Talk:James Holmes (mass murderer)

READ THIS FIRST

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, 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.

Top of the top

Per the site below, at UCR, highest honors is reserved for the top 2% and typically seems to be a GPA of 3.91 (not exact for Holmes's specific year, but should be close): http://chassstudentaffairs.ucr.edu/graduation/

So the UCR chancellor wasn't calling Holmes "top of the top" because he was just an honors student. The top 2% does deserve the phrase he used. Ajoykt (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

From the transcript:

{Are you aware of any kind of accomplishments he had?} He was an honors student. So academically he was at the top of the top. He really distinguished himself from an academic point of view during his four years with us. He graduated with highest honors.

In context, the chancellor was being further asked about the suspect's accomplishments. But what honors these were were vague, and he says that he was an honors student...and SO he was at the top of the top, being an honors student. It seems more like a blanket statement. If he was some well-known top student, why wouldn't that have been mentioned earlier? I don't think the chancellor's response should be included at all, anyways. Just trying to make it accurate and in context. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You are omitting the chancellor's last sentence: He graduated with *highest* honors (emphasis mine). See my post above. Ajoykt (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not our place to judge that being in the top 2% makes him the "top of the top" either, or to assume that the chancellor meant that; nor is it our place to say the top 2% of students "deserve" to be called that. The chancellor said he was an honors student, so was considered top of the top. Perhaps just mention that he graduated with highest honors, making him in the top 2% of students? (For what it's worth, I certainly wouldn't consider the top 2% to be the "top of the top" of anything. But again, you're drawing conclusions that shouldn't be drawn, especially editing a BLP article. I'm only being as pedantic as I have been because anything related to the suspect *is* a BLP issue. So I like to err on the side of caution when it's unclear what was said or meant.)

As for later mentioning that he graduated with highest honors: why does that mean anything, other than that maybe the article should note that he graduated with highest honors? You can't do things like say "oh, well that makes him in the top 2%, so that means he was indeed the top of the top." WP:NOR – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

But you are the one who drew the inference that when the chancellor said "top of the top" what he meant was the guy was an honors student. I agree we shouldn't try to infer the chancellor's mind; hence we just quote him. You wanted to "determine" context; if we take that path, then we need to look at all of the context, including the last sentence. I didn't say he was in the top 2% in the article, but the talk page rules are a bit less strict.Ajoykt (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I just want to remind you that this article is not owned by you or anyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is unwarranted. Intense, civil, debate is very much the way of Wikipedia. Ajoykt (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the kicker for me is his use of the word "so." He said "He was an honors student. So, ..." (in the context of having noted that he was a honors student, and continuing on to note that, so, etc.) It wasn't made as a sole statement. The transcript is also just a transcript, though I'll admit I haven't listened to the audio. I don't know if it's needed, since the so makes it clear that he was making a general comment on what makes a "top of the top" student, not that he necessarily considered Holmes as such himself, or even knew him. Quoting it without that context even suggests the chancellor was personally aware of him, which doesn't seem to be supported from other comments. So again, considering the compounding "so" is *not* drawing an incorrect inference, it's putting together the connection the chancellor made via his own language. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my edit. I am just anal about removing statements in BLP until consensus or a neutral statement is agreed to during discussion. I didn't realize consensus had been reached.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspect status

If he already confessed, and there have been substantial and numerous evidence against him; How is his status in this article (and actually, in most of the media) a suspect? Doesn't suspicion ends and certainty begins when there is evidence and a confession? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.215.1.7 (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty pretty much covers this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To be sure - presumed innocent until proven guilty, thoughEugene-elgato (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, to the OP, actually, he hasn't confessed, and Wikipedia is not a court of law. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the presumption of innocence being applied to everyone ... but isn't James Holmes's guilt a matter of established fact? It's un-deniable, now. Does the universe really require the US judicial system to determine whether or not someone is "proven guilty"? So while I whole-heartedly agree with innocent-until-proven-guilty, I don't see what more proof is required. 99.102.86.77 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on the prosecution so until he is convicted then he is only a suspect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.233.215 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding this article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Some blogs are reporting the suspect as Jewish. He is actually a Christian, an attends a Presbyterian Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.74.86 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

MERGE PAGE WITH AURORA INCIDENT

During the past week many other incidents happened in the world that lead to the death of innocent people and I don’t see a pages in Wikipedia for the heroes that tried to prevent them. So this page for a murder has no sense to me and contributes to nothing he does not deserve it and should not have a page of his own. Please merge with the Aurora tragic event.

--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Who does and does not deserve it does not matter on Wikipedia. This is an Encyclopedia and it will have information about people like this whether you like it or not. You say something about heroes not having pages, well if they received lots of attention like James Holmes did then they would have their own article. United States Man (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA NOT A NEWSPAPER

You are right this is an Encyclopedia to search information about notable people, is not a newspaper where you read articles about people involved in an event that gives them some attention for a short period of time. I can cite many names of people who had the media attention for a a while that do not have the merrit to have a page in Wikipedia. I insist that he should not have a page, but be mention in the tragic event. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum is a good example of this phenomenon. 99.102.86.77 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge

Further information: Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § James Eagan Holmes‎, Project:Biographies of living persons § Subjects notable only for one event, Project:Notability (people) § People notable for only one event, Talk:2012 Aurora shooting § Creating a page for James Holmes, and Talk:2012 Aurora shooting § James Eagan Holmes article

Why does this need a separate article from the massacre article? FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge per WP:ONEEVENT.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge per WP:ONEEVENT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - merge per WP:ONEEVENT.--Louiedog (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• strong support merge Very little bio information about him is known at this point. WP:BLP1E Gaijin42 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Mass murderers inevitably end up with their own article. Just swallow it now and save everyone a waste of time with a merge now and then a breakout later. WWGB (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - while it could be argued that the only reason this alleged psycho is notable now is because of this one act (or set of acts on July 19-20), and he's simply part of the subject of the shooting, and not notable otherwise, let's face it...every mass murderer gets his own article anyway at some point, so why not now? At this point it could go either way, but if one is honest, it won't be an "either way it can go" type situation forever. The Columbine murderers have their own separate stand-alone articles. This loser Holmes is really no different, and in a way more notable. Since he single-handedly perpetrated chaos on a scale surpassing anything else (At least 70 casualties in one day, not to mention that booby trap nightmare at his apartment.) So no merging. He seems to be unfortunately stand-alone enough. And if not now, very soon will be anyway. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WWGB; this article is inevitable. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the content is left at the shooting article, then soon enough it will overload that article and be forked out, if only so that that article is not all about him. As WWGB and Rabbit have said above, this seems to be inevitable. I agree that it's a waste to delete it now, if it is just going to need to be recreated in the near future anyway. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose He's a high profile killer like Ted Bundy. Theres too many details on the shooting and the article will be overloaded. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Holmes has already sparked a large amount of interest in him as a person, and has also perpetrated a highly noted event. As most have noted above, he will probably end up with his own page in the future, regardless of this merge decision. Maslogical (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge: Br'er Rabbit and others in this section should be ashamed of themselves for sacrificing core editing principles in the name of convenience. What's worse is that these editors have not only resigned themselves to believing that this article will exist, they're actively standing in the way of a merge by opposing here. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to read Wikipedia:Etiquette. WWGB (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's amusing that you can't simply say that you found my comment to be impolite, but instead choose to cite a specific Wikipedia guideline. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually someone needs to read Ryan's good comment right below, to show clearly that "core editing principles" in fact are NOT being "sacrificed" for "convenience". It's stated that high profile individuals (Holmes definitely is) in a high profile case (this shooting in Colorado definitely is) would meet the WP policy and principles for a stand-alone person, subject, and article. So to put it frankly, MZMcBride is wrong, and ought to be ashamed of himself for being rude A), and B) not understanding or knowing some actual WP editing principles. The Columbine shooters have their own articles. Should those articles be "merged" into the Columbine shooting article? Can someone say "snowball"? High-profile persons with their high-profile actions. It's that simple. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I read his comment. Have you read the article? Can you explain which part of the sum of human knowledge would be lost by cutting the absolute cruft that's currently trying to sustain this biography?

For what it's worth, I don't take issue with people who disagree with me regarding whether to keep this article. I have more stringent standards than others and I've lost many battles similar to this before. I do take issue with people opposing a merge simply because they view the result as inevitable, though. This kind of makeshift pseudo-self-fulfilling prophecy bullshit really ought not be allowed in discussions here. People should comment and vote based on what they actually feel should happen to the article. This is about sacrificing personal principles for the purpose of making shoddy predictions about what might happen to the article. No thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

no worries, we know each other ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose BLP1E specifically excludes low-profile individuals who receive significant coverage for one event from having an article. Then we must decide if he is a high- or low-profile individual. In this case, I am looking at Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual#Behavior pattern and activity level. The description of a low-profile individual refers to those who are "notable only for a minor role in one major event, or for a recurring major role in a series of minor events". In this case, Holmes is notable for a major role in a major event, which would make him a high-profile individual. This causes him to be excluded from BLP1E in the same matter as McVeigh and Loughner. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I can only repeat that all the relevant arguments in this regard have been exchanged in the not so distant past here, here, here and here. As you can see, the result was always to keep the article. I really wonder how often consensus has to be reached in this matter, before it is finally accepted. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC))
• Oppose add to the above, as noted, these guys, who also have their own article. Time to quit arguing about this. Montanabw^(talk) 15:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Cho has his own article, Eric and Dylan have their own article, James Holmes will too have his own article. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The guideline strictly says that as more info comes up, a separate right will be appropriate. Let's just save ourselves the hassle in the future. I'm sure Holmes' article will be ready in the near future (although I think it's perfectly fine right now). Besides, merging it may mean removing important details of Holmes' involvement and overall personality. ComputerJA (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although I'm tempted to support, I must concede to Ryan Vesey's reasoning. That said, I wish to note strong concerns that this article MUST remain in compliance with WP:BLPCRIME at all times. Until such time as he pleads guilty or is convicted, we must not refer to him as guilty. Period. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was tempted to support but had to concede to my own reasoning as well. In fact, I argued for deletion of another page on Holmes. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The contents have to comply with WP:BLP whether they are in a separate article or in a subsection. A separate article for Holmes will have to be created anyway--he is a major actor in a major event (one-time-event notability): see the WP:BLP1E exception. As things stand, there is enough content here for a start-level article, and clearly we will have more down the road. If we merge, we will end up sacrificing some relevant information and just overload the other article. The argument notoriety doesn't deserve coverage in an encyclopedia doesn't work (for one thing that isn't WP policy, for another we could very well learn from these incidents and people perhaps what not to be). Ajoykt (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ryan Vesey, but other opposes need to steer clear of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Giants27(T|C) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Someone this newsworthy will have a biographical article. Not sure why there's even an argument. (...even after reading the foregoing.) Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at articles Bruno Richard Hauptmann and the Lindbergh kidnapping. Would Hauptmann have his own article if he hadn't perpetrated the kidnapping? No. Some Wikipedia readers are interested in the criminal, some in the crime. The respective articles are very different. Valerius Tygart (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Merge Why does he need a separate article for being a major player? Other instances, ie Raul Moat, just give information on the article regarding the crime 92.14.250.79 (talk) 2012-07-23 16:45:39
• Oppose merge. They need separate articles. An article on the perpetrator provides readers with significant insight and more information. The information from the Aurora article should only concentrate on the event. Cho-Seung Hui (Virginia Tech Massacre perpetrator) and Jared Loughner (Gabby Giffords shooter) both have their own pages. I think that makes ore sense.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRuner24 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: While I get that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", even a two year old can see this will have a lasting impact, be a subject of study for various fields of criminology and psychology, and really be not much less impactful than Jared Lee Loughner, Eric Harris, and even older examples like Charles Whitman. Sarysa (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose James Eagan Holmes passes the WP:GNG which pretty much has a say over the others while WP:BLP1E is more of a guideline. Under BLP1E it says "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." The suspect here is not a low profile individual and has been in a ton of reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ah, WP:GNG is a guideline. It says so in its name. WP:BLP1E is part of WP:BLP, which is a policy. That said, your argument based on what WP:BLP1E says is a good one. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.231.19 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The columbine shooters have their own article. Why not Holmes?--Mark0528 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm generally not a big fan of these kinds of articles, but as others have correctly pointed out, the crime is so high-profile that having a separate bio article is correct and inevitable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's a lot of precedent for having separate articles, and practically speaking the event article is going to get overloaded. Mystere (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the time being. I understand the arguments on both sides, but feel that Holmes satisfies the criterion for his own article. However, I also expect more information to come out that, to reference an good comment from earlier, would allow us a richer perspective on his motives in this one event. If said information never arrives, and this article remains just a general bio with a brief synopsis of the shooting, at that point I would vote to merge. - Drlight11 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Many other shooters have their own articles, so how come this one shouldn't? Also, what if a reader wanted to look up more information about the background of the shooter? In that situation, a separate article, such as this one, could turn out to be really quite useful. SuperHero2111 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge -- Holmes only claim to fame or rather infamy is this event. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If this is the only argument the merge supporters have (and I haven't seen any other) there is no case at all here. WP:BIO1E explicitly says: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Both conditions are obviously met here. In general, WP:MERGE lists 4 criteria for a merge--duplication, overlap, text (insufficient), and context--of which only text seems to apply here. But to quote: "Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, . . ." This also doesn't hold here. Ajoykt (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians have incredible difficulty with editorial judgment. There's enough information to write a biography about any individual. The question is whether a separate article makes sense here. The answer is no. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

On what basis? Insufficient text? Ajoykt (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

On the basis of proportionate coverage. The event (the shooting) is certainly notable. Inside the event's article, you'd obviously discuss the suspect and provide a few paragraphs' worth of background about him. However, as a standalone biography, there's nothing of substance beyond this individual's involvement in this shooting. Can you write a full biography (i.e., is it possible to)? Yes, of course you can, that was my point. You can write a full biography about anyone. Does that mean that including such a biography here is appropriate? No. This individual is notable for one particular event. I don't see what value it provides to anyone to create and maintain a biography on the individual when there's an article on the reason anyone is discussing him. Do we really care that "in the summer of 2008, Holmes worked as a counselor at a residential summer camp in Glendale, California, that catered to needy children aged 7–14." Of course not. However, Wikipedians have difficulty with editorial judgment, as I said. The ability to provide in-depth coverage about a subject very often overshadows the more important question of whether a subject needs such in-depth coverage. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The "of course not" is your opinion; clearly others think differently. It isn't a question of what we care about. The idea of an encyclopedia is to assemble relevant facts others can use for their purposes. Obviously the issue of articles on a mass shooter has been discussed before on WP, and the WP:BIO1E "separate article is generally appropriate" policy guideline is the consensus answer from those discussions. If you oppose that you should bring up your objections on the policy talk pages first. But as long as that is the policy, a separate article is appropriate, and even recommended. Ajoykt (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What a particular Wikipedia guideline or policy says isn't directly relevant. Both you and I are capable of assessing this article as it is and as it relates to the underlying notable event. I've commented that I don't support a separate article and I've laid out my reasoning why. You and others are hell-bent on having a separate biography. Oh well. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Support If he's presumed innocent - and he is - then why is he notable?198.161.2.241 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Merge per WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. Subject unmistakeably satisfies GNG, of that there is no doubt. In addition, BLP1E, which has been cited by almost all the editors of the opposite opinion, clearly points to the inclusion of a separate article for this subject. The subject is clearly high profile, which requires that we interpret BLP1E in support of a separate article. WP:BIO1E clearly points in to maintaining the separate article for the same reason as BLP1E. Safiel (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Sorry, but since when is being accused of a notable crime "playing a significant role"? This is ridiculous. --IShadowed 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Support merge. Individual not infamous outside of this one event. No reason for a separate article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Support merge. He has done nothing significant outside of this event and does not deserve his own page. I say delete his page altogether until he is convicted and we can add him to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentond (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose High profile historically important, no less than the Unibomber and other high profile killers. This singular event is the worst mass shooting in American history. 9/11 was also a singular event yet every single hijacker has his own wikip article. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongest support possible for merge per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:CRIME. Yes, the individual definitely passes the notability criteria and should therefore be included on Wikipedia, but the question here is where. WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT explicitly cover this (A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person). As the individual in question is only notable for the 2012 Aurora shooting, any information on him should be added to that article. A great example of a similar criminal case is with Casey Anthony, the accused perpetrator and mother of murder victim Caylee Anthony (also note that Mr. Holmes is currently only accused, not convicted). Casey's background information/media criticism/etc is all included in Death of Caylee Anthony, not in a separate article on Casey herself (one additional article exists on the timeline of the court proceedings). This needs to be the case for James Eagan Holmes as well. Issues with the oppose rationales here;

1. From WP:BLP1E arguments; "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Sorry, but since when is being accused of a notable crime "playing a significant role"? This is ridiculous.
2. Mr. Holmes is not in the same boat as individuals such as Ted Bundy, who was involved in and convicted of multiple cases of rape and murder (which is why Bundy qualifies for a standalone article, in addition to coverage from court proceedings). Mr. Holmes is only notable for one incident of crime, regardless of the number of victims.
3. See also WP:BALL. It's irrelevant whether or not an article may or may not exist in the future--until the individual qualifies for a standalone article, they should not have one. That simple.
4. "The Aurora shooting article will be too long if we include him in it" is just plain ridiculous and not a valid oppose rationale at all. --IShadowed 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Expanding on my earlier argument, the event and the person's role in it are meant to be considered in BLP1E. While the Casey Anthony case received wide coverage, it's significance was far less than this event is. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, he and Ms. Anthony are currently in the same role -- accused. --IShadowed 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To expand on Ryan's post, specifically WP:BIO1E within WP:BLP1E. No, what Casey Anthony was charged with was a not a notably notorious crime. And, as somebody else mentioned, analogies aren't true arguments. Ajoykt (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I already made an argument based on the relevant guidelines (if you can read the first few sentences of my rationale...) The analogy is just icing. --IShadowed 22:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with WP:CRIME in your stsement is that it does not apply "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" This being called "The largest mass shooting in US History" [1] screams noteworthy to me when it comes to James Eagan Holmes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That statement only currently speaks to the notability of the incident, not of the individual in question. He is merely the accused perpetrator at this time. --IShadowed 22:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - He is notable enough for a large section in the main article but a standalone article is not needed. United States Man (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree that "this article is inevitable." ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BALL. It's irrelevant whether or not an article may exist in the future. Until the individual qualifies for a standalone article, they should not have one. That simple. --IShadowed 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If there is enough coverage from external sources it makes sense to keep both articles, most likely other editors will wind up making it anyway. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:BLP1E clearly indicates that someone notable for certain high-profile events is sufficiently notable to merit a separate article. The comparison offered there is an assassin of a major political figure, but obviously expands to include spree shooters who get considerable national media attention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support This article is nothing but a content fork about the shooting. Further, he is not notable outside of that event and so any biographical content we may introduce in the future in this article that does not illuminate the shooting is unencyclopedic. causa sui (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Weak support for merge - If we redirect Holmes' article to that of the event, the history of Holmes' article will be kept. We can put ALL of the information from Holmes' article (or that to which the populous concedes) into that of the event. If the article becomes too large, then we can talk about splitting it off. I'd never heard of Holmes until today, and I'm sure many others have not heard of him either. Therefore, I must agree that he is not notable outside of this ONE event. Thoughts???--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Like other spree killers, Holmes is notable. More and more information is coming out on him. Appropriate to keep a separate article for him. ScienceApe (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Merge, per WP:ONEEVENT. This is the one-time event of a crazy person, whomever the person turns out to be, and whether or not the current suspect is that person. Wikipedia should not make each crazed-spree killer into a "hero" with his/her own Wikipedia page, at least not if Wikipedia does not want to be a part of the incentive for other would-be-spree-killers to kill so that they, too, can have their own Wikipedia page to gain the attention and recognition that their otherwise sorry lives would never have. N2e (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• speedy redirect and lock there is no discussion." textbook example of WP:BLP1e // WP:PERP. - why is there even any question? -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'd actually read WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP you'd realize that this is not a "textbook example" for anything. There is quite some room for interpretation in these guidelines, and as you can see in the discussion above, a lot of people have a different opinion than you in this case. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC))

For those to lazy to click to read, "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person. Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For perpetrators: 1) The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. 2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge per WP:BLP1E but I'd prefer to see as much as possible merged. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Yuri Gagrin is famous for only one event, too. Holmes shot more people than anyone else in a mass US shooting, according to the article, so his notability is secured. — O'Dea (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge - this person will likely eventually have an article, but the time to build a neutral article about this subject will be after the dust settles and extensive information about the subject is available. As a deeply emotional current event, content should be managed centrally until it is less active. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge. Even though the subject will quite probably merit an article soon (possibly before this discussion is concluded), as a matter of principle and per WP:CRIME and WP:CFORK, we should be waiting until there is enough solid and reliable information to make the article worthwhile. The harm may be theoretical in this case, but being over-eager to create an article about the latest celebrity killer can give rise to severe breaches of WP:BLP, as happened with Murder of Joanna Yeates. We should really have a rule that reverses the assumption in these cases, so that bio articles for perpetrators are squashed until there is a positive consensus to create them. Formerip (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that the article is locked, it is no longer possible to add "enough solid and reliable information". WWGB (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is also not possible because enough such information does not yet exist. Formerip (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge. The event for which the subject is known does not currently meet the exception of WP:PERP, "it is a well-documented historic event". That it is expected to do so in the future is an issue of WP:CRYSTAL, and I would respectfully suggest that those !votes referring to this likely future state be discounted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge The standard for events like this should be articles like Cumbria shootings, where there is no separate article on the shooter, despite massive media coverage and the fact that the event was probably even more notable, as the first (and to date only) mass shooting in the UK after the restrictive gun laws were introduced. Black Kite (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree if the suspect had died in the firefight or killed himself but cases like James Eagan Holmes, and Jared Lee Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Mark David Chapman involve a captured alive status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support WP:ONEEVENT. The shooting is the only thing that he is notable for. Maddie ^talk 02:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

How long does it take to make a decision about this article. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Until established consensus can be reached. I'm assuming this one will require a closure by an uninvolved editor after a day or two. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:32, 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 violations. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mugshot released

CBS announcement. Higher resolution here. Colorado police records are public domain ("State agency authored documents are in the public domain.") Lazy eye is much less evident in CU photo and this video but still somewhat evident. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose using a mugshot as a infobox image, according to WP:MUG. There are some images that can be uploaded to describe the subject of the article that can be used under fair use. -- Luke (Talk) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the extent to which WP:MUG should apply to someone who's only notable for a crime. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To note, the mugshot is up for deletions on commons at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:James Holmes booking photo.jpg. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Fair use strictly says that you can't use images of people that are living. That is why we have so many BLP articles without images. As to WP:MUG, I still don't know why Paris Hilton has one in her article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikicommons category Mug shots of people of the United States contains over 250 mugshot pictures with various licenses. I mention it as a policy research resource. — O'Dea (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll see if there are any Colorado ones in there. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Bill Gates has one in his article as well and they have lost the records on what he was arrested for.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Gates said it was speeding, like 120 in a 55 MPH zone. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Full Wikicommons mugshot discussion at File:James Holmes booking photo.jpg. — O'Dea (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Article is mentioned on the admin incidents noticeboard (Resolved)

Just a heads up to those that edit this article The Red Pen of Doom has placed a notice reguarding this article here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#James Eagan Holmes - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Attended same high school as double murder suspect Brian Williams

I feel like this might be relevant for his page. And also if someone wants to add it to the Westview High School page. Here is the original article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/james-holmes-san-diego-background_n_1696081.html

"Brian Williams, who was also a Westview High School graduate, was arrested last year on charges of killing his mother and his sister." http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/New-Details-Revealed-in-Double-Homicide-125920418.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systematic1 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Fully protected for two days

I've protected the article for two days. Work it out here, but stop reverting each other. This isn't endorsing the current version, it is just the version that existed when I mashed the red button. Any admin is free to modify this without permission if a consensus is reached or there is no more concern about warring, but a note on my talk page afterwords is appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 02:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor edit: Just wanted to disambiguate MDT to Mountain Daylight Time in the Detention and arraignment section. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 02:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request to comply with WP:PERP until any discussion may conclude that we for some reason want to IAR

Per the simple language of WP:PERP this article should not exist as a stand alone. It should be redirected to 2012_Aurora_shooting#Suspect. While there may be a discussion going on to decide whether we should WP:IAR and let a stand alone article exist, until that decision has been completed the offending page should be redirected. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)