident article. WWGB (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta had the opposite discussion, buried in archives now. Even a split did not reach consensus I don't think. As long as redirects get readers to all the info we have does it really matter?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is already a section reguarding this here: Talk:2012 Aurora shooting#James Eagan Holmes article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we can't add info on the guy here because of a lack of relevance (even his parents' names were taken out here). With a separate article that isn't a problem. Articles do start out as stubs; that isn't unusual for WP. What is the case against a separate article? WP:BLP doesn't cut it. Ajoykt (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should avoid forking this and move discussion to the section above.

Unresolved

but moved above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why?

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why did he shoot all those people is the nagging question. Was he dumped by his girlfriend? Did he have a girlfriend? Was he gay? Was he manic depressive? Was he on medications? Was he taking methamphetamines to stay up late studying? Had he been seeing a counselor/psychiatrist? What was his homelife like? What were his economic circumstances? He certainly had thousands of dollars to buy guns and ammo. Why did his schoolwork suddenly take a nosedive? (You just don't become dumb overnight.) This is a rare instance of a shooter being captured alive and I think the WHY of it should be the most prominent feature of this article. We all want to know why guys go on shooting sprees. Is feminism a root cause? We have to examine the socio-political context within which the shooting occurred, and a nation that disenfranchises and denigrates males seems to be a prime ground for males to go on shooting sprees. These shooting massacres are happening quite regularly and they seem to be the exclusive province of males. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:907F:E8E4:23F7:2B4E (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC) This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Moreover, any information pertaining to motive will likely come though official sources; don't expect much during the ongoing investigation. --Cheesemeister (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC) First of all, it's ludicrous to refer to the United States as a "nation that disenfranchises and denigrates males"....in what way? Second of all, he wasn't gay; a number of articles have discussed the profile he put up on Adult FriendFinder, in which he clearly identifies himself as heterosexual (albeit interested in threesomes). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I think the sociological environment in which males find themselves in this country is important, after all, we're seeing an awful lot of these mass shootings, almost all perpetrated by males. So here's some data: 60% of all college students are female, females get more PhD's, M.A.'s and B.A.s than males; boys are six times more likely than girls to have learning difficulties; 3 times more likely to be drug addicts; 4 times more likely to be emotionally disturbed; boys are 12 times more likely to murder someone; boys are 4 to 7 times as likely to commit suicide; boys comprise 95% of those involved in juvenile court; from elementary school through high school boys get lower grades than girls; males comprise 93% of the national prison population, etc., etc. I'm reading a lot of this data from "Bringing Up Boys" by Dr. James Dobson. Dobson talks about male shooting sprees on pg. 34, mentioning that there will be more, considering the data. The boys, says Dobson, when asked why they go on shooting sprees, reply "I don't know". Dr. Michael Gurian in his book "The Wonder of Boys", says that masculine confusion and discontent are especially evident in education. 91% of grade school teachers are female and 75% of teachers K-12 are female. Over 50% of American women don't have husbands and 96% of the time in a divorce the kids go with the mother. Here in California 71% of the criminals come from single mother families. Males are not represented in our society but rather are alienated. --I hope the disenfranchisement and denigration of males in this country is thus suitably outlined for you. The problem of mass shootings is not going to go away until these matters are addressed. He did not shoot these people in a vacuum. There were causative factors in our society that compelled him to shoot others. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:A90A:38CD:A92:DF34 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Again, please see WP:NOTFORUM. There are places to discuss the shooting and what may have caused it; this isn't one of them. This talk page is solely for discussing the article. Robofish (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Motive section

I created one. Although his motive is not known at this point, it is something being written about by reliable sources.[12] I put in a filler sentence saying his motive is not knows, with a reference. That reference actually talks about his adult friend finder thing, but I think I read somewhere on this page that we are frowning on that info. In summary, lots of sources are discussing it, they don't know much about it, it's an inevitable section, and I created it. We can expand it as info comes out, while mentioning a lack of info if it exists. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The source--Wash. Post--does talk of his PhD comprehensive exam. That is a significant event. Of course, it is hard to see how somebody the UC Riverside chancellor himself called at the "top of the top" could have failed the UCD comp. So that is likely more a result than a cause of a downward spiral, but we do need to mention it since our sources mention it. Ajoykt (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing in the lead section

I don't do wiki much anymore, but believe that WP:LEAD says that the lead/lede section should summarize the whole article. I'm attempting to do that, although my writing could use some polish. I was reverted, and it's no big deal, but maybe we should discuss it here? I think the reversion was because they thought I was being redundant, which I was, but that's actually what we want in this case. Could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I take your point. But the article is about the shooting. The body of the article, of course, would have peripheral stuff such as details of the shooter. We don't need to summarize that part in the lede. We will be getting an article on Mr. Holmes soon anyway. Ajoykt (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the article, and is not controlled by the title of the article. If it's in the article, then it's summarized in the lead. That's how the lead works. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

To quote from WP:LEAD : "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." It doesn't summarize the article, but just the most important points. The biography of the shooter isn't one of the important points in this article. Ajoykt (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What is an important point? By definition, an encyclopedic article should only discuss important points. What we have here is a 'pedic article, so the LEAD should summarize it. Reliable sources should determine what we're saying, and I think we'er doing OK on that so far. So, the question is whether any user can decide "this half of the article is important, and should be in the lead, and the other half not so much". If the article is balanced, then a summary of the whole article should also give a balanced view. Not summarizing some part would then not be balanced. Whatev. I don't edit much anymore, so I don't have the time to fight about it to the point of "winning". Just take note as a lead very similar to the one I was trying to add, gets added by others, since it's just the way we do it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. WP:LEAD, which you've repeatedly cited, clearly indicates that "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" (emphasis added). I don't know what's led you to believe otherwise. —David Levy 05:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Names of victims emerge in Aurora, Colo., theater rampage

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-21/colorado-shooting-victim-identities/56389076/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.156.52 (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Obama on the Phone

Why is there a photo of Obama on the phone in this article? How does this add anything to the article. It is indistinguishable from any other photo of someone on the phone, heck he could be talking to anyone at the time. Worse yet, it looks like a publicity photo. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to use a picture of Obama, it might be better to upload this one. It shows him taking action and contains the FBI director. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The questions are "does it add anything?" and "Is this being used for political purposes?" I would say the first is no, it was reported that he talked on the phone, and the image adds no additional information or context. Given it is the political season, I think the second answer may be yes, or at least appears to be. Given the situation, I think it is a little insulting to the victims families to have any appearance that this article is/will be used for political purposes by anyone. Arzel (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed the photo for the reasons above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Insulting to the victims? I think that's a bit of an overreaction, but whatever.Rail88 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the photo as the article is currently rather under-illustrated, and it's relevant. I'm Australian BTW, so it sure wasn't anything political. I've got no problems with the photos removal per this discussion though. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Obama is the President; photographs of his actions responding to this incident are relevant and at least one should be included. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sitting in a car on the phone is not an action. Pictures should be used to add more information, especially when difficult to adequately describe a situation with context. This picture adds no additional information, it is simply a press release for publicity purposes. Arzel (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We could add the picture of Obama talking with FBI director Mueller, as suggested above. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think 331dot cuts to the heart of the matter. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He's responded to a national tragedy through public remarks, meeting federal and local officials, visiting victims, attending the vigil, etc. That's sufficient reason to use one of the photos. We use photos of President in articles about both highly contentious events and unifying events (e.g., mourning a national tragedy). Singling out this President for exclusion from photographic depictions in those so-called "mourner-in-chief" moments is bias. We depict it and the readers can decided whether they think it's genuine compassion or not. The simplest way to address this is precedent and consistency. George W. Bush is depicted in photos for Virginia Tech massacre, Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford, and Hurrican Katrina. The Virginia Tech case is particularly analogous - I think that article and this one should be treated similarly regarding a photo of the President. To me, the only particularly convincing counterargument would be one that demonstrates that some other article(s) without a Bush photo are better analogies to the Aurora article. I lend zero weight to the "political season" argument. We live in an era of perpetual campaigning. And I don't think we should be taking hardline ban on photos during a Presidential election year. We should analogize the situation (like an analysis of the practice in similar articles) and make a decision. --JamesAM (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I removed the photo had nothing to do with politics. The photo of George W Bush in Virginia Tech massacre is much more tightly focused, because it shows him after giving a speech on campus. A similar photo of Barack Obama visiting the victims of the Colorado shooting in hospital etc would also be ideal. The photo of him on the phone in the car was too generic and added no new information to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this one? The White House's photostream is a mixed bag. The photos are undoubtedly free, but they tend to be vaguely promotional.--Chaser (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It does look vaguely promotional. However, if it is free to use, it is a possibility. What do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's better than the picture of him on the telephone. I support using it. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support using it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm against it as an issue of weight, not bias or doubts about his authenticity. We have visual illustrations of nothing in this article but Obama. That is not appropriate. causa sui (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Student says Holmes was not a 'loner' and had friends

"People are using the word 'loner' to describe him, and that's not a fair representation," said a fellow doctoral student at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus who knew Holmes and agreed to be interviewed on condition of anonymity.

"He has friends. He's quiet and keeps a low profile, but we're all like that. We're PhD students. There's not a lot of time to do other stuff," the student said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/22/us-usa-shooting-denver-holmes-idUSBRE86L01220120722

I thought this may be relevant to the Holmes Background section since a neighbor has been quoted about the Holmes family. Maybe an inclusion of the way the media has painted him: a loner, not a loner? Conflicting reports?

Partyclams (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've read some comments that we shouldn't include this info because it's not done by a mental health professional or whatever. I think that's a bit too restrictive. Reading on the article about Seung-Hui Cho, we've got great, illuminative statments from his family, his teachers, his peers. If it's sourced well, I don't see why we can't add similar information here. EryZ (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The statements I was rejecting were oblique first impressions from seminar teachers and fellow students who barely knew him. Lots of people keep to themselves in a professional setting like a medical school classroom. Well-sourced and encyclopedic statements from people who had intimate knowledge of the suspect may be worthwhile. causa sui (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

AdultFriendFinder profile

Should this be included? The media found Holmes's AdultFriendFinder profile and published articles on it.

The Washington Post: "FBI investigating ties between James Holmes and dating site profile"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fbi-investigating-ties-between-james-holmes-and-dating-site-profile/2012/07/21/gJQA6S8w0W_story.html

It's been confirmed as his:

http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/21/james-holmes-colorado-shooting-sex-profile-website/

It's a bit seedy, but this made news outlets, and is reportedly part of the FBI investigation. I see that there's mention in the Holmes section about a variety of online activity found, but no specific mention of the AdultFriendFinder profile page. Again, it seems to be an important piece of the investigation now. Maybe it deserves to be specially pointed out by name?

Note, Wikipedia has a page on AdultFriendFinder.

Partyclams (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this was already in the article previously, and even included a screenshot of Holmes' profile page. It was removed per consensus. You can find the conversations above. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 06:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I skimmed this page, but it's just so long. I should have done a Find first in Google Chrome. Again, thanks for the reply! Partyclams (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone stuck this stuff back in the article! HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be notable by this point. It has been confirmed by AFF itself that it is in fact Holmes' profile (IP address and such). Since there are now large numbers of mainstream sources talking about it, I'm not going to remove it. Of course, it is open for discussion. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 13:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Glock 23

the ".40 caliber Glock" is listed as a Glock 23, with a reference cited showing an ad for a .40 S&W G23. It hasn't been confirmed yet which Glock was used in the shooting, and it could have been the Glock 22, 23, or 27. Please remove it until it is specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.231.176 (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you appear to be right. I will look for other sources on the subject. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 07:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have generalized the sentence in the article until a better source can be presented. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 07:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant to sign the above edit but forgot! Oops! 98.228.231.176 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I read that his AR15 jammed. Apparently he didn't know too much about guns, the AR15 jams because the gas pressure is too strong ever since they changed the gunpowder in the Vietnam War and the extractor claw sheers through the lip of the shell, leaving it in the chamber. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:A90A:38CD:A92:DF34 (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just one reason for jamming. That his jammed is not yet firmly established, let alone the reason for it doing so (e.g., use of a high-capacity 3rd-party magazine, initially described as having a capacity of 90 rounds but now described as having a 100 round capacity [13] rounds). JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Age of suspect in lead section

This was removed, with the edit summary "redundant mentioned in bio". Just because it is mentioned later on does not mean that it should not be mentioned in the lead section. Jared Lee Loughner's age at the time of the shooting (22) is given in the lead of 2011 Tucson shooting, and it would be useful to have it here as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that we are writing an enduring encyclopedia, it would have to be "then 24" or "24 at the time", or give his d.o.b.. But I agree that some type of age marker is helpful to reader's understanding. WWGB (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was somewhat puzzled by your previous revert on this, as Holmes is and will always be 24 years old at the time of his arrest. This has never been an issue at 2011 Tucson shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

better re-protect the article

Already they've stuck the AFF stuff back in and other issues. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I don't see enough nonconstructive IP activity that would justify requesting a semi-protect. If it gets bad enough, we can request one later, but right now I don't think a semi-protect is at all needed. Safiel (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for not adding perpetrator's photo

Just for common sense guys, i drove through the article fast just in case it was there but no. Seeing it would be largely uncomfortable. --99.55.104.165 (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be uncomfortable? United States Man (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. There is no reason for *not* showing the alleged perpetrator's face in the article other than the lack of a suitable image at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it makes users uncomfortable is also not relevant; the goal is to to be encyclopedic. It would be worse if image HAD been held back for that kind of reason, diminishing the quality of the article. As ianmacm points out, we simply do not have an image we can freely use right now. As soon as one is obtained, I'm sure it will be added to the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a good reason for no photo and not much of an article on the creepo. Some unbalanced people go to great lengths just to get attention, if Wikipedia does not cater to that, maybe it will reduce the number of incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.214.66 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you have it all wrong. Wikipedia is not going to change the minds of people like that. There is not a good reason to not have info on the suspect. A good photo has just not been located. United States Man (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting Wikipedia contributes to things like mass shootings? I'm not sure if you're serious, but under that premise, we shouldn't have articles on any murders, bombings, rebellions, or any of the vast number of things that might be imitated. This is an encyclopedia, and we don't pass judgment on whether something is "good" or "evil" when writing about it, but rather present facts as best we can. Besides, attention-seekers get much more of it from the media and other sources than they do from Wikipedia articles. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a perennial debate actually, and not at all novel. There is some significant research into this area and a multitude of opinions from expert psychiatrists that glorifying mass murderers or presenting them as anti-heroes encourages copycats. The last time I saw this debate was on Anders Behring-Breivik. I'm not sure that Wikipedia should necessarily take preventing copycats as a higher goal than encyclopedic completeness (it's easy to be encyclopedic and complete, but hard to know if you're really preventing copycats), but I do think it's a legitimate concern and we should probably take steps to avoid glorifying or popularizing the alleged perpetrator. causa sui (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Time format in infobox

Here's my problem: 00:38 is absolutely not standard American usage, outside of science and the military. Most Americans are confused by 24-hour times in general, since we were generally all brought up with am/pm. I understand reverting it to not mess up the microformat in the CSS, but using start-date addresses that. I don't understand the MOS reversion, however. MOS:TIME says that context determines 12-hour vs 24-hour notation; so for context, WP:STRONGNAT reminds us to use the common date format of the country (which seems appropriate to extend to time.) Finally, MOS:TIES says to use the English of the nation in question, when there are strong ties. So that suggests to me that this should be "12:38 a.m." or whatever, not "00:38." The latter just isn't common American usage, as far as time goes for this type of event. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that many UK English readers would really prefer 00:38 to 12:38 a.m. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

UK English readers aren't the primary concern; it should be accessible to any English speaker, of course, but how the data is presented should be what's standard for US readers, as that's where the event occurred. I see the editor who had reverted it now expanded it and used the 12-hour format (I guess I just hadn't formatted it properly, which is what I was unclear on), so I think all's well now with that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

00:38 is not correct anyway. That means it would have occured at 6:38 pm MDT. Which is several hours before it actually occured. United States Man (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh, 00:38 = 12:38 am, and if you don't specify a time zone, it's likely to be local time. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It was specified as UTC-6 before as well, though it's trivial in any case...so it was correct, just not in a normal American English format. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, UTC-6 means that Coordinated Universal Time resets at 6:00 pm in this region. On standard time it is UTC-7, which means the reset is 5:00 pm. 00:38 = 6:38 pm in the UTC-6 offset. So, someone please explain to me why you think that 00:38 = 12:38 am. United States Man (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The time zone was given as the correct offset of UTC-6 for MDT. MST is UTC-7 as you note. (The term "reset" isn't quite accurate here either, even if the clock "resets" to the next day, since it just confuses the point.) The time was stated as 00:38 (UTC-6), or in other words, 12:38AM MDT. Nobody was suggesting that we state the UTC time anywhere; that would be silly. There are UTC "microformats" generated with certain time templates, but that UTC time isn't shown in a browser (and is correct anyways, so that would've shown 0638 UTC.) It was correct, just not worded in the commonly-used American notation. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Image revisited

Would the image on this page be eligible for fair use? It specifically shows his orange hair which was used to create the "joker persona". It may be that there is no free equivalent to that image. At the same time, it might be necessary to ensure that the same look is not maintained tomorrow and throughout any trials. Ryan Vesey Review me!

To avoid the long running arguments over WP:NFCC#1 that occurred at Jared Lee Loughner, we will probably have to wait for a suitable free image. There is a presumption that a free image can usually be found of a living person.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct; however, I believe if subsequent images of him appeared without red hair, the red haired images would satisfy the criteria. This is because they would be the subject of descriptions of his appearance at the time. It is certainly too early now because we don't know his current hair color. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that rationale, I think, is that the picture is from AdultFriendFinder and not connected to the incident. It's a picture of him with red hair, and not necessarily indicative of how he looked at the time of the rampage, despite the similarity in reported hair color. So I don't think it's a valid image source in any case. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably under some sort of copyright anyway.

Rampage killing

Independent of the earlier discussion of the WP:BLP issue, the use of the term "rampage killing" in the Victims section appears imprecise and perhaps inaccurate. If you click on rampage killing you'll see that it is a redirect to the"Spree killer" article, where it says "spree killing" is a legal term of art that 'U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics defines as "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders"'; that doesn't apply. The current version of the article notes—without citation—that "another term, rampage killer, has sometimes been used to describe spree killers, but it does not differentiate between mass murderers and spree killers." A rampage killing is not listed in the {{homicide}} template either. There's a psychiatric term of art—Running amok—which might be applicable.

Like any editor I enjoy contributing to lists, but the definition of rampage killing at List of rampage killers is unreferenced. For the time being, it should simply be called a mass murder. 67.100.127.233 (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncertain about claim that James Holmes used a "100-round drum magazine".

Thought the investigation did conclude that the 100-round drum magazine was found on the scene, it was never concluded with facts that it was used during the shooting. Linked is a picture of the crime scene and the AR-15 rifle. The magazine attached to the rifle is obviously not a 100-round drum but simply a "typical" 30 round magazine.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/20/article-2176377-14264342000005DC-51_306x423.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.68.248 (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interviews with LEO's, experts, by Diane Sawyer said he used such clips in the attack on ABC News.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested addition to Reactions section

Talk show host Craig Ferguson pulled part of his prerecorded talk show on the Friday night, replacing his monologue with a serious discussion of the day's events. I feel that should be mentioned here because it's the first time a major US chat show host has done this since the network talk shows returned to the air after 9/11. I believe it is discussed in news media, but the opening itself has been posted to YouTube here for purposes of verification. The Wikipedia article for The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson already mentions the episode. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. There's nothing about Ferguson that renders him any sort of expert on crime, etc., and his monologues over the years show his political leanings quite clearly - this would violate NPOV for the article. Many such shows and news organizations have had 'round table' discussions on this incident and we're not quoting them, either. Btw, he's a comedian, and his show is not a "chat" show. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Also disagree. What one talk show host, or any talk show, does is not notable. Talking about things is what they do. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple observations

I don't know if the Adultfriendfinder information should be in the article or not, but I think its omission conflicts with the continuing statement that few "digital footprints" were found. Is there a reason it is excluded? Also, I suggest that the "Happy Editing" signature of one of the editors might be out of place in discussion of this article, at least while the story is hot? It might be a good idea to change it to something more professional for a while.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it appropriate for us to allow a tragedy to make the entire world gloomy. The best way to honor the dead is to live a happy life. We cannot just forget a tragedy occurred, very true. But it is not like I am cracking jokes or making fart noises. I am simply wishing other editors success in their editing. Most people edit Wikipedia because they are passionate about it, not because they want to make the place run like a law firm Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Vicodin

(moved from user talk page)

The major news talk shows discussed Holmes use of Vicodin-in fact the Dianne Sawyer interview with various talking heads is on YouTube already-apparently this is why he was so 'calm' at the scene during his arrest. I re-added the statement using an ABC news story. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who in the media has been hoodwinked by that claim, the fact remains that no such dose of Vicodin (hydrocodone/acetaminophen) exists.   — C M B J   14:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they are saying that - I read it as it is the amount he took, not the dosage of a pill - also, it is very possible this is an estimate - but it is Reliably Sourced, and Wiki is not about Truth but ... well, you know the routine. I would welcome the most accurate news story that you can find and cite on the issue to be added to the article. The Vicodin use has been reported by Fox, ABC, CNN ... etc.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no; the claim hasn't yet been independently reported by any agency other than KMGH-TV and even they concede in an updated article that the claim is of mixed veracity. Again, we have no business portraying a demonstrably false assertion as fact, so I'm moving this discussion over to the article's discussion page.   — C M B J   15:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw it talked about with Dianne Sawyer on ABCNEWS - the interview is online - and also CNN. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuing here, it is imperative that we either immediately clarify this claim as pharmacologically erroneous or else ensure its continued eradication until further information is available.   — C M B J   15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Having no real opinion on this, I weaseled it until it's decided. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Broken reference

The reference titled "cbs 2012-07-22 swat armor" is broken. Could someone look into fixing it? Chris857 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The named, but otherwise empty, reference, was added in this edit. I've removed the reference, just to get rid of the glaring error in the ref list. If someone else feels that the rest of the added text needs to be removed for the lack of that reference, or is able to supply a reference, more power to them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

70 casualties

There's a little bit of back&forth via IPs over the number of casualties. 70 vs 12. And I think that the core of the issue is over the definition of the word "casualties" itself. A glance at the linked page shows that, while in strict military usage one does not need to die to be a casualty, in everyday civilian usage it generally means death. So both numbers are correct, depending on which usage of the word is implied. I think that the sentence wants to imply dead and wounded, but that conflicts a bit with the more common definition of the word. The best solution, IMHO, would be to replace "casualties" with different word that better covers the intended meaning of the sentence. But I'm not coming up with a good replacement word off the top of my head. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

While I wrote the above, one of the IPs rewrote the section, so the above may very well be moot. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fatality means death, casualties mean both. 58 injuries plus 12 deaths equals 70 casualties. United States Man (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary says "Casualty: A person suffering from injuries or who has been killed due to an accident or through an act of violence." - so I agree that it's correct to say "casualty" when referring to injured people as well as the dead.

However, usage of language that is technically correct, but likely to be misunderstood by a significant fraction of our readership, should be avoided where we can easily do so. In this case, it's just easier to separate out the numbers of dead and wounded so it's all very explicit. I think we should avoid using the word "casualty" in this context. SteveBaker (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SteveBaker. If we can avoid potential confusion over the wording, we should. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree, I used to get fatalites and casualties mixed up myself. United States Man (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

merge template

I moved the merge template to 'Suspect' section. User:Br'er Rabbit reverted the change without explanation, as though it was vandalism. So I asked about this at User talk:Br'er Rabbit and was told that I 'moved the merge template to the wrong spot.' How is that the wrong spot? The template is meant to go either at the top of the page or the top of the relevant section when there is one. That's why it says 'It has been suggested that James Eagan Holmes be merged into this article or section.' I moved it to the section about James Eagan Holmes. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked the above in my reply at User talk:Br'er Rabbit. Br'er Rabbit hasn't responded, despite editing another page 10 minutes ago. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The template states that it may be merged into the article, not the section. United States Man (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Copypasted from the template: It has been suggested that James Eagan Holmes be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since July 2012. I see "section" there too. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was quoting what I thought it said. Didn't realize it said section also. Anyway, a merge or deletion template is always placed at the top. United States Man (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this template at the tops of specific sections when they exist. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger

"add the appropriate merger template to the very top of the destination page"

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Then why does the template say 'or section'? I've seen it used that way. It seems that the documentation doesn't fully reflect actual usage and needs to be revised.

And please, if you believe that someone made a mistake or messed something up, say that when undoing it. Don't treat people trying to improve the article as vandals unworthy of an explanation. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I just went to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Merge from and loaded the first page listed, Anatolia. The template appears at the top of a specific section. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you would look at more articles from that page you would see that most of the templates are at the top of the page. You are fighting a losing battle, the template belongs at the top. There is not really much more to discuss. United States Man (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rather than a losing battle, I think that it's the wrong battle. The correct one is probably on the template itself, to remove "section" from it. The root of this is probably that it used to be okay to put it in a section, but consensus has changed on that without the template wording having changed to meet it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence of a shift in consensus. It's the documentation that was wrong (because its authors, myself included, accidentally omitted a significant detail). —David Levy 19:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

On what do you base the claim that "the template belongs at the top"? Its longstanding wording and usage indicate otherwise.

In most cases, the tag is placed at the top of the article, as there often isn't a specific section into which the other article's content would be merged. In other cases (particularly those involving subtopics), there is a specific section, so the tag goes there.

Our informational pages are descriptive (not prescriptive), so if one doesn't accurately describe our actual practices, it gets changed. I've edited Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger (which I helped to write, while evidently overlooking a significant detail) accordingly. —David Levy 19:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new section relating to aftermath and implications for theater security and emergency response

I believe there is a need for something like this. If you look at all of the other articles of similar events, there is such a section. It seems to also be a trending discussion, in the public at large, as well. I had originally suggested something similar to this, and it was welcome as long as there is good source material to support it, of course; so I was wondering if the community here has come across anything like this yet? Also, what is the community's general thoughts on such a new section? --chris.rider81 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I support in principle and oppose for now. It's something that needs to happen, but I don't think enough has been done/said on that aspect to create such a section. So...not yet. In a week, sure. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jorgath; it's too soon right now. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Victim names

More back and forth over the course of the day. Do we include the names of the fatalities or not? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but it's not good to see the names coming and going. So let's start a discussion to try to get a consensus on the issue one way or the other. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion should continue at Talk:2012 Aurora shooting#Tables appropriate?. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I scanned the talk section headers, but missed that section because the header really does not reflect the discussion topic. Shrug. Oh well. Thanks. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Accomplice

Why is there no mention of a possible accomplice. This witness claims: emergency door was opened by person in audience in response to a mobile phone call. http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/252995/396/Witness-Someone-let-gunman-inside-Colorado-movie-theater- Another witness claims smoke grenades came from two directions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoPqz4bQqJY The guy's costume and weapons would have raised alarm if he bought a ticket and entered with machine gun and smoke grenades! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that small amount of speculation is easily countered by the wide amount of information stating he acted alone. If you can prove that these ideas were widely reported, we might be able to remark on the speculation, otherwise it is a fringe theory. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The reason why is because all reliable sources except that WKYC article say the gunman acted alone. The Youtube video is not a RS. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WKYC doesn't necessarily say he didn't act alone either. They were just looking for a new story. All reliable sources except a random man being interviewed and someone on a YouTube video say he was acting alone. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Your second reference is not reliable. Regarding the first, more than one reliable source has stated that the gunman was the one who exited the theater, then returned dressed in his kit and with weapons. Most importantly, no reliable source has postulated an accomplice, whilst numerous have quoted law enforcement as saying that he had no accomplice. When sufficient WP:RS say differently, then the article can be changed accordingly. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

External Image

I'm concerned by {{external image}} in the article. The source cannot be identified and there is no way to make sure we are not linking to copyrighted information. If we can link to a new source, we could use this. Otherwise I believe it needs to be removed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is the Arapahoe County Sheriff via Reuters. Linking to copyright images is not forbidden, only uploading them to Wikicommons is. — O'Dea (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, I miswrote that. Linking to copyright violations is forbidden. The link must be changed to one in which it can be determined that it is not a copyright violation. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cite policy on that, please. — O'Dea (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

See the documentation for the template. Which states "According to WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK, editors must never link to content that violates copyright or is otherwise illegal" (emphasis in the original). Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the link in the James Eagan Holmes article. I have removed it in this one as I feel it is not necessary. If someone else feels that the external picture box should be included, they can add {{externalimage|image1=[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57478190-504083/james-holmes-mug-shot-released/ James Holmes police photograph]}} to the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The policy allows fair use. — O'Dea (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as fair use when linking to a copyright violation. I have modified the link to one that is certainly not a copyright violation. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Post a link proving a copyright violation has occurred instead of assuming it. In the meantime, I have posted a link to the original article I found the image in. — O'Dea (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Date of Obama picture

Since we have a huge case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I am starting discussion. WP:STRONGNAT clearly states that dates of articles written in American English should be in the US style, i.e. Month Day, Year. This article clearly has strong national ties. There is no "wikiformat" for dates. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You have mis-cited WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which says, "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it." No community consensus has been reached on our dispute because you have only just started this discussion. Yours is a manipualtive and self-serving claim. Please respect Wikipedia's policies and don't abuse them. — O'Dea (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To expand on this, the US date format is clearly in the table of accepted styles. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not imply I said otherwise when I did not. — O'Dea (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WPDATE allows a variety of style usages and I would appreciate it if you did not attempt to impose your style choice on me. Dates are written in various ways by people in the US, including me, and I do not appreciate being dictated to when the style manual allows a particular format of date. — O'Dea (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:DATERET. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially to keep consistent with the rest of the dates in the article, it should be MM D, YYY. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

O'Dea just reverted again (including the misplaced full stop that I noted in my edit summary), claiming that I "have violated 3R without getting consensus on this" (an odd claim, particularly given the fact that this was O'Dea's fourth reversion in less an hour).
X96lee15 reverted back. If O'Dea reverts again, it will be for the fifth time. —David Levy 23:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

do we need a photo of Obama in this article?

I'm against a photo of any national politician in the article - especially that one, as it is clearly a photo-op issued via the White House - this is an election year, and let's all be grown-up and remember what these guys do. We have a short statement about both Obama and Romney in the article, and I think that is enough. Let's keep the article NPOV and as apolitical as possible.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I really dont see any issue with the picture, Obama made a reaction and was the one who visited the victims as shown in the picture. If this was no tan election year would you feel the same way? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would - the mayor, the governor, etc., are appropriate, though.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your arbitrary personal rules are not Wikipedia policy. — O'Dea (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is hardly arbitrary.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The President is the senior public servant and his reponse is notable. Wikipedia cannot bend its picture inclusion policy every four years. The illustration is not electioneering and there are pictures throughout Wikipedia of presidents at disasters such as the attack of the World Trade Center by the Saudi Arabians, and after various serious domestic storms. — O'Dea (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a POV - to me, it is DEFINITELY electioneering!HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not electioneering. Presidents attend the aftermaths of many disasters and Obama would certainly have gone to Colorado in a non-election year, given the gravity of the event. — O'Dea (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. We have statements of what he did. Why the need to reinforce it with a photo? I'd much rather see victims with their caretakers than some politician. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You cannot disagree with facts, only with opinion. Wikipedia does not prefer pictues of caretakers over senior political figures. — O'Dea (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your statements are Wikipedia:I just don't like it, Obama is not promoting anything (He took a break from his campaign to fly to Colorado) in the picture its simple reaction to the event at hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, trying to keep the article apolitical. And I hope you really don't think he's "stopped campaigning" - please. That was issued as a photo-op. The president hugging a victim/family member, with a huge smile. Sell bridges, do ya?  :-) 23:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Obamas hug everyone all the time, even in non-election years. You're being absurd. — O'Dea (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not in the position to decide his purpose. We cannot say if it was for promotional or not. He went to Aurora and that is significant. The picture is used to illustrate that and it should stay. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, how about a pic of him entering the hospital, or leaving the plane, or some such? This photo is .... sentimental, perhaps that's a neutral way to put it? It's sending a message to the electorate. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sentimental? We don't have a picture of him leaving his plane and anyway it would be irrelevant. — O'Dea (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Badly phrased by me, arriving at the Denver airport, to visit the victims, was what I meant.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a picture of Obama in the 2011 Joplin tornado article, and pictures of his predecessor Bush at September 11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and May 2007 tornado outbreak. There is even an entire category of 46 pictures of George Bush attanding disasters at Category:George W. Bush at scenes of disaster. Do you propose we remove all pictures of presidents from Wikipedia, or only once every four years? — O'Dea (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you object to a less body-contact, non-White House issued pic for his visit? I don't have one, but just asking. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the inclusion of the photo and indeed the text which now excludes Mitt Romney's response whilst going out of its way to focus on Obamas involvement all demonstrates a bias. However that is not a flaw with this wikipedia article, it is more a flaw of presidential systems whereby there is a political head of state who has no equal opponent, for example in a parliamentary system there tends to be a Leader of the Opposition position which would mean both "political sides" could be mentioned in something like this, rather than the exclusion of even a single sentence of Romney responding. We have very limited potential images for this article, so despite concerns about the bias, id oppose the removal of that image which is notable, and importantly free to use. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)