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)

Tables appropriate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Where does anybody apply WP:NOTMEMORIAL to this? That is about not creating obituaries for those who have died (or articles on them solely because they have died). This information is documentation on the deaths in this incident and I am unaware of any policies prohibiting this. Absent that, I find the information to be relevant and important to include. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • I live in Aurora, about 5 miles from the theater. There is a memorial with a cross for each of the 12 who died, each with one name listed. Same thing with the Columbine memorial. As someone else said, the victim's families are talking and it is common knowledge here in Aurora who the victims are. Not only their name, gender, and age, but more stuff like where they sat in the theater, why they were in that theater, their backgrounds of things like how long they lived in Colorado (or were just visiting), what they were doing when the shooting started, and who they were trying to protect when they died (3 of the guys were shielding girlfriends). I'm not saying all that info should be in the article, but rather that listing their names in the article is a fitting tribute that I think the families appriciate that we remember their loved one's name. In fact, most of the families are telling the media to focus on the victims and not the shooter. They WANT the dead's names out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.185.69 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 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)

"Leaving out a chunk of the story" is perfectly acceptable, and often necessary on Wikipedia. BLP overrides CENSOR because it's a recent death, and respect is given to the privacy of the families for a time. People tend to scramble after a death to add every trivial detail, and that's not good for anyone. Maybe in the future names will be appropriate but, right now, it's needless stress for their families. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A name of a murdered person is not a "trivial detail" to this incident any more than the location or perpetrators are. If it were, no news organizations would be reporting them. BLP says that "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement"; I don't see how just listing names does anything but. I also do not see where WP:UNDUE says that factual information can be censored or how it is otherwise relevant here; no one is proposing some far-out theory about the incident, we're dealing in facts.

I'm also wondering who determines how long a time is "appropriate" to withhold the names. Now, it's been a week or so, is that long enough? A year? Five years? Since it's there now, I see little reason to remove it only to restore it at some unspecified future time that hasn't been determined. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 28 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)

We are not responsible for how the media acts. No one wants to list every shot fired or living victims, but the names of the dead are just as relevant here as they are at the Passengers of the Titanic page, or the Columbine shooting page, or any other tragic event where the victims are listed. Wikipedia may need to be relevant to sociologists but it also must be relevant to the general public who comprise most readership here, who might be interested in knowing that information. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"People might be interested" is not good enough. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was; I was only saying there should be a broader audience than a small group of scientists. That policy's mention of needing "to explain the subject fully" would also seem relevant here. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, as we don't put every last bit of known information into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No one is proposing doing that; names and ages are not "every last bit of known information". It's not their life stories or graphic details about the crimes committed, neither of which are appropriate and should be censored. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm done debating this. Adding the names is not appropriate, and I'm not going to bang my head against the wall trying to get that through to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I will not have much more to say either, since it seems that, in other words, you just don't like having these facts in the article at this moment, since you have said that "Maybe in the future names will be appropriate". If they're appropriate at an indeterminate time in the future, then they are appropriate now, especially a week or so afterwards, since factual content is not censored, even if every detail is not included. 331dot (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Okay, you get one more comment out of me, since you see fit to twist my words.

No, that does NOT mean it is appropriate now. And I cannot fathom the logic you used to arrive at that conclusion. For fuck's sake, just be a decent human being and let the families grieve, instead of splashing the victims names up here, the first Google hit on the topic. We don't need to advertise it for every sick fuck online to torment the families. They could find that another way, but we don't need to be complicit in it. Let it be, revisit it in a few weeks when things aren't as volatile. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You really don't need to swear at me; I am not doing so towards you. That makes two of us with the logic; as I can't fathom the logic in removing facts only to restore them later. Do you really think that the first thing on the families' minds would be to come to Wikipedia to read about this, or even to go on the Internet at all and read about it? I wouldn't if I were them. I'm not asking that the names be put on billboards with flashing lights nationwide, or that vans with megaphones drive everywhere to announce them, or that the names take up half the Main Page, I'm only saying that things stay the way they are now, listing the deaths. We cannot control what (as you put it) "sick fuck"s do; they will find a way to do what they want to do. Do not respond if you don't wish to- but your post warranted a response. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

POV dispute: Gun control debate section

Main page: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard § 2012 Aurora shooting and gun control

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)

See the section below in this thread "Sources about gun control and this topic", which I will update as necessary. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This Talk Page is not a forum at all. And every editor's reasonable positions can be stated here.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What sources can you offer to support your position? Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 28 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.[1] Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is better that a few people get hurt from time to time, then to let the government rob the people of their right to own guns.24.228.229.131 (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, InedibleHulk was right; the source I added was removed by User:Canoe1967[2]. When I attempted to merge the content back in a later edit, it had a different source added by another editor.[3] 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. I will now be adding the NPOV tag as a result of the continued removal. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of relevance, not NPOV. At this point, no political actions have been taken, so I don't see the point. The fact that a bunch of 'talking heads' are discussing it is not surprising, that's what they do - they will move on to the 'next story' as a matter of course. We have links at the bottom of the article page, that's enough for now. This material should be put in an article about gun control at this time. Remember we handle via Consensus and not any Wiki-warrior agenda on the articles. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I remind editors that this is a global encyclopaedia and that this event gained coverage all over the world. Not surprisingly, given how lax American gun control is compared to the rest of the civilised world, that aspect was a major part of the coverage outside the US. To rule out coverage on the basis of no political action yet inside the US is too narrow a perspective. To the rest of the world, gun control is probably the major issue of this event. This is a global project, so gun control should be a significant part of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I kept abreast of BBC and German coverage, and have not noticed any particular debate more intense than on U.S. talk/round-table shows. Also, how has this international debate affected U.S. law at this time? There have been statements from Congress that no legislation will be taken up on the issue this year, at least. Please leave out descriptions like 'civilised' as you are bringing a potential insulting reference to the U.S. on the talk page. At this time, I don't see 'gun control' being part of the article outside of linking it to the topic elsewhere in Wikipedia.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does it have to affect US Law to be mentioned in the article. You have come right back to saying that it's only what America does that matters. As I have said this is a global encyclopaedia. If the rest of the world is saying "this happened because of America's gun laws", that makes gun laws significant in this instance. And how can it be insulting to use the expression "rest of the civilised world"? The word "rest" says that America is included in the civilised world? I went out of my way to avoid saying anything offensive, and you still took offence. I don't get it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The "rest of the world" is NOT saying that, just those persons - who may even be in the majority! - who feel that this was the reason. Why not take these op-ed discussions, protest marches (have there even been any?) etc., to the appropriate articles on gun control in Wiki and strongly represent them? I don't mind a brief mention on this article but not using it to drive some particular platform. Btw, just about every nation in the world consider themselves civilized, let's just drop that point, it's potentially insulting. We may feel that Iraq and Iran are currently basket-cases politically, but they have an ancient civilization. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC).

None of the sources offered to support this material are "op-ed" discussions; they are straight news stories. Intellectual honesty is required—it isn't optional. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not discussing what I wrote rationally and logically. You're deflecting and distracting with silly arguments about single words. I meant no fucking offence. Get over it. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. That was just an aside, as we're supposed to be following the Talk Page guidelines on being civil. My point about the merits of the gun control debate in the article are clearly stated. If you happen to disagree, so be it. Also using that sort of language is not really constructive here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Your "points" are at odds with the sources. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardly. Nobody disputes these sources exist, we're debating the level of their inclusion in THIS article. As you see, many editors simply want a brief mention here, with links to the appropriate articles on the topic. Also, please keep your remarks on-topic and impersonal.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that you've read any of these sources, so I can't imagine how you could "debate" their inclusion. Your argument (and those of others) who say they want a "brief mention" isn't based on the sources or any policy or guideline. In fact, WP:NPOV demands balanced coverage, and the sources indicate the importance that exceeds a "brief mention". Anyone who continues to argue for a "brief mention" based on neither the sources nor the policies and guidelines, will be corrected. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Accusing me of insulting America when I did nothing of the kind was pretty personal, or stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There will be a whole lot of issues arising from this incident: gun control, security of cinema exits, having little kids at midnight films, etc. That doesn't mean they all need to be canvassed here. WWGB (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course there should be a section on the gun control debate following this incident. To not have any mention of it is infact blatant bias. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Instead of an entire section, what about a brief mention in the Reactions section with a link to the various appropriate gun control articles in Wiki?HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources about gun control and this topic

Note: These sources are news stories, not op-ed's

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. Clift, Eleanor. 2012. Gun Owners Say They Want More Controls, a GOP Pollster Says. The Daily Beast. (July 27).
6. Condon, Stephanie. 2012. Democrats: "We can't let the NRA stop us". Political Hotsheet. CBS News. (July 24).
7. Harris, Paul. 2012. Colorado shooting renews anti-gun mission for Columbine victim's father. guardian.co.uk. (July 22).
8. Hartman, Rachel Rose. 2012. Gun control surfaces in CT, VA Senate debates following Colorado shooting. ABC News. (July 23).
9. Honan, Edith. 2012. Colorado shooting draws attention to gun control. Reuters. Christian Science Monitor. (July 25).
10. Jervis, Rick and John McAuliff (July 24, 2012). "Colo. rampage adds fuel to gun-control debate". USA Today. Retrieved July 24, 2012.
11. Knickerbocker, Brad. 2012. Colorado shooting highlights barriers to tough gun control: Obama and Romney. Christian Science Monitor (July 21).
12. Martinez, Michael. 2012. Gun-control, gun-rights groups ready for renewed debate after Colorado shooting. CNN. (July 21).
13. Mayor challenges Obama on gun control. 2012. Sunday Telegraph. (July 22): 4.
14. McGreal, Chris. 2012. Colorado tragedy prompts calls for urgent action on gun control. guardian.co.uk. (July 20).
15. Montopoli, Brian. 2012. Gun control debate returns after Colorado shooting. CBS News. (July 20).
16. Sambolin, Zoraida. 2012. Politics of gun control. CNN Newsroom. (July 23).
17. Schwartz, John. 2012. In Columbine's Wake, Colorado Had Become Key Player in Gun Law Debate. The New York Times. (July 21): 13.
18. Simon, Richard. 2012. At U.S. Capitol, gun-control advocates are met with 'silence'. Los Angeles Times (July 24).
19. Simon, Richard. 2012. Colorado shooting. Police groups call for tougher gun laws. Los Angeles Times. (July 26).
20. Spurling, Kathryn. 2012. Another shooting horror, but firearm lobby still rules. Canberra Times (July 24): 8.
21. Sweetman, Terry. 2012. Armed Americans a danger to their own. Herald Sun (July 22).
22. Ward, Olivia. 2012. Colorado shooting: Politicians stay silent on gun control debate. Toronto Star. (July 23).

I'll agree with HammerFilmFan. A reference to renewed debate, with links to the gun control articles are more than sufficient. Rather than re-write those articles in this article, with all of the edit wars that would result. This article is about a shooting incident, not about gun control or the lack of gun control.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Also agreed, this deserves at most brief a mention, with see also links to the appropriate articles about gun control. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with all three of you. The small sample of 23 sources up above is about this shooting and the reaction to the shooting by the authorities, the public, and the victims and their response in terms of gun control. As the preponderance of sources demonstrate, neither a reference nor a link are sufficient, and either several paragraphs or an entire section are appropriate. Consensus to exclude (which you do not have here) does not override WP:NPOV, which according to the sources demands much more than a brief mention. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also no consensus for such a section; in my quick estimation, there is a slight majority to those opposed, but again, no consensus either way. Yes, there is plenty of discussion in the media and in politics about gun control after this incident, but I see it more as a sparked parallel discussion, rather than one that is totally intertwined. Gun control has, for a long time, been something that hovers just under the surface, waiting for a major incident to show itself (though it rarely lasts for a long time). Speaking for myself, I don't think more than a sentence or two should exist in this article, given there are others that are more dedicated to the subject. However, do continue to seek such a consensus...either the community will gel in favour of such a section or they will not. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, as others have removed the NPOV tag and pointed out, this is a relevance/undue weight dispute, not a neutrality issue.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hammer, please familiarize yourself with the WP:NPOV policy. All relevance/undue weight disputes are neutrality issues. For your elucidation: WP:UNDUE. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving discussion to Gun laws in Colorado and Gun politics in the United States to prevent WP:CONTENTFORKING.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

DON'T MOVE IT. THAT'S HIDING THE DISCUSSION. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. See also: Talk:Gun laws in Colorado--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop fragmenting the discussion. There are now discussions here, at the gun law article, at WP:NPOV/N, on talk pages, etc. Keep discussion in one place. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I will refrain from moving comments around. The issue is appearing in dispute forums all over WMF the same as the 'ethno-taggers' and 'tabloid pushers' etc. When it carried on to my talk page thought I could move it to the proper discussion page citing WMF policy on all text being free licensed. The arguments on both sides I thought were valid on the only two pages that many feel they should be on. If an article has a gun issue then it should be discussed on a gun law page or a gun debate page not in the articles about incidents with guns. If the debate on guns is spread through every article that mentions a gun and every dispute forum that can be found, then that does not help the project. It just forks the debate on how much we should include it in all of these articles. In other words it should be in the proper forum. I hope this makes sense.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a forum to discuss it now: Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So, after my asking that the discussion not be further fragmented, you went and created another discussion forum. I'm at a loss here. Please keep the discussion in an existing location. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This dicussion has probably happened in almost every article that has a gun in it. I think it should finally be contained into one forum specific to it, be discussed, seek consensus on a guideline/policy, and then implemented. I think that will improve the project instead of beating it to death every time news happens. WP:Ethnicity in article space and WP:WikiTabloid, etc. should be two more that could probably do the same.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What you've done is completely contravene Wikipedia's guidelines. You don't put a discussion in project space (ie anything that starts with WP:). That's reserved for Policies, Guidelines and Essays. The exceptions being the Help & Reference desks, and the Village Pump. I'd suggest you toss a db-author on that page and let it be deleted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There are also folks (including prominents e.g. Ted Nugent) saying that if others in there had been armed casualties would have been 1/10th what they were. We could start going off the cliff into the zillion topics that are related to the topic but not about the topic, but IMHO we should avoid those and stay on topic. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Stating facts about federal and state laws concerning guns is not the same thing as stating opinions about those laws. We should rely on expert sources, not Ted Nugent. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, that makes no sense with flaws on several levels. What our are talking about injecting is not about the subject of the article. It's a different topic, a selected implied "what if" scenario and opinions, and I was pointing out that there is such conjecture in both directions and you want just one side. And there is not "expertise" on conjecture. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Asking that we rely on experts is not wanting "one side". This has nothing to do with conjecture of any kind but with explaining federal and state gun laws in terms of this incident, which every reliable source on the subject has done...except us. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor WP:SOAP here: Nugent is flat wrong. Civillians don't carry armor piercing rounds (not legally, anyway), so all they would have done is gotten themselves shot next. And possibly hit other bystanders if they missed the shooter.

Non-Soapboxing: We don't include every person's opinion on the matter in this article, even famous people. We still have to abide by WP:UNDUE and try to stick to sources that are both factual & notable. And, yes, there are experts on conjecture: people who are experts on combat, ballistics, etc. are considered more knowledgable on such matters, and their conjectures carry far more weight than a musician's. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously some mention belongs in the article, which I am doing right now, using USA Today as a source. I do so with embarrassment given its journalistic mediocrity, but it is an unobjectionable NPOV source. Sensei48 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a mention now, and links to the topic article(s).HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In the latest revision I edited there was no mention at all of this, nor even a Wikilink. The single sentence I have added is a simple NPOV statement of fact - a fact, BTW, also mentioned in the Sara Burnett article used as a source for the first sentence in the section about registration. 00:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone removed two links that have been in the article for many days on a gun control Wiki article and a link about the gun laws of Colorado. Argh. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I added them back. They may have been removed because they were linked in the body. The material in the body has been removed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Good - those links are appropriate and need to be kept.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had reached consensus on the sentence that was removed though. 'This incident has led to more debate on [gun control] and [gun laws].' This was in the body with the two wikilinks and RS. Should we open discussion on its inclusion again?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I think a bit more should be done with the registration/gun control subsection - scrupulously NPOV, of course - but it is adequate for the moment. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

...though my edit has just been debased by a really badly written substitute edit. Grammar? I think not.Sensei48 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding back gun material

I thought we had reached consensus on a sentence that was removed. This incident has led to more debate on [gun control] and [gun laws]. This was in the body with the two wikilinks and RS. Should we open discussion on its inclusion again?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer none of this be in there, but I added the story on the survey for balance. Shrugs.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it sux that there are extremes at each end. No material at all and coatrack the whole article. We should be able to reach consensus though. Readers may wish to know the 'fallout' reactions but I feel we should only include ones related to this subject and NPOV the ones we do include.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, if kept pretty brief. In fact, a good copyedit to rewrite all three lines into a single short line (with the references) would probably be a good idea.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Combined two into one. "Unrestricted availability" does this mean walk in off the street with cash and no ID?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rephrasing for clarity might be appropriate if deemed necessary. The magazines and "assault weapons" (using the source's phrasing) are widely available, and in some states at least at gun shows that is exactly what it means. Colorado gun laws may differ. Sensei48 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me. I just thought it was an extreme term. It appears that its use is justified though. I wouldn't doubt that it is the case in Colorado or someone would have objected to the use of the term.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another POV term is "assault weapons" because it is a term which has no definition (and so an infinite range of definitions so anybody can use it to mean anything) which implies that it is a term with a real definition (e.g. assault rifles) which the weapons used weren't. For example, the expired ban noted in the article defined the most common pistols carried by police as "assault weapons". North8000 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. For the sake of this article, the term "assault weapon" has a legal definition that some states use, and that the federal government used to use until 2004. How is it POV? Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we change the quoted phrase to: specific automatic rifles and large magazines type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably most accurate / less of a complex minefield to say "which banned some of the firearms and magazines which he used"

Folks, I added the sentence (not added back - the one before was different) that refers to "assault weapons." Please note the quotation marks. I took that phrase verbatim from the source I used, which is an article published in the Salt Lake City Tribune - not exactly a flamingly partisan publication. In addition, Gun laws in Colorado employs the term, as do most all of the "gun laws by state" articles, if for no other reason than a federal statute employed the term. Sensei48 (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Assault weapon hints it may be a POV term used more by one side. We don't have many guns in Canada. In the US it may be one of those terms that one side likes to hide under the carpet and the other side likes to use like a big stick. They may not have a neutral term. Were the glocks banned until '04 as well? If they were then 'assault weapons' may work, if not we may wish to go with 'assault rifles', 'specific automatic rifles' or other choices? I don't think we need the actual quote from the source as long as our terms match the terms used in the ban that it is referring to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the quote marks around the term is a good way to handle it. When I said that the term is POV, I didn't mean it in the usual sense. It's a term designed to mislead people. Basically, to give the impression that they are talking about powerful military weapons but then in the fine print write a specific definition that includes everyday firearms. And choosing a term which has no objective definition allows folks to mislead in that way. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

North, may I invite you to visit my Talk page, where we have a parallel discussion going on? We can probably create an acceptable edit that leaves the quotation in but narrows the discussion a bit more. (BTW - you are far afield from the folk revival articles where our paths usually cross). regards, Sensei48 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Miscarriage

The miscarriage should be noted [4]. --Boycool † (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A sad event, but there is no independent evidence that it is attributed to the cinema incident. WWGB (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Sad news, but there can be no certainty that it's connected with the shootings. Hard to justify including anything in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It was indirectly attributable, but if/until the district attorney charges the suspect with this, it probably should remain outside of the article. Don't be surprised if that happens fairly quickly though, so this case should be monitored by interested editors.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• This news story states that the miscarriage was caused by trauma.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That statement was made by the family, not an independent source. In the same article, a law expert has stated that homicide charges in Colorado only apply to those "who had been born and alive." WWGB (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but there is a federal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act) that could apply here, depends if the DA escalates/notifies a federal prosecuter. Wait-and-see at this point.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It remains very unclear whether the eight-week-old fetus was " injured or killed during the commission". WWGB (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a valid reference to the 13th victim, then. Out of respect for the mother who has tragically lost both of her children, do not discredit the murder of an innocent child. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180505/Dark-Knight-Colorado-Batman-massacre-claims-13th-victim-Heartbreak-pregnant-survivor-year-old-killed-shooting-suffers-tragic-miscarriage.html hykos (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be noted, but we shouldn't call it a murder or list this unborn fetus as a "victim". I get that it's a touchy moral issue, but murder is a legal concept. Accidental miscarriages aren't manslaughter, for the same reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Silly society where we have two names for the same thing, depending on whether it is wanted or not. The isn't a fetus, Hulk, it is a baby. This baby was a victim of the shooter. Even if it weren't wanted, it would still be a victim. I suppose you could just call it property damage if you wanted to call it a fetus, but for a mother preparing to welcome a new person into her family, it isn't just a bit of tissue or property. And I understand what you're trying to say when you say murder is a 'legal concept', but for the people who lost their lives in that theater and those people who cared about them, this isn't just a legal issue. -- Avanu (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing we should say it isn't a murder or a person. Just to say what happened in neutral terms (she was shot and miscarried) and let readers draw their own conclusions about what that means. And for the record, I didn't mean it has anything to do with being wanted or not. It's about born or not (to me). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

NOT A FORUM! Please stick to the discussion of Reliable Sources for the betterment of the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The betterment of the article is a misnomer. This topic couldn't be worse. I do recall at one time some state laws allowing murders of slaves to go unpunishable, too. That doesn't mean the murder didn't happen or wasn't notable just because the state refused to recognize it. That the law can't even make the distinction between a murder and any other abortion means that there might not be one, apparently. Still, this is about the worst crime that could ever be committed, and considering the mother did not consent to the fetal termination, then we should all make the case for murder of some degree, even if not first degree to protect the legal abortionist agenda. Since the abortion agenda is so concerned with the health for the mother which accounts for 3% of all abortions, then why can't they identify for one case that this murder DID occur and therefore was detrimental to the mother AND her family? hykos (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been mentioned earlier, I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:SOAP - this article is not concerned with moral issues regarding the status of pre-birth. As he has been charged with twelve murders I imagine that is what the article will reflect, and using language such as calling it "the worst crime that could ever be committed" is not going to help your case for inclusion because it makes it sound like you have an agenda, even if this is not your intention. BulbaThor (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what the preponderance of valid sources say: 12 vs. 13. In any event, if they fry the guy, whether it's for 12 or 13 won't much matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell that to the childless mother. it didn't matter that he killed your baby. it was nonviable per the state of colorado, that doesn't mean it was right for us to consider this murder by death as any which way non notable by the neutral media. look, not trying to change other people's black and white definition on abortion. but this was an actual murder, whether or not you or the state condones murders of babies in utero "for the health of the mother" which affects approximately 3% of abortions, this was not the case. in areas where such infanticide is not protected, the headlines are calling this the 13th victim. some american sources are calling the baby "it" and "13th" as if what the murder was was of no grave consequence. for what, just to make abortion feel legal and/or morally sound? hykos (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. WWGB (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As WWGB says above, whatever the determination made using Colorado law is, is what we should use here when referencing this. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

JayJasper, please wait to update the death toll IF/UNTIL a federal authority charges Holmes with the crime - nothing in Colorado law allows this - so no Reliable Source exists at this time, despite the various op-eds.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted.--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing wrong with annotating the fact that a fetus was miscarried as a result of the stress the mother received due to being shot. That's what this article says.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is! I would be a BLP violation, just for starters. There has been no formal charge on this from a federal-level authority. If/until they decide that it merits it, Wiki has to basically stay silent on it. Your source is not valid on this point. I agree personally that there is very little doubt that the baby died as a result of trauma from surgery due to the attack, but we've got to leave it to the prosecuting authorities to determine if they have a legal standing to proceed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't need charges to state what the reliable sources are saying. If there is a problem with libel, it's on the part of the reliable sources and not Wikipedia. If sources say that the fetus was miscarried because of the stress of the shooting, then it's covered under WP:V and matters little what we personally think.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be time for Admins to contact "Wiki legal" and find their stance on this. I'd definitely wait until the attending physicians make a formal statement, at least. "It was confirmed" doesn't say by who. The MAJOR news outlets will be all over this if there is a hospital statement or even a lawsuit over this, so the article can afford to wait for that to happen. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If the source says it, then it passes WP:V.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He will not face additional charges for the 13th victim [5]. --Boycool † (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer

...Has written a soundtrack titled "Aurora" with the proceeds from downloads to go to the victims [6]. --Boycool † (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we decide to include it when proceeds are higher than X amount and actually paid out?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be included in the reaction section in some form. Maybe at some point a sound clip could even be added. --Boycool † (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be done with consensus or everyone with a CD may try to slime their name into the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Boycool † (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongy oppose any attempt to put this sort of garbage in the article. Speciate (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Slime? Garbage? A very notable person has created a song related to this incident and he is donating the proceeds from the song to the victims of the shooting. I'm a little lost why there appears to be such hostility in this section. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are conflating two seperate comments, with very different reasonings. Canoe's comment was that we need to estabilish criteria for inclusion and consnensus on that, or many inappropriate entries may be created for promotional reasons. I am in 100% agreement with his thoughts, but certainly think that this entry would pass any needed criteria, as Zimmer is directly related to the Dark Knight, however, criteria and consensus should still be formally established to avoid future problems. I do not percieve any hostility in Canoe's comment, the "slime" comment was directed at other unspecified persons who may attempt to be promotional, not you or zimmer. Speciate's comment is less helpful, but a valid "oppose" !vote in terms of if the information should be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Support inclusion, can't see the notability problem here.[7]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Glock .40 cals.

Does anybody know what model Glock .40 cals were brought by Holmes? Like a Glock 22, Glock 23, or Glock 27? No speculation here, only relible source articles. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've not seen any reliable sources which are that specific. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw a news photo of several weapons that were gathered to show viewers what was used; they had a S&W M&P15, a Remington 870, and two Glock 22s. Keep in mind, these weren't the ACTUAL weapons used in the shooting, but were shown for reference. I'd think that's better than nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.231.176 (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, until we have an actual list of the weapons, it's better to have nothing. Saying "we don't know" is better than posting incorrect information. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

New York city employee . . .

Per the half-credible source itself he has been released with no charges. He is not a public figure, unlike Holmes, and has far stronger protection under defamation laws. WP:BLP applies in double; we cannot show mentioning his arrest is relevant enough in the context of an article on the mass shootings to override his privacy concerns. And, yes, talk pages are also subject to WP:BLP, so we need to be careful with the discussion here as well. 130.65.109.101 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Give the reference where he has been released. The searches I've found have shown he was taken into custody for some psych-eval, but no charges have come about. This has been reported in the news (such as NBC News Channel 4 - which is most certainly a Reliable Source.) I don't see where BLP has been violated. His arrest was directly related to his statements about Holmes, the photos, etc. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

HammerFilmFan, you're constantly saying we can't include relevant content about gun laws that are reported by dozens of reliable sources about this topic, yet you're actually arguing that we should include information about a A New York City Department of Education worker who wasn't charged in another incident? Are you serious? Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on-point. The consensus section about the level of inclusion about gun control of the TP is above, and is not related to this. Thanks.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it is directly related and on-point. I've shown that your position on relevance isn't consistent nor is it supported by the policies and guidelines. Per WP:NPF, your addition is questionable and discouraged. Per WP:NPOV, we need to represent the significant facts and views on gun issues related to this case. Therefore, there is less of a need to add content about minor living persons who haven't been charged with a crime than there is to represent a significant viewpoint. For example, the Virginia Tech massacre article has more than 11 paragraphs on gun laws and gun control. Yet, you would have us honestly believe the topic isn't relevant to this article, but mentioning an unknown guy who wasn't charged in another incident is more relevant? Are you serious? Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BLPCRIME: "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." There was no crime committed and no charges. Why was this added? Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

1. The article clearly states he was not charged. 2. I didn't add it originally, just restored it, because it has been in the article for a while w/o objection, has an RS-cite, and the person is notable for being the first arrested for having been influenced in a strong way by Holmes' notoriety, enough to cause his co-workers significant disquiet, anyway - is my supposition what the original editor's intent was. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Let us not speculate on others' intent. Are you claiming this guy has been taken into custody and not charged for a week? Causing co-workers significant disquiet is not reason enough. As to be being the first arrested for having been influenced by Holmes's notoriety, do you have references for that? It isn't even clear if he was arrested as opposed to taken into some kind of protective custody (at least in one source, the cops said they hadn't arrested him). 68.126.185.129 (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

24 counts of first degree murder

There are 24 counts of first degree murder for the 12 victims. One notable detail missing is why there are two counts per victim. 67.101.5.196 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am no expert but it may be that it was one for the shooting and one for the killing but that's just my guess. United States Man (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a possibility. According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19049873, "For each person killed he faces a count of murder with deliberation and one of murder with extreme indifference"; that explains what the two counts are but it is still not clear what's going on. 67.101.5.196 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That issue was addressed in the following article: James Holmes Charges: Aurora Shooting Suspect Faces 24 Counts Of First-Degree Murder The article states: For each of the 12 fatally shot moviegoers, Holmes faces one count of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree murder with "extreme indifference." Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a Canadian source that really clarifies what's going on:

http://www.globaltoronto.com/the+charges+against+colorado+shooting+suspect/6442688730/story.html

67.101.5.196 (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed-page didn't generate all the way, my questions were answered. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's standard to charge the same crime with multiple counts because if the jury decides not to convict on the "worse" charge then they may convict on the lesser charge. For example consider the numerous capital murder cases where the jury declines to convict on murder in the first degree but does convict on murder in the second or manslaughter; if those charges weren't in the charging documents then the jury would not have had the option. causa sui (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Think tank wikilink

I removed a link to a lame article about a company and replaced to with think tank a few minutes ago. Another editor feels I was in the wrong. I invite others to seek consensus and decide which link to include. Pew Research Center is the link I removed. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd keep the name in, for accuracy's sake. Never hurts to specify, and it may give some context to readers. You could say "a think tank, Pew Research Center" and Wikilink both, I guess. And unless the poll has somehow changed its mind, "suggests" is better than "suggested". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the article. It seems like a telemarketer/phone poll company. 120 employees, primary sources, advert, COI, merge, delete, etc, etc. It just seemed 'spammish' to me to leave it in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Pew Research Center is a prestigious, nonpartisan non-advocacy academic research organization with a yearly budget of several million dollars provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts, an organization with 5 billion in assets. Their research is used by virtually every major media organization and is highly respected. Anyone who would call Pew a "telemarketer/phone poll company" that seems "spammish" isn't quite up to speed. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are issues for that article's talk page, I think. No rules against avoiding links to poor articles when they're relevant. After thinking about it, though, the whole fact about the survey seems a bit pointless. It basically says "nothing happened". It would be a different story if it suggested one side had a significant increase. But if this shooting didn't affect opinions, where's the relevance? We can't list everything the shooting didn't affect. I support erasing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Pew research is cited by the most reliable sources we have and is highly relevant to this topic. In fact, it would be hard to find a more reliable survey organization to use as a source. Pew is widely used on Wikipedia, and is highly respected for their sound analysis. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't a reputable or reliable source. Just that stating the fact that nothing changed seems pointless. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking it because it only has 120 employees, its article is 4 sources, 3 to itself, and the 4th to an obit on the chairman. It was also started by a Times media corp. so they may still be connected to mucho media. It has wikilinks all over to stats but none I saw had those 'reliabilty' % listed. They could just phone 100 people then and call it a stat.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Canoe, you're a smart guy, so why are you carrying on like this? Pew is one of the most respected research/polling organizations out there. The difference is that they are more academic and work very closely with the media. In fact, I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that every major media org cites their data. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

They may have different rules down there than here. All of our stats usually have a 'reliability' figure listed. I am going to read Polls and see what it says. The media may use them because of their connection on founding by a Times corp. The source here even goes to a Times paper so that may be considered primary source by some.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that they haven't been part of the Times since 1995. Have you looked at their extensive website? It will answer all of your questions. They are not funded by the Times. They are funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a charity. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Canoe, you're a smart guy, so why are you carrying on like this?" I would suggest that this comment added nothing to the discussion. causa sui (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find their sampling numbers anywhere on the PEW site. Gallup_poll#Gallup_Poll has some right in their article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

These are the figures we get with our polls up here: "From February 2 to February 3, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,002 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panellists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding." I haven't seen any on theirs. They may be common just because they are the cheapest. I think Gallup is a good one down there. Can we get stats from them?--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

PEW does it this way: http://www.people-press.org/methodology/sampling/ --Canoe1967 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OR on polling

I did some OR on polling. It seems there are various types. This company may do the quick type for media stories. Other types are for where to build malls and election ones on where to campaign harder in elections. That may be why they are smaller but still notable. Since they are in the media a lot that may be why they are in so many wp sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo RV

Regarding the Obama photo in the Aurora article - I am not sure if an editor is simply missing the point of the discussion or not. In any event, please review archive 3 here [[8]]. The objections to inclusion of a photo are regarding the nature of the original picture, which was initially a generic publicity photo of the president talking on the phone. The initial reversion of the photo was justified by User:Ianmacm by saying "The reason why I removed the photo had nothing to do with politics. The photo of George W Bush in Virginia Tech massacre is much more tightly focused, because it shows him after giving a speech on campus. A similar photo of Barack Obama visiting the victims of the Colorado shooting in hospital etc would also be ideal." Such a photo was introduced by User:Chaser and supported by User:JamesAM, User:Ryan Vesey, User:331dot, me here, neutral from User:Ianmacm though it does seem to coincide with his/her comments above, and negative only from User:Causa sui. That's 5 in favor, 1 neutral, and 1 opposed. The reversions of the picture in question - not the original generic picture - thus appear to be a substitution of individual judgment over what in most Wiki articles is certainly a clear enough consensus for inclusion. Sensei48 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. There appears to be consensus for inclusion, so I will add it back. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the points on policy and guidelines brought up before were: It was a photo taken on the scene and relevent to the section it was in, Obama was president when it happened "on his watch", other BLPs were there as well and images should be included from the 'top down' so if the pope had shown up his image should be included as well. If consensus allows and we have an image of the other BLPs that were there we may insert another one as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Link farm

Do we really need all those external links? Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Some were trimmed, with 108 citations, the article is not short of things to read off-wiki.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will mark as resolved.

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

COLORADO MASSACRE LINKED TO HISTORIC BANK FRAUD ?

Don't know but it seems a very interesting different analys about the shooting...

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/war/terrorism_war/news.php?q=1343231885

Obrigado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.37.195.233 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Purely a conspiracy theory promotion site, from what I can tell. Unreliable by any sense of the word. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's putting it mildly!HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And Speaking of Fraudulent Conspiracy Theories...RV of Non-RS Material

Appending the "Undue" and "By whom?" tags to the recently added conspiracy theory tail to the "Sale of guns and gun control debate" section was a gesture that invited discussion, and as much as I applaud the well-meaning gesture, that addition must be reverted for the following reasons:

• It is OT to this particular section, which has been worked on and debated by well-intended editors of contrasting viewpoints regarding its relevance and wording. The conspiracy theory has nothing whatsoever to do with either gun sales or the control debate.
• It is poorly sourced to sites that do not rise to the level of a Wikipedia RS. While The Huffington Post-UK may of itself be generally considered a RS, the entire article is a report/summary of inference, speculation, and rumor that appear on this site [9] and this one [10]. Both of these are essentially blogs that are pushing their respective POVs without the necessity of peer review and scrutiny. If this summary were added to the Wikipedia article using those two sites as sources, it would be rv'd immediately for lack of RS. The fact that two unreliable sites are referenced in the HP does not then make them reliable. I can find reports in usually RS that quote moon landing deniers, Elvis sightings, and knowledge of the grassy knoll shooter - but appearance in an RS does not confer reliability on fringe theories and theorists.
• The edit itself is a poorly-rendered presentation of the HP article. Author Ted Thornhill is implicitly scoffing at the ideas and is employing irony in his own non-summary comments like "It’s traditional for conspiracy theories to flood the internet after a major crime – and sure enough, there are a few bouncing around following the mass shooting..." and "And why would the FBI do such a thing? Government control, of course, via the UN treaty." Yet the edit uses phrases like "circumstantial evidence" that appear nowhere in the HP article and implies that it is the HP article and not the fringe sites that is the source for the conspiracy theory.
• The last line of the edit reads "There is no solid evidence in support of the theory." QED. It thus has no place anywhere in this article, much less in this section.

I see that some well-meaning soul has removed the section as I type this. Should t reappear, I will rv it and cite the Talk page here.Sensei48 (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I reworded the section for clarity and conciseness. I think I stayed pretty faithful to the source, though not verbatim. I'm slightly in support of leaving the info in, but don't really care. Just keeping it tidy. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Which you did, IMHO - a good edit of a bad addition. The jury seems to be in about excluding it. That having been said - were it ever to become a real story with acual sources, it might be added back in a separate section, I suppose. But then - they never got the guy from the grassy knoll.... regards, Sensei48 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists are so unoriginal. They put forward the same idea after the Port Arthur massacre. What matters for this article is that the Huffington Post, blogs etc do not establish notability for WP:REDFLAG material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists are not "they". That's what "they" want you to think! But yeah, you're otherwise right. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Huffington Post can be considered RS. Just check www.huffingtonpost.com right now. The news is sensational, perhaps even literally true, still unreliable because the implications are incorrect. 68.126.185.129 (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree folks - I was erring on the side of caution, however. Some straight news and well-researched analysis does occasionally appear in HP, but on the whole is not necessarily RS.Sensei48 (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Trim suspect section?

There seems to be a lot in it that is repeated in the suspect article and some may not match. Do we need the whole apartment section? Material not relating such as the gun club, less detail in court appearance, prior purchases, digital foot prints, etc, etc? Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we remove duplicate information on the suspect in this article, and leave just basic info (first two sentences of the Suspect section) there?

• Support Easier to manage WP:BLP if info in one place. Can't see a logic behind duplicating it.
• Support Less is more. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Casua Sui's comment below notwithstanding, the information should only be in one place. If a stand along BLP is going to survive, then we should only have a brief summary here. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

First, see WP:POLLS. Second, the merge should be going the other way. causa sui (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:James_Eagan_Holmes#Merge. We can't reopen that discussion in good faith. 68.126.178.118 (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for the time being It may just be a formallity, but lets wait to see if anything gets released that might need more indepth detail. Then we'll have room to fit it. FiveSidedFistagon (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

the point is that any thing indepth belongs in the BLP as long as that article exists. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A Message to The editors of this Article

I started a Discussion on Talk:Jessica Ghawi Please consider to have a look Thanks Fox2k11 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)