Jump to content

Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 130.108.169.41 (talk) at 15:14, 20 July 2012 (→Escape from Custody). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comments

Here is also 2012 Denver shootings article. --Stryn (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article at this title because I didn't notice that it had already been created elsewhere. Since the other article was created first, I've deleted mine and moved the pre-existing article (2012 Denver shootings) here (2012 Aurora movie theater shooting), which I think is a better title, although probably not the perfect title. Hopefully I haven't made it too confusing, but I was trying to avoid a situation where we have two or three different articles about the same subject. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title

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

Agree with this, by the way - my semi-protection of this page was to stop IP nonsense but I think the title should be singular, it would be constructive if people stopped edit warring over it and discussed, though. - filelakeshoe 10:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please compare 2012 Tulsa shootings. Mephtalk 10:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, please don't move articles by copying and pasting content. Mephtalk 10:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

In my opinion Aurora shooting or Denver shooting is more accurate than shootings. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should be 2012 Aurora shooting, and redirected this page to that one. Can we please have some agreement on this? Robofish (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any change of title should be accomplished with a move, not with a redirect to a mostly copy/pasted version of the original. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's no concensus over 'shooting' and 'shootings' among similar articles, I'd suggest deferring to whatever title was originally given when first created: [1]. Mephtalk 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The singular should be more appropriate.--Coekon (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Aurora shootings is the older article by five minutes, so let's keep it at that for now. I still think the singular title is more logical though. Robofish (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed this is main article but at wrong title. it should be shooting, but i do think it worth considering if this should be Aurora or Denver. The international media is heavily referring to this as Denver. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But domestic media is referring as Aurora, such as CNN. In my personal opinion, the domestic media shall prevail.--Coekon (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no convention let's leave it here for now - I merged over the extra section + stub cats you added from the other article, when more media usage comes out we can move it if necessary over one of the other redirects. - filelakeshoe 10:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the plurality is accurate nomenclature. While there is a convention on WP:PLURAL for adopting the singular, it's also the case that 'shooting' denotes an instance of a shooting, rather than multiple shootings, and hence the singular fails to signify properly: [2]. Mephtalk 10:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that while the media may be using 'Denver', that's actually inaccurate - Aurora, Colorado is a separate municipality, although it is part of the broader Denver metropolitan area. Robofish (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 2012 Aurora shootings article (which began as 2012 Denver shootings) was created 42 minutes before 2012 Aurora shooting, not five. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Wouldn't it be better to name the article "2012 Aurora Theater Shooting" or "2012 Aurora Theater Massacre?"

Comments

"Gunman" is sexist language. Say "armed individual" or "person with a gun." If the person is unknown, don't say "man in custody." That, too, is sexist. Say "unknown person in custody." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.165.229.61 (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you wouldn't care if it said gunwoman or woman holding a gun. Keep your feministic views off Wikipedia.
It's a legitimate complaint.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneBrightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YAAFM. All reports describe a Male. Gunman is accurate.Mantion (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A gunman cannot be called a gunman?, talk about Political correctness. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you're correct. My edits can be reverted then. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well i changed to armed man, can be changed to gunman if people want. But certainly needs to say male rather than individual. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They just mentioned that 12 was confirmed dead not 14. http://www.9news.com/video/9newsonline.aspx 5:48

Youngest victim

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

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

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

YesY Done --wL<speak·check> 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Referencing Source

It'd be good to include facts from particular sources in sentences with their sources. For instance, the sentence that gives his age as 24 had a footnote to a news report that just says he's in his 20s. But 2 sentences later, an unrelated sentence has a citation to a news article that describes him as 24. It'd be good to keep the information near the correct citation, because I shortly (before undoing it) edited the 24 reference back to '20s' since the associated footnote said '20s'.Douglaswyatt (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to do this yourself. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 11:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I was just hoping I wouldn't have to keep doing so. Douglaswyatt (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee license plates?

Unconfirmed reports of a Tennessee license plate for the gunman, does anyone know anything more about this? --Old Al (Talk) 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely true not very relevant at this time.Mantion (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. This was listed at WP:RM/TR; I took a look here, saw a pretty clear consensus and so carried out the move. The history that was previously located at 2012 Aurora shooting is now at Talk:2012 Aurora shooting/old. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


2012 Aurora shootings → 2012 Aurora shooting – I think the article title does need changing, at the very least it needs to be moved to shooting, which is more accurate than shootings (which implies more than one incident) as reflected by the overwhelming majority of news organisations using the term "shooting" -Daily Telegraph, BBC,CNN,Fox,Sky news,Guardian,CBS, ABC News, NBC news,Reuters,AFP,MSN,AP. I am not sure if there would be consensus at this stage to change the name to something like 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, although i think it would be more helpful if it did have a title like that.. but at the very least we need to get a correct title like "2012 Aurora shooting". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support use of Denver as that is what the international press is using, but not "Denver Batman massacre". I agree that a wider debate on what is the best name is needed, i just want to see a speedy fix to this current title which is certainly inaccurate with "shootings", and not the term used by the sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Denver Batman massacre"?? It looks like the Batman conducted the massacre. In addition, American press uses Aurora. I think the local press is more accurate. --Coekon (talk)

If there are no objections to a speedy change to 2012 Aurora shooting should i list it as a technical move or is there an admin about that will be able to make this move if there is consensus? obviously its not something that should wait the standard 7 days. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I have requested a technical move here [3] to ask someone to move the article to 2012 Aurora shooting as there appears to be consensus now that is a more accurate title than shootings, and we should not wait for 7 days to correct it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks its been changed now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reactions

Just heard on 9news.com live feed that the Obama family as well as presidential candidate Mitt Romney have both commented thus far on this event. Idk how to do it but maybe we should add a Reactions section? Maybe not if that's only applicable to international events. 98.28.68.210 (talk)

 Done --wL<speak·check> 11:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Total killed

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

Almost all the sources ive seen say 14, i think we should stick with what the most sources say unless there is far more conflicting sources. I saw one fox article url or headline say 15, yet the article it self and fox news at the time were saying 14. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm BBC has just changed theirs to at leaast 12. [4] so maybe we should change to the range and say conflicting reports. BBC had been saying 14 for hours. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now Fox on TV and the CNN article are both stating the figure has been revised down to 12. Guess it's still a wait-and-see thing. I'm wondering what set off the "14" figure. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. BBC declares it is 12 now --Coekon (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Media outlets likely reported 14 based on an initial scene assessment. Adhere to current reports, in which case the appropriate figure is 12. Mephtalk 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The local news station (9news.com out of Colorado I think) just stated there were 12 confirmed deaths so I'd have to support the first guy suggesting that multiple counts be mentioned for now. 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.68.210 (talk)
I don't want to start some sort of pro-life debate, but does wiki recognize a pregnant women as 1 death or 2?Mantion (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no position about this (WP:NPOV). We report casualties as they are reported by reliable sources, i.e., the media and authorities.  Sandstein  12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Wikipedia policy, it may be appropriate to mention special attributes of the victims that help describe the incident's impact. So it may be appropriate to mention that a pregnant woman was among the victims, if that has been confirmed, or a child or infant, as has been mentioned in some stories. One would not count a pregnant woman however as two victims for numerous reasons, including that one may not necessarily know if she was carrying one or more fetuses (or children, which the media may choose to describe her as carrying).[[User:Ssc] (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News reporting a young girl, six yrs old iirc, succumbed to injuries, so waiting on written source saying count has ticked up. :( — Huntster (t @ c) 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the name of the suspect

Please refrain from including the name of the suspect. This is a standard protocol of media ethics that we should uphold. Making the name famous in the immediate aftermath incentivizes similar attacks. Twyn3161 (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. Krford (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or a newspaper. - filelakeshoe 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be sensible. Twyn3161 (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the news I saw the name has been released. I don't know if it's appropriate to put name here UsefulWikipedia (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored (WP:CENSOR). We are also not part of the media and I doubt that any code of professional ethics prohibits reporting the name of an alleged mass murderer. The name (if accompanied by a citation to reliable source, see WP:BLP) is highly relevant information and must be included.  Sandstein  12:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no source given so i've removed it... but you know why. Twyn3161 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twyn3161 cut it out. Consensus is against you and I see no source cited from you saying that not releasing the name of a suspect is standard media protocol. I'm only familiar with not releasing the names of juveniles or victims. Here's your source with a name: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes/story?id=16818889#.UAlTqyIvyRY Chrisbrl88 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it for no source. There's a source now. This is absurdly irresponsible, but have at it. Twyn3161 (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E allows for the inclusion of the suspect's name, and common freaking sense says this is important information. Stop this pointy stuff. It might be irresponsible in your view, but it isn't in the view of the community. --Cerejota (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22301897/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/should-media-make-mass-killers-famous/ There's a reason that the good newspapers - such as NYTIMES have not published the name but the poor ones have. Which would you rather be reflective of?Twyn3161 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read and understand WP:SOAPBOX. If you have a problem with policy, go and discuss it at WP:BLP/WP:BIO and at WP:CENSOR. This is not the place. Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Twyn3161 - the media always reports the name of suspects in crimes, often mistakenly - so your talk of "code of ethics" is, alas, not true. GiantSnowman 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thinkthe name is allowable under two restrictions : 1) only in the isolated suspect section for now, not in the overall article. 2) making sure always to identify as alleged/suspected etc and never factual. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only real restriction here is WP:BLPCRIME. If the suspect's name is readily available in reliable sources, it can be included in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Could people please explain why they believe a map showing the location of "Aurora, Colorado" is irrelevant? [5] [6] I thought this was the whole point of the map parameter of this infobox. - filelakeshoe 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map used previously showed no reference points. It just looked like a random sketch. Add some town or street names. Krford (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the map originally because there was no explanation for its removal, and the edit summary was misleading...thought it may have been a mistake. I see no problem with it, as it illustrates location, and the caption clearly states the town is the red mark. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed again, I'm nearly at 3RR on this article, and don't have access to an image editing software right now so fine. I don't know what part of "location of Aurora (red) in the state of Colorado" was so hard to understand, but whatever. - filelakeshoe 13:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded the map. There is absolutely no reason that it should be unwelcome, as the caption explains its significance to the article. As to the mention of "street names", this is a map of the entire state, not just the county of the shooting, that's why there's no street names. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Krford, stop removing the map. Several others have expressed that the map does indeed add something to the article, so find consensus against it before removing again. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, just saw your edit. To clarify my position, I don't think the map is terribly helpful for those without knowledge of US geography, but for those with knowledge, it helps to identify this location within the context of the state. The main reason I support its inclusion is because we completely lack any other imagery. Once we get an image of the theatre, or even the mall, I would certainly consider revisiting the subject of the map. But currently, I don't see any reason it shouldn't be there. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe people will find this map more suitable: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2012AuroraShootingLocation.png Chrisbrl88 (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort, but I feel like it doesn't give any kind of frame of reference, at least, not like the current image does (which at least makes it clear where in the state of Colorado that Aurora is). Other thoughts? — Huntster (t @ c) 13:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If someone with access to image editing software could emulate something like what there is at 2011 Tucson shooting I suppose that would be an improvement. - filelakeshoe 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check it now. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but are google maps not copyrighted? - filelakeshoe 13:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
https://developers.google.com/maps/terms Section 8.3 Chrisbrl88 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point that was raised. Google Maps only give a license for personal, non-transferable use. The content remains copyrighted and is non-free. Sorry, but it cannot be used in this situation, when a free alternative exists. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok edited using an image licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (CC BY-SA). Check now. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd my map go?! that thing took me like 20 minutes! Chrisbrl88 (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when it was removed, but please be mindful that this is Wikipedia, and if others don't like the map, they are free to remove it. Time invested is no guarantee of it being kept. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current map is pretty worthless for those that don't know the county shapes of colorado by heart. I think a bigger scale map showing perhaps the whole state, and a few major cities or something would be significantly more informative. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke Grenade vs. Tear Gas Canister

NBC, CNN, and witness interviews report a tear gas canister - not a smoke grenade. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-scene/ Chrisbrl88 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some reports of 2 canistersMantion (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've only seen tear gas reports (BBC radio) being reported by officials & survivors. GiantSnowman 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the story closely this morning and the so-called "smoke grenade" or "tear gas" has been described in the reports -- often by witnesses who are simply using metaphors to explain what they saw, heard, or in many cases simply what they've heard by hearsay -- in so many ways, it's unclear if it was truly a "smoke grenade" or "tear gas" or what. It's been described in various media reports as a "flash-bang", as tear gas, or some sort of smoke grenade. It may be much better to describe it as what witnesses have generally described as possibly some sort of small explosive device with a smoke or gas aerosol. All sources I've read or heard have used very similar terms, and no reports contradict that sort of phrasing. I'd like for someone here who can describe this in more temperate, accurate language to change the reference to "smoke grenade" or "tear gas" in the opening paragraph to reflect this. (edit at 10:15 central, I tried changing "tear gas" in the opening paragraph to "a canister that released some kind of gas or smoke" to reflect language from "Aurora 'Dark Knight' Shooting Suspect Identified: James Holmes" from abc.go.com, By PIERRE THOMAS (@PierreTABC) , RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW MOSK (@mattmosk) , JACK DATE and JASON RYAN @JasonRyanABC)-- and Ill try to properly footnote this. July 20, 2012 -- Ok I tried to change the sentence and reference this URL: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-james-holmes/story?id=16818889 and add this sentence: "The gunman then deployed a canister that released some kind of gas or smoke before opening fire, killing 12 and injuring at least 50 - among them a six year old." -- but I can't due to an "edit conflict" -- so someone who knows better what to do, please make this or a similar change. User:Ssc (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

License plates

I heard that two cars had license places from Tennessee. Just update, Sorry if has been posted. UsefulWikipedia (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they had proof that the plates were from there.UsefulWikipedia (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"thought to be the worst mass shooting in the US since Virginia Tech"

What does "worst" mean? Most people killed? If that's the case then surely this is easily verifiable and "thought to" is inappropriate. The source isn't very clear on it. - filelakeshoe 12:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is fluff and the sources are unclear. I would avoid at this point that kind of thing until the sources stabilize. I mean this happened like 5 hours ago. --Cerejota (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fluff or not, this seems like a fairly clear claim and seems to be referenced. --John (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
except 13 died in Fort hood shooting, compared to 12 in this as currently reported. So ive removed for now, maybe later once all the figures are completely confirmed it might be worth putting something like that. But not at this stage as figures continue to change. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear - "thought to be" without agent is passive voice abuse, and it's not clear what is meant by "worst", is this most people killed, most people injured, killed + injured, or some guy's opinion? - filelakeshoe 13:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance?

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

If a reliable source has provided another person's reponse, feel free to include that as well. GiantSnowman 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of balance Romney should be quoted too and the media saw it notable enough to state his response. There should of course be other reaction too. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of section is standard. As to LeBron James, no, but if the Colorado Rockies cancelled a game or held a ceremony, that would likely be relevant. Basically, the info is there for those interested, but can be skipped by those who aren't. If you aren't interested, skip reading it. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of victims

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

If a reliable source mentions one of the victims may be a person of (some) note, or that they were at least present, then so should we. Escaping another shooting is interesting but only trivia. GiantSnowman 13:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think she is notable enough to be on this article. United States Man (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her tweets have been the subject of news coverage in Canada, the United States, and Britain. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
US Man - I have reverted you - we do not decide if she is notable enough, reliable sources do. GiantSnowman 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does she have a wiki page? United States Man (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a subtle difference between 'notable enough for a standalone article' and 'notable enough to be mentioned'. GiantSnowman 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attack

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

"FBI [... said no terrorism link had been established". GiantSnowman 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.154.204 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, I'm sure more details will be forthcoming with time. GiantSnowman 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Escape from Custody

BBC Newshour is reporting that Homes escaped from Colorado police custody and there is a manhunt for him involving several departments.

Number Killed

Sources are now reporting the count at 14. Should this be reflected upon the article? Piandcompany (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above section...reports are between 12 and 15, with 12 being the currently reported figure by most places. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Batman Massacre

The killings are also being called "The Batman Massacre" should this be added to the article? --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 14:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's mentioned in a reliable source... GiantSnowman 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the stupidest name i've heard. United States Man (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose any reference to batman being put in the first sentence as an alternative description, but if there are a lot of sources using similar such terms it might be worth including in an media reaction section. But nnot in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not for us to decide, really. Should the media settle on a name like "Dark Knight massacre", we would most definitely include it prominently in the lead. The only reason not to do so is because it's too early to tell. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the name "Dark Knight massacre" is far more widely used in the news media. Following my request, it has been created as a redirect to help people looking for more information after reading one of the many online sources referring to the shooting as "Dark Knight massacre". But even though many news articles call it that, I don't believe it warrants mention in the article, for now. There is no "official" name for the shooting, so the current generic title is perfectly fine. Only if and when after a couple of weeks the media appear to settle on one or more names for the shooting, we can then discuss including them in the article lead. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Reaction

"In France, the shooting is major news. It's the top story on leading newspaper Le Monde's website and also top national broadcaster TF1's site and also on cable news network iTele and BFM TV's sites. It was also the leading story on public TV network France 3's 12 p.m. news program." Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12855087-dark-knight-rises-paris-premiere-scrapped-following-us-shootings?lite Jonathan.richmond (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be a media coverage/reaction section for the article. which could include where some of the other descriptions for this shooting get mentioned if they are reliably sources. It is dominating the news here in the UK too, so international media reaction would have plenty of notable stuff to include. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it should be in the article then I agree 100%. United States Man (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEBOLD and go for it. GiantSnowman 14:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not start the usual nonsense like "the King of Foobar expressed condolences". Almost every nation does it, it's inevitable, and it's not exceptional or notable. Krford (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly. Everybody and their mother expresses their condolences simply because that's expected protocol in our times of instant global news. --213.196.216.194 (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Krford - I don't think we were going to include every last nation that expressed condolences, just the more notable ones (such as France). United States Man (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not getting Krford's point. What makes anyone (including e.g. President Obama) expressing their condolences notable for this particular incident when they routinely express their condolences for every single incident like this? --213.196.216.194 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

obama/romney I would say should be included, as their reactions (or lack thereof) could be inherently notable . (See how reactions to say 9/11, katrina, other shootings have been spun for political purposes etc). For other things (mayor of NY, random leaders of other states/countries) I would agree they should be held to a minimum unless they are in some way more notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should see if we can get consensus on a moratorium on updating the reactions section for an hour or two. There are so many reactions coming out right now (especially with Obama speaking) that it could cause a lot of problems with edit conflicts. Anyone in favor? Chrisbrl88 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

video

video of the incident/aftermath is being shown by several major news sites, should we include a link? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not needed because it has nothing to do with the shootings. Its probably just video of the police running around and victims still trying to figure out what happened. And, please use capital letters when you start sentences or people might think you are lacking common sense. United States Man (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of New York comments notable ?

The mayor of new york has commented, with more than mere expressions of sympathy for the incident.[7] would that be worth including in the reaction section and possibly using it to link to an article on the US gun debate? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds mostly like a political response to me, and not all that notable. The NYC police commissioner's comments regarding NYC police watching over screenings for copycat crimes might be more notable, though. WTF? (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of / need for emergency warning

I strongly believe there is a need for a section relating to something like this. It is interesting (and disturbing) that the moviegoers thought the violence was part of the movie premiere's action or something. It makes one wonder how warning could have been issued to the people in the theater (whether it was or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.rider81 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do reliable sources have to say on the matter? GiantSnowman 14:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's policy on this. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Aurora_theater_shooting&oldid=503289005"