Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting

READ THIS FIRST

This talk page 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)

Included as an editnotice. matt (talk) 10:20, 24 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)

"Absolutely a low-profile individual" is incorrect, when you put the word "absolutely" there. He's NOT a low-profile person AS FAR AS THIS SPECIFIC CASE. He's a very HIGH profile individual in this specific high-profile incident. That's what's pertinent. NOT whether he was a "high profile" person in general. Not sure why this point is so hard to understand or appreciate. You can't say he is "absolutely" low profile in this matter. You can say that about one of the cops on the scene maybe. But not Holmes of course. He was not only a high profile character in this specific high profile matter and case, but also THE high profile character and alleged perpetrator. Look 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 manner as McVeigh and Loughner. And those are the standards and criteria Wikipedia goes by. Holmes is high-profile. As it relates to this high profile case. Which is all that counts. Accept it and deal with it. Jots and graphs (talk) 09:42, 25 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)

This merge/redirect is idiotic. James Holmes is one of the most infamous spree shooters of all time, he deserves his own page, one that can contain a WHOLE LOT of biographical information that would be out of place on a page about a shooting. To the people saying he isn't yet convicted, this too is stupid. When he gets convicted (and he will, duh), you will make an article for him, but if he wins and appeal and gets sent back to the trial court, you'll delete the article?--75.79.150.83 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective, there are two important criterea for a wiki article: Is someone going to search for it? Is there citable sources about the subject? The answer to both currently, is yes. I am an example of that.

To avoid this article ending up protected like a BLP, I would reccommend the 'suspected shooter' maintain his own article. This article should be about the event, while another should be about this James Eagan Holmes fellow, to be filled in as facts(or future proven fallacies represented as facts, as long as it's sourced).

Of course, I'm of the opinion that if you walk into a place and shoot up 5 or more people, you're noteworthy enough to get an article, for two reasons. 1) Information about the person's life should be in an article that can be tagged as a BLP. While the event itself is not a biography, but if there isn't a biography page about the suspect/perpatrator, then the BLP tag will likely be applied to the shooting page.

Of course, I've seen this discussion before, and can see the validity of both points.

In this case however: I believe that a man who dyes his hair and walks into a batman premier to shoot it up and later tells the police he's the Joker, is NOTEWORTHY as a person. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:15, 25 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)

The media have been chasing them, some wanted to talk and others had no reason to refuse to do so. The role of Wikipedia is of not listing them. A mass killing is a very collective threat. The role of the encyclopedia is to be compatible with the needs of the sociologist: in a case like the Aurora killing there is no link between the individual victim and the intention of the killer other than the place they were seated, their figure, and their personal behavior. This cannot be covered by the encyclopedia without listing each single shot that has been fired, and even so names would be not relevant except when covering action. --Askedonty (talk) 21:37, 27 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)
  • Why is it "important to include"? To satisfy curiosity? Because I'm not seeing a relevant purpose to it. Just gawking. We don't document everything about a subject, and we do not have victim's lists on Oklahoma City bombing, 2005 London bombing, etc. We do have one on the World Trade Center bombing, because a memorial plaque with the names had been placed on-site.
  • Further, these people's families are already grieving. Having some respect by not throwing their names up for the whole world makes more sense. (The Wikipedia entry is the top result in a Google search.) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Then if that's true, all media outlets should be censoring the names of the victims that died. Why can the media list them, but not us? Why can we list the victims of the Titanic in their entirety, but we can't just mention names here? Not mentioning who died is just as bad as not mentioning Holmes' name. 331dot (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not a media outlet, but an encyclopedia. Remember? Wikinews can use material like this, but not us. --John (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor content, which is how you characterized it by saying we should do so to protect the families. As I've said, noting the names of the dead is just as important as knowing who committed these acts and where they took place. That's not "gawking"; we note the names of victims of the Unabomber, as well as Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, and other notorious killers. We note the victims of the Columbine High School massacre (also in Colorado). Why not here? 331dot (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Without referring to other articles, why is it important to you personally to include this information? --John (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP overrides NOTCENSOR. And articles have been edited out of respect for surviving family members here. All the topics you listed are long past, and families have had a chance to grieve. You've still not explained why noting the names is important. Asserting they are doesn't make you right. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is noting the name of the killer important? Why is noting the location of this incident important? They're important because that's the story. That's the reason the article is here. Leaving out who was killed is leaving out a chunk of the story. It's like reading a novel with three chapters missing in the middle; it's not complete.

If you're saying that it would be better to wait awhile to add the names, since the other precedent here deals in past incidents, okay- but why wait when it can be done now(and has been done)?. I would appreciate it as a relative newbie if you could explain why BLP "overrides" NOTCENSOR, as we're not dealing with living people.

I'm not entirely sure what has been removed out of respect for the families(though I take your word that it has happened), but rewording passages to be more sensitive or withholding graphic descriptions of the crime scene is very different than leaving out chunks of information. Withholding something as simple as names and ages is just censorship.

OTHERSTUFF is not a policy saying I can't cite precedent so I don't really see why you are rejecting precedent of other articles being as complete as this one. I think it is relevant that articles about similar subjects have similar information. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

7th US mass shooting this year

Aurora is the seventh mass shooting in the US this year, so far: [1] 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)

There's nothing OR or synth about it. It's a statement of verifiable fact supported by dozens of reliable sources. Clearly, you don't know what OR or synth is, but keep pushing that POV, won't you. Gun control is one of the most important subtopics related to this article and it will be discussed. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 24 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)

Relevant, topical, and important. It will be added. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If sources prominently discuss gun control in the context of this shooting, then it's part of the media coverage and public discourse and, as with any other aspect, we will do our best to accurately reflect the sum total of quality sources. NRA fanbois should consider that we have a section for reactions, which is of neglible import when taking the long view (as an encyclopedic project should). --213.168.117.36 (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, so we're already to "anyone who disagrees == NRA fanboy." Every shooting spawns gun-control debates. At most, we should include a "see also" link in a relevant section, and describe notable arguments which are centered on this particular event. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps gun control should be, or is already, discussed in a separate thread here. The "number of times in so many years" details are simple statements of fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

True, it's a statement of fact. But not all statements of fact are relevant to the article. In this case, the fact that it's the seventh mass shooting in the US this year isn't actually relevant to this article. The one stating it's the fifth in Colorado in the last six years might work, since it's at least showing a local impact. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:38, 25 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)

UPDATE: I would like to revise the title of this suggested section... something like "Security response and efforts" (or similar). I can easily envision this section discussing the first-responder accounts, 9-1-1 calls, hospital efforts, etc. There is a wealth of information to be gleaned from the police radio records that are already available, alone. I also kind of think the "Shooting" section is getting a bit cluttered, going beyond the scope of the shooting events; and some parts could go in such a section, perhaps? Thoughts? --chris.rider81 (talk) 14:11, 25 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)

I'm not sure I understand completely this logic about it being "too soon" to post something like this. There are already witness reports bringing to light the confusion over the emergency response, as well as multiple other reports and discussions about why there was no effective warning system or alarm. Would either of you please explain the rationale for this reasoning about it being too soon, then? I think I even saw a reader give feedback about wanting to see something about the emergency response implications, not to mention 1stResponderGuru's comment, below. --chris.rider81 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you will, I was giving my opinion that it's unlikely any sources have given this topic coherent treatment yet. I would not be surprised if they have by the end of the week, but in my experience, it's something the media tends to turn to as the initial frenzy starts to fade. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from, but there are already officials (police chiefs, security advisors, etc.) discussing this issue and making conclusions, en masse. I have a few leads, due to my involvement in related wiki projects... but it seems like the other editor in support (1stResponderGuru) may have some resources to help with this aspect of the event... let's hope! --chris.rider81 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Support - I can tell you, anecdotally, that this topic lately is of GREAT interest among fellow emergency services personnel. I'm not sure what could be written about here in this article, but I hope somebody can come up with something to contribute to this aspect of the incident sooner rather than later.--1stResponderGuru (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I will try my best to find source material with which to back this up!--1stResponderGuru (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you can find some good resources for this! Thanks! --chris.rider81 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

After asking and looking around, I did find some good reference material and other info - am trying to find actual online versions for easy reference, though. More to come later today? I like the idea of the updated section name, by the way.--1stResponderGuru (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I found most of the materials that I knew of, online so they were easy enough to reference to. I think it's enough for a section as you suggested, so I hope it's okay that I went ahead and made it.--1stResponderGuru (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WOW! Thanks! Your section reads very well, I think... though, I might go in and touch it up and provide links and such housekeeping if you haven't shortly. I didn't expect someone to actually go ahead and create it lol chris.rider81 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Jorgath. It does sound like a relevant (brief) topic, but right now all we have are the off-the-cuff reactions of these businesses, not a coherent security model. It'll be a while before those are implemented. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "businesses" you're referring to? --chris.rider81 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Movie theaters. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The one law suit (that I saw quoted) said they were filing against the theater (as well as other parties) because there were no alarms on the exit doors. Does anyone know if there is a local law that says they are required (possibly silent) and whether they were activated?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a valid point, but we need to be careful not to engage in synthesis here. If we can find a source stating that there were/were not alarms and they were/were not triggered, that would work. Checking out the local laws & drawing a conclusion on our own would be a problem. I'm sure this will wind up in the news as soon as they can get an answer to that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get access to some NFPA literature on what the code is, and I'd be surprised if Aurora didn't adopt NFPA into their building codes. I DO know that there are very specific exit requirements on any space that holds more than 50 people in assembly (one room), but am unsure about egress door alarms. I know a currently active incident commander locally, so I'll see what I can find out.--1stResponderGuru (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't reach my contact, but the local engine company's lieutenant told me that would be an issue of building code and that their budget doesn't allow access to NFPA because it's too expensive. He informed me, by the way, that this is a major discussion going on within the ranks, though, and thanks us for contributing!--1stResponderGuru (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. In Canada the only alarmed doors I have seen are for catching shoplifters type thing when they open an emergency exit. I can't see any law requiring them for any other purpose. I just thought it was strange that it was mentioned in the lawsuit quote that I read. I doubt you will find them a fire code. Most exits should have 'pull station' alarm beside them. They may save wire and switches to install them in the door. Those doors usually have big warning signs about the alarm as well. Some alarm systems have a delay system before they automatically phone so there is time to close the door. This will vary with local laws. I am going to look at the Fire exit article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a fire code I don't think. "..is also responsible because it had an unguarded emergency door that..." is a quote that I found. Are there local laws about having guarded doors? That would seem to be a lot of guards.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Guard and alarm lacking in the latest cite in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:42, 26 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)

Sure I appreciate the lack of ANY reliable sources. However I have yet another video - this time MSBC news broadcast which also states that the Gunman entered via emergency exit which was opened after a mobile phone call. This again raises the prospect of an accomplice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0hQei-WdE8& — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Speculation does not equal a reliable source. So far, all indications are that he propped the door open himself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Propped the door" - so who is the witness or RS for that? I have given three witnesses saying the opposite with video and somehow this is less reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. All these people are doing is assuming there was an accomplice. They are not "witnesses." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Witnesesses" - how are we defining witnesses!? - they claimed they were there and each reported the same event without contradiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the story in the article has changed yet the RS references have not. There is nothing to support the changes. Somehow this madman was able to leave the cinema, get his guns and get changed into body armor all within 10 minutes! This is not credible. The more likely scenario is as-reported by the witnesses that someone (knowingly or unknowingly) let the gunman in. Isn't there CCTV or the copyright monitoring cameras available to confirm what happened?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk • contribs) 06:44, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Not credible? Seriously? It's not that difficult to go into the parking lot, put on the body protection and grab the guns. 10 minutes is plenty of time for that. Second, nothing says the police have to release any CCTV footage to the press. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"stretching credibility" maybe. Depends on where the car was located in the parking lot, I guess. It seems a very tight timetable. Also does not marry onto witness statements that I referenced. The wikipedia article has changed without change to RS which supports the new story. Surely the "best" story is that as reported by 3 witnesses I've referenced above. If you have a better source then include it. People look to wikipedia as "the truth" and currently there is an astounding amount of doubt on the gunman's entrance and the article should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardly an "astounding amount of doubt" on this. Outside random blogs & conspiracist sites, the reports are that one of the theater workers got a call and left through the exit. The shooter left through the same exit some time later. That's hardly "an accomplice." There's a ton of speculation, but the facts so far don't say this was an accomplice. Until we have more information, it's just speculation whether the shooter had help, "took advantage of this," or just did what he always planned to do. Those doors aren't secured on the inside, after all.

And 10 minutes is an estimate. I doubt anyone actually counted down on a clock how long he was gone. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bite "the hand that feeds" but when have wkyc and msnbc become conspiracy sites? Both witnesses on from these sites report a second person. Msnbc report could not be clearer that someone was being signaled into the theatre. I'm not really too sure why wikipedia would not go with the best information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Should the article be semi-protected to prevent non-autoconfirmed accounts from editing?

There understandably is a lot of traffic on the article. There are numerous new accounts, some, but certainly not all, of which have repeatedly caused problems. Mfhiller (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

An edit request I put in was declined, frankly I think the trouble with the disruptive IP's has become too much. Since the traffic is so high, I believe any edit requests can be easily resolved so I would support semi-protection. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone see if they were warned on their talk pages and whether it had any effect? They may learn from warnings and become better editors. I think we should allow IP edits and just deal with the repeat offenders for this reason.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, they can learn editing Paris Hilton.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The users Jots and graphs and 178.37.236 have both been warned several times by at least two different editors about edit warring. Interestingly the warnings and discussions have been removed in both cases, at almost exactly the same time. Hmmm.... Mfhiller (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I don't think there's a connection based on other pages contributed to. (the IP was focusing on a fire in Spain as well) Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Should someone revert their talk pages, and keep doing so as a lesson?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no lesson there and someone doing that could be blocked. WP:TPO allows you to remove warnings from your talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just kidding. Has anyone applied for protection yet?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's something to consider, if this was semi-protected we might not have information on the lawsuit. Hopefully the editor would have used the edit request process. In any case, we have the declined request for semi-protection and Jorgath left a request for that to be reconsidered. No other news. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mfhiller is accusing others of what he is arguably guilty of. He has not been "edit warring" by constantly reverting? But in circular logic, because he thinks he's right, it can't be edit warring when he constantly reverts. I never violated 3RR on this or anything, yet he keeps belching that to me, writing nonsense on my talk page, as if it means anything.

And NO, regardless of his paranoia, I'm NOT that IP address. Nice assuming good faith though. And Canoe is obviously ridiculous. I have a right to remove nonsense from whiners on my page, that are not warranted.

I warned Mfhiller myself to please keep that unreasonable hypocritical inflammatory stuff out of my page, but to only address on this talk page, the stuff I said... He never did. I wrote copiously on this talk page regarding this Vicodin nonsense. Yet he said in an edit comment: "it doesn't matter what you wrote". Then he writes junk on my page saying to take it to the article talk. EVEN THOUGH I DID ALREADY. But he never addresses what I wrote here. There are too many of these types on Wikipedia unfortunately. And it gets stressful, after a while.

Mfhiller is guilty of edit-warring, yet he doesn't think so, simply because he thinks he's right on the issue. Circular reasoning. He has reverted constantly. And I have NOT done so as much on this as he has, yet he crows "you've been warned about 3RR", even though I never violated it. But has he? If that's the case. Projection much? Anyway, again, despite his nonsense and paranoia and rudeness and suspicions, I'm NOT that IP address. And I don't appreciate this type of neurotic accusation of me of that on this talk page, so recklessly. That itself is a violation, of Wiki Etiquette and policies. Which I'm sure he'll accuse me of now for being blunt about his nonsense. Anyway, I'm done.

I told him already that I'm NOT putting back that Vicodin reference anymore, as I don't care anymore. But other editors seem to be doing so, that are NOT me. So don't blame me, or think it's me. I'm not interested in that anymore. Not worth the stress. I have things to do. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuits

The first one just showed up. What will be the consensus/policy on handling these? Do they need to be as detailed as this first one, type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, the first one should be detailed, subsequent ones should probably only be mentioned if something new arises. Note that most of the lawsuits will be clear attention grabbing. I haven't worked with this issue much before, so my comment is only reflecting my opinion and I am willing to change that if policy or precedent is for something else. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, lawsuits are going to be a dime-a-dozen here. If any of them gain notable attraction, they could be mentioned, but that will probably be a while in the future. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted the section as a trivial aspect of the whole matter and per WP:NOTNEWS. Plus TMZ (website) looks like a source of questionable reliability. Can possibly be addressed in a sentence or so, especially if there are several lawsuits.  Sandstein  22:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If more are filed we could just state that x number have been filed and link to sources. It may change from x number to just 'several'. If we get too many someone will want to split them to their own article, but that may be years yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The suit above as been added. We probably don't need it in its own section yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Glock 22, not 23

The .40 caliber Glock was seen in a LEO photo, one was a Glock 22 3rd generation, the other a Glock 22 4th generation. This is based on the caliber, as they are full sized models, meaning they can only be the Glock 22, as the 23 is a compact handgun, and the 27 is a sub-compact backup gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.231.176 (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV?

Since this article is about a shooting, there will be the tendency to be critical about firearms. In order for this article to meet Wikipedia's NPOV standards, there has to be at least as many positive mentions of firearms and the Second Amendment. As it stands, it is grossly biased and ought to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.229.131 (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require equal reporting or anything along that line for NPOV. How would a positive mention of firearms be related to this article at all? In any case, I don't see anything negative about firearms in this article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

IP was blocked for this post, you won't get an answer.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP was blocked two days ago and is no longer blocked. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism it's a suggestion. You can't just block people you disagree with. Also go have a look at WP:OWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.229.131 (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You were not blocked because people disagreed with you; you were blocked because you made a series of ridiculous edits to this article and talk page. You just referred Ryan Vesey to a Wikipedia policy. I have a sneaking suspicion, by looking at your edit history, that there is a large number of policies that you have not read. By your original post to this thread (NPOV?), it is clear that you do not understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Perhaps you should go read it. hajatvrc @ 02:12, 25 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 [2] 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)
• Oppose To date, there is only one article about a shooting in a town named Aurora in the year 2012, so no further disambiguation is needed. Title can always be changed in the future if this status changes. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per previous examples, also as this is not an article about the city WP:USPLACE does not apply, WP:NCE is the appropriate convention.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: If the title is changed as proposed, there needs to be a comma after, as well as before, the word Colorado. Deor (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and counter proposal I agree with Ryan Vesey - a rename would be better along the lines of 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, which would be clearer. Adding Colorado is not necessary, any more than adding US would be. Tvoz/talk 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be willing to compromise to "2012 Aurora movie theater shooting" or even "2012 Aurora theater shooting." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I think it should always be city/state for these types of incidents UNLESS it's a major city generally known by everyone around the world (Los Angeles, Chicago, Montreal, London, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, etc.). If it's Paris, Kentucky instead of Paris, France, then put the state, too. Otherwise, just put Paris. There are Auroras all over the country (and maybe the world?), but none of them are known worldwide. Everyone in the world knows NOW that the incident was in Aurora, Colorado. But how about five years from now? Or 20? or 50? Do you guys know about the 1958 Hollywood riots? Which Hollywood am I talking about? See what I'm saying? No, there really weren't any riots in any Hollywood in 1958, but I wanted to make my point. Just put the darn state and move on. ;) And the words "movie theater" in the title not only would sound very odd, but are completely unnecessary because how many 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings are there? If it was in a bakery, would you want to say 2012 Aurora bakery shootings? Or if it was a bar, would you want to say 2012 Aurora bar shootings? Let's keep it real, people. And if, incredibly, there happened to be another mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado this year, just add another distinguishing word to the title, such as the month (July 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings and October 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings). --76.189.114.243 (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who read the first sentence of the hypothetical Hollywood riot article would know what state it happened in so it seems to be to be a non-issue.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The incident is known widely as the Colorado movie theater shooting. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• I find myself in agreement with Ryan Vesey: I think a rename is needed (the "2012" bit in particular seems silly), but I can't support this specific proposed rename. I've gathered some suggested page titles in a subsection below. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested article titles

Just gathering some suggested article titles in one place for now.

1. 2012 Aurora shooting (current title)
2. 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting (proposed in this section specifically)
3. Aurora shooting
4. Colorado movie theater shooting
5. The Dark Knight Rises massacre
6. 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting
7. 2012 Dark Knight Rises shooting

---

• My (current) preference is for "Colorado movie theater shooting", I think. Bland, but descriptive. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• I support "Colorado movie theater shooting" as well. To non-Coloradans (I live here in CO), "Aurora" is not that descriptive. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• I support "2012 Aurora, Colorado massacre", because:

1. "Colorado" alone is too broad, and "Aurora" alone is ambiguous.
2. "Massacre" is more specific than simply "shooting". A "shooting" could range from a massacre down to just someone shooting a gun, whereas "massacre" carries the idea that many people were criminally killed without including the less important idea of the weapons used.
3. The name of the movie that they were there to see doesn't define the event as well as what happened, where, and when.

Note: Guys, you can't support those ones. Neither is the one being proposed. "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting" is the one being voted on, so just change support to comment and move it up to the voting section. ;) --76.189.114.243 (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I can support 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting or perhaps better, 2012 Colorado movie theater shooting. Tvoz/talk 19:42, 27 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)

Significance of the Vicodin reference in article

It's been asked why even have the Vicodin thing in the article, and how is it significant or relevant, since it's not an illegal drug. Ok, here goes: It was reported that because he was high on Vicodin (you can get high on 'legal' drugs too), and it was in his system at the time of the arrest, that that was one reason why he was calm and docile. Not sure why some editors don't believe that, or think that that was a "hood-wink". It was not explained by editor why that has to be a "hood-wink". It's a known fact that Vicodin WILL do that to a person. So? Why try to hide that fact? If it's reported it's reported. It's not up to us to decide per POV that it's a "hood-wink". That's not our role as Wikipedians. Also, by the way, Vicodin CAN be illegal, when not prescribed, as we all know. Regardless, though, it was stated by ABC news that that was one main reason he was calm and not resisting when approached and arrested. Vicodin can do that to a person. Make them drowsy and mellow. I think that that point should be made in the article, regarding Holmes. Jots and graphs (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If it is the case that the medication caused him to be calm, or not resist, or whatever, then that needs to be in the article. The fact that he had Vicodin in his system is no more notable than the presence of caffeine, or sugar or any other chemical, unless a particular consequence is established. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The vicodin, along with the body armor brings to mind the North_Hollywood_shootout where the assailants were armored, and used drugs to control their mood and possibly become more resistant to return fire. This shoting has echos from several previous incidents (north hollywood, norway shooting etc) where several elements seem copy-catted. The north hollywood connection was made by at least one RS http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/heart-without-compromise-children-and-children-wit/2012/jul/21/john-eagen-holmes-joins-roster-serial-killers-whil/ Gaijin42 (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To WWGB...I'm not sure why it isn't. That point arguably needs to be put in. Jots and graphs (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now added words to describe the significance of the Vicodin. WWGB (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Jots and graphs - just to be perfectly clear, my objection to inclusion of this detail has absolutely nothing to do with whether it explains Holmes' demeanor at the time of his arrest. There are, however, several serious concerns that brought me here:

(1) alleged use of the drug was reported by a layperson who equates Vicodin with hydrocodone (Vicodin is a hydrocodone/acetaminophen compound, not a single drug);

(2) if the claim indeed refers to a quantity of Vicodin totalling 100 mg of hydrocodone, which it presumably does, then it would also indicate possible acetaminophen overdose for which he was not reportedly evaluated;

(3) unless Holmes is discovered to have developed chronic tolerance to hydrocodone, a single dose of 100 mg at 2.5 hours would've presumably left him struggling to sit upright;

(4) every reputable media organization reporting this claim cites KMGH-TV as their source, who in turn cite an unnamed source, who cites an unnamed public servant, who cites Holmes. In other words, someone says someone said someone said someone said someone admitted to taking a controversial medication. That's way below our editorial standards around here, especially on a BLP.   — C M B J   05:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's why I said that it should be carefully worded as "it's been REPORTED that such and such with Vicodin". Why? Because it's simply a fact that it's been reported...in reliable sources...regardless of the trail. But omitting and leaving out, just because the source situation may not be 1000% perfect, and the connections not as best as we want in every nuance seems over-cautious and wiki-uptight. If we do that with everything, eventually, we'll have next to nothing to ever write in articles, after a while. Some things are more solid than other things, true, but the point is that it could be stated that it's been reported by some sources. NOT that it's necessarily absolute fact. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that quadruple-plus-hearsay based on a single unnamed source is appropriate for any biographical article on this project, unless said dissemination is itself the direct subject of critical commentary. However, even if we were to include the information in an appropriate fashion, it's still not likely to pan out very well unless we can reach strong consensus on wording. Otherwise, it's just going to continue morphing into sensationalistic nonsense again and again and again, or else someone's going to eventually get accused of edit warring for keeping a veracious version alive.   — C M B J   08:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, for verity and veracity etc, but my point is we can't go bananas with that and be too dogmatic and over-scrupulous much either. With so much wiki-lawyering and uptightness. Because if that goes on too much, then pertinent or insightful factoids and issues can go un-stated, leaving an article lacking and incomplete. Because again, my question is why would ABC News (both on the Net and on Television News) see fit to mention it, if it was so frivolous and "hearsay"? Last time I checked, ABC News is a "reliable source". And they brought that point out. Also, I'm not saying that for sure that that was the reason Holmes was so calm and docile and non-resistant with the police approached and arrested him...but ABC news seems to think so, as at least a possibility as to why, as reported. Why leave this thing out if it can help explain perhaps in part why Holmes offered no resistance, and was calm and subdued, when taken by police? Again, this was not just written in some blog or forum or message board or group chat, but reported by ABC News. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As Vicodin is a specific combination of two drugs - 5 mg of hydrocodone and 500mg of acetaminophen - that would mean he took 20 Vicodin, which includes 10 grams of acetaminophen - and would most likely be in a hospital with severe liver damage now. It could be that he took 10 Nocor - a Nocor is 10 mg of hydrocodone and 325mg of acetaminophen - which would contain 3.25 grams of acetaminophen - in any event, I don't see how the claim as to the level of hydrocodone found in his system will ever be correlated to the brand name and/or dosage that he ingested.173.74.10.29 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Alleged Vicodin use

I suggest that information be removed. While, it IS sourced, the dosage would render him unconscious at 2.5 hours after ingestion. 100mg is 20 times the initial starting dose of Vicodin (hydrocodone /w APAP).Wzrd1 (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point. I didn't read the sources, but how can they really know? We could say large, or larger than normal dose?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not just say that the suspect is alleged to have taken an unknown quantity of Vicodin before the shooting? Something like that seems fair enough, no? Mfhiller (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Heck, just say "the suspect is alleged to have taken Vicodin before the shooting," nothing about the quantity whatsoever. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Either sounds fine if you want to edit it. We should move it to the Holmes section though. If it is reverted then we should seek consensus. Btw, someone has been logging us:http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ --Canoe1967 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Vicodin

Do we include it in this article? Consensus here to avoid further edit wars.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose inclusion unless/until confirmed by official medical reports.   — C M B J   06:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Belongs on Holmes page. Also poorly supported. Mfhiller (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above. Let's not fragment this discussion any worse than it already is. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone move this section to above? Mfhiller (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mildly support inclusion, per my words above. It's sourced, albeit maybe not totally perfectly, but well arguably enough. And wording should be careful to say "it's been reported". ABC News (on the Net and on the TV news) has stated this, and ABC News is reliable and reputable. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Calmly oppose, unless we also blame the shoes he was wearing and a band he listened to. Maybe Grand Theft Auto. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: nowhere in the reporting or phrasing or anything is it "blaming" the Vicodin. Your argument is a STRAW-MAN, because that's NOT what was done at all there. So if that's your reason for your "calmly oppose", you should probably re-consider that, to a "calm support". Because the Vicodin thing was not (repeat NOT) "blaming" it for his actions. If anything, the reports were only that that's why Holmes was CALM AND DOCILE when being arrested. So please don't erect a straw-man or phantom argument, as your reason for opposing the inclusion of the Vicodin reference. Because that's not the reason for the matter of Vicodin being brought up. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing, just voting. If you find my opinion flawed, disregard it. But no, I won't change it to a support. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Done — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC) How is this so "done"? When this little section was barely put up minutes ago, and not enough time has been given for others to give their feedback? Isn't this proclamation of "done" a bit premature?? Uh, yeah, it kinda is. It's NOT quite "done" yet. It barely has been up. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Done refers to the section merge. I will add three below to help with policy/guidelines and avoid opinion posts. Policies/guidlines to include: [list here and remove this line] Policies/guidlines to exclude: [list here and remove this line] Policies/guidlines to 'trim': [list here and remove this line] --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit war on suspect section

Just kidding but we should avoid one. Main questions should be just a re-direct or just info relating to the shooting type thing. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Main questions should be just a re-direct or just info relating to the shooting type thing". Could you explain? hajatvrc @ 02:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone removed the whole section and just left it as a re-direct to the suspect article. It was reverted without discussion. If they want to discuss it then they should do so here and avoid edit wars.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody else did that on the what-you-call "suspect" article and managed to get the whole article locked. Guess others are trying to figure out whether administrators too have their biases. Ajoykt (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Biased admin? No such thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As an admin, I totally agree Canoe ;D — Huntster (t @ c) 05:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Also called...

I have noticed the term Movie Massacre being used by the media, is term being used widespread? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have also seen Batman Massacre used. We should use something less tabloid-ish than these. WWGB (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the use of the word "massacre" makes it tabloid-ish- I mean there's Columbine High School massacre. (unless, of course, it's not the use of massacre that you're referring to). Novalayne (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Headline writers come up with all sorts of names. Some catch on in other news media, some don't. It's all irrelevant here, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. 2012 Aurora Shooting is much more informative than most labels I've seen in the press. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I just mentioned the discussion link above because they may be more familiar with policy. I know Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation discuss both and are very wise so you may just want to link this discussion to there and they may come and help.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

They also know naming policies well. Just don't mention Hatzic, or they may get mad like they did with me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Notebook sent to psychiatrist before attack

This article was just released, detailing that the suspect sent a notebook detailing the crimes. I'd add it in myself, but I'm still learning the ropes of editing wikipedia and don't want to make a faux pas on such a important article. Novalayne (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If anywhere belongs on JH main article. Not here. Mfhiller (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true, that notebook was particularly relevant to the massacre. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've taken back my comment. Mfhiller (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is unattributed gossip. Unless confirmed, it doesn't belong in WP. It doesn't really belong on Fox News, but there's not so much we can do about that. Formerip (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This would be a very important development if correct, but it needs more than an off-the-record briefing to be a reliable source, Fox News or otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It is now receiving international coverage [3]. WWGB (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Gun control debate section

I believe the "Gun control debate" section added by Viriditas is endangering the neutrality of the article, as the user had previously commented extensively about their strong feelings on the subject of gun control. The comments on this talk page ("Colorado wackiness quotient goes to 11") were removed as they began to take up quite some space. Technician Fry (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have never once discussed my opinion about gun control on Wikipedia, and your reading and understanding of "neutrality" is completely at odds with NPOV. We don't edit Wikipedia articles based on what editors believe but on what the sources say. Therefore, your entire argument is untenable. The material was properly added per NPOV and it will be added back. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Gun control is the elephant in the room. It cannot be ignored, but nor should it dominate the article. A balanced acknowledgement is appropriate, not arguments for and against. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. An acknowledgement that the debate has intensified in the U.S. in the aftermath is a good thing. A discussion of the finer points is not. Isn't there an article on the gun-control debate in the U.S. anyway? Shouldn't details be there? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The wikilinks in the sentence go to other articles. Gun control and gun laws.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is the deal about gun control? He had explosives in his flat, those where ilegal. So does anyone realy belive he wouldn't have gotten guns if they where ilegal? And what, anyway he had the explosives, so what if I hadn't got any guns he might have used the explosives. I would say, that would have been even more effective in the confined spaces of a cinema. Dream 84.169.213.43 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum to debate the merits of gun control. This is a forum to discuss how much coverage the Wikipedia article about the event will give to the debate about gun control. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A See Also link seems sufficient to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not sufficient, it's an integral part of this topic supported by the reliable sources, and it's not unsourced as you falsely claimed.[4] Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, InedibleHulk was right; the source I added was removed by User:Canoe1967[5]. When I attempted to merge the content back in a later edit, it had a different source added by another editor.[6] I'm going to fix this. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree that 'gun control' should not be part of THIS article - this is about the shooting - if, down the road, there is a major political movement motivated by this event, then it would be relevant - but not now. Let's keep the article focussed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what you agree with, gun control is a part of this article, based on the number of sources devoted to discussing it. So regardless of the continuing shenanigans being used to keep removing it, it will be added back into the lead and the body per WP:NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources about gun control and this topic

1. Baker, Mike. 2012. After Colorado massacre, fear prompts people to buy guns and puts moviegoers on edge. Associated Press. The Canadian Press (July 25).
2. Blitzer, Wolf. 2012. Movie Theater Massacre; Police Searched Suspect's Home;Politics On Hold After Colorado Shooting; Romney: "Our Hearts Break";Colorado Shootings And Gun Control Debate; Colorado Horror: 71 Shot,12 Dead. The Situation Room. CNN. (July 20).
3. Blitzer, Wolf. 2012. Campaigns Changing Tone In Colorado; Gun Control: A"Fool's Errand"; The Situation Room. CNN. (July 24).
4. Caldwell, Leigh Ann. 2012. Gun control debate back in spotlight after Colorado shooting. Political Hotsheet. CBS News. (July 22).
5. Condon, Stephanie. 2012. Democrats: "We can't let the NRA stop us". Political Hotsheet. CBS News. (July 24).
6. Jervis, Rick and John McAuliff (July 24, 2012). "Colo. rampage adds fuel to gun-control debate". USA Today. Retrieved July 24, 2012.
7. Knickerbocker, Brad. 2012. Colorado shooting highlights barriers to tough gun control: Obama and Romney. Christian Science Monitor (July 21).
8. Mayor challenges Obama on gun control. 2012. Sunday Telegraph. (July 22): 4.
9. Sambolin, Zoraida. 2012. Politics of gun control. CNN Newsroom. (July 23).
10. Schwartz, John. 2012. In Columbine's Wake, Colorado Had Become Key Player in Gun Law Debate. The New York Times. (July 21): 13.
11. Simon, Richard. 2012. At U.S. Capitol, gun-control advocates are met with 'silence'. Los Angeles Times (July 24).
12. Spurling, Kathryn. 2012. Another shooting horror, but firearm lobby still rules. Canberra Times (July 24): 8.
13. Sweetman, Terry. 2012. Armed Americans a danger to their own. Herald Sun (July 22).

An appeal for genuine neutrality here and at James Eagan Holmes

For everyone's benefit, please see the new section I've posted at Talk:James_Eagan_Holmes#An_appeal_for_genuine_neutrality. Respectfully, and with my thanks. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

potential copycats

http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-claiming-joker-threatens-blow/story?id=16869716

The article already has a note about the NY Dept. of Ed. worker that was taken into custody and placed under psychiatric watch. While these events are not trivia, I am not sure what coverage they should be given. I'm not going to edit based on the Maryland copycat that was caught before he acted. I leave that to others. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This may be similar to the lawsuits section above. We should seek consensus on how to handle them. I don't think we need to mention names but just basic info on them if any at all. Should we possibly remove the names and other details like we did with the lawsuit while we discuss it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, why is this now unlocked?

Its only been 2 days, why is this not locked anymore? I posted a note saying that is should be unlocked, but the administrators didnt want it to, why did everyone change their minds?184.98.114.65 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Who knows what lurks in the minds of admin? The Shadow knows.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)