Jump to content

Talk:James Holmes (mass murderer)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.98.143.25 (talk) at 10:41, 4 August 2012 (→‎Feedback: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

READ THIS FIRST

This talk page must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

Merge

Despite lengthy and impassioned discussions about WP:ONEEVENT, it is clear that after a week no clear consensus to merge has been established. Manning (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

WP:CRYSTAL since this person is not convicted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - while it could be argued that the only reason this alleged psycho is notable now is because of this one act (or one set of acts on July 19-20), and he's simply part of the subject of the shooting, and not notable otherwise, let's face it...every mass murderer gets his own article anyway at some point, so why not now? At this point it could go either way, but if one is honest, it won't be an "either way it can go" type situation forever. The Columbine murderers have their own separate stand-alone articles. This loser Holmes is really no different, and in a way more notable. Since he single-handedly perpetrated chaos on a scale surpassing anything else (At least 70 casualties in one day, not to mention that booby trap nightmare at his apartment.) So no merging. He seems to be unfortunately stand-alone enough. And if not now, very soon will be anyway. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WWGB; this article is inevitable. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If the content is left at the shooting article, then soon enough it will overload that article and be forked out, if only so that that article is not all about him. As WWGB and Rabbit have said above, this seems to be inevitable. I agree that it's a waste to delete it now, if it is just going to need to be recreated in the near future anyway. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He's a high profile killer like Ted Bundy. Theres too many details on the shooting and the article will be overloaded. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Holmes has already sparked a large amount of interest in him as a person, and has also perpetrated a highly noted event. As most have noted above, he will probably end up with his own page in the future, regardless of this merge decision. Maslogical (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge: Br'er Rabbit and others in this section should be ashamed of themselves for sacrificing core editing principles in the name of convenience. What's worse is that these editors have not only resigned themselves to believing that this article will exist, they're actively standing in the way of a merge by opposing here. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to read Wikipedia:Etiquette. WWGB (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's amusing that you can't simply say that you found my comment to be impolite, but instead choose to cite a specific Wikipedia guideline. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually someone needs to read Ryan's good comment right below, to show clearly that "core editing principles" in fact are NOT being "sacrificed" for "convenience". It's stated that high profile individuals (Holmes definitely is) in a high profile case (this shooting in Colorado definitely is) would meet the WP policy and principles for a stand-alone person, subject, and article. So to put it frankly, MZMcBride is wrong, and ought to be ashamed of himself for being rude A), and B) not understanding or knowing some actual WP editing principles. The Columbine shooters have their own articles. Should those articles be "merged" into the Columbine shooting article? Can someone say "snowball"? High-profile persons with their high-profile actions. It's that simple. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read his comment. Have you read the article? Can you explain which part of the sum of human knowledge would be lost by cutting the absolute cruft that's currently trying to sustain this biography?
For what it's worth, I don't take issue with people who disagree with me regarding whether to keep this article. I have more stringent standards than others and I've lost many battles similar to this before. I do take issue with people opposing a merge simply because they view the result as inevitable, though. This kind of makeshift pseudo-self-fulfilling prophecy bullshit really ought not be allowed in discussions here. People should comment and vote based on what they actually feel should happen to the article. This is about sacrificing personal principles for the purpose of making shoddy predictions about what might happen to the article. No thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no worries, we know each other ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose BLP1E specifically excludes low-profile individuals who receive significant coverage for one event from having an article. Then we must decide if he is a high- or low-profile individual. In this case, I am looking at Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual#Behavior pattern and activity level. The description of a low-profile individual refers to those who are "notable only for a minor role in one major event, or for a recurring major role in a series of minor events". In this case, Holmes is notable for a major role in a major event, which would make him a high-profile individual. This causes him to be excluded from BLP1E in the same matter as McVeigh and Loughner. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can only repeat that all the relevant arguments in this regard have been exchanged in the not so distant past here, here, here and here. As you can see, the result was always to keep the article. I really wonder how often consensus has to be reached in this matter, before it is finally accepted. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose add to the above, as noted, these guys, who also have their own article. Time to quit arguing about this. Montanabw(talk) 15:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Cho has his own article, Eric and Dylan have their own article, James Holmes will too have his own article. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The guideline strictly says that as more info comes up, a separate right will be appropriate. Let's just save ourselves the hassle in the future. I'm sure Holmes' article will be ready in the near future (although I think it's perfectly fine right now). Besides, merging it may mean removing important details of Holmes' involvement and overall personality. ComputerJA (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although I'm tempted to support, I must concede to Ryan Vesey's reasoning. That said, I wish to note strong concerns that this article MUST remain in compliance with WP:BLPCRIME at all times. Until such time as he pleads guilty or is convicted, we must not refer to him as guilty. Period. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The contents have to comply with WP:BLP whether they are in a separate article or in a subsection. A separate article for Holmes will have to be created anyway--he is a major actor in a major event (one-time-event notability): see the WP:BLP1E exception. As things stand, there is enough content here for a start-level article, and clearly we will have more down the road. If we merge, we will end up sacrificing some relevant information and just overload the other article. The argument notoriety doesn't deserve coverage in an encyclopedia doesn't work (for one thing that isn't WP policy, for another we could very well learn from these incidents and people perhaps what not to be). Ajoykt (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ryan Vesey, but other opposes need to steer clear of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Giants27(T|C) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Someone this newsworthy will have a biographical article. Not sure why there's even an argument. (...even after reading the foregoing.) Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at articles Bruno Richard Hauptmann and the Lindbergh kidnapping. Would Hauptmann have his own article if he hadn't perpetrated the kidnapping? No. Some Wikipedia readers are interested in the criminal, some in the crime. The respective articles are very different. Valerius Tygart (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge Why does he need a separate article for being a major player? Other instances, ie Raul Moat, just give information on the article regarding the crime 92.14.250.79 (talk) 2012-07-23 16:45:39
  • Oppose merge. They need separate articles. An article on the perpetrator provides readers with significant insight and more information. The information from the Aurora article should only concentrate on the event. Cho-Seung Hui (Virginia Tech Massacre perpetrator) and Jared Loughner (Gabby Giffords shooter) both have their own pages. I think that makes ore sense.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRuner24 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: While I get that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", even a two year old can see this will have a lasting impact, be a subject of study for various fields of criminology and psychology, and really be not much less impactful than Jared Lee Loughner, Eric Harris, and even older examples like Charles Whitman. Sarysa (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose James Eagan Holmes passes the WP:GNG which pretty much has a say over the others while WP:BLP1E is more of a guideline. Under BLP1E it says "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." The suspect here is not a low profile individual and has been in a ton of reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.231.19 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The columbine shooters have their own article. Why not Holmes?--Mark0528 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm generally not a big fan of these kinds of articles, but as others have correctly pointed out, the crime is so high-profile that having a separate bio article is correct and inevitable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's a lot of precedent for having separate articles, and practically speaking the event article is going to get overloaded. Mystere (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for the time being. I understand the arguments on both sides, but feel that Holmes satisfies the criterion for his own article. However, I also expect more information to come out that, to reference an good comment from earlier, would allow us a richer perspective on his motives in this one event. If said information never arrives, and this article remains just a general bio with a brief synopsis of the shooting, at that point I would vote to merge. - Drlight11 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Many other shooters have their own articles, so how come this one shouldn't? Also, what if a reader wanted to look up more information about the background of the shooter? In that situation, a separate article, such as this one, could turn out to be really quite useful. SuperHero2111 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge -- Holmes only claim to fame or rather infamy is this event. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the only argument the merge supporters have (and I haven't seen any other) there is no case at all here. WP:BIO1E explicitly says: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Both conditions are obviously met here. In general, WP:MERGE lists 4 criteria for a merge--duplication, overlap, text (insufficient), and context--of which only text seems to apply here. But to quote: "Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, . . ." This also doesn't hold here. Ajoykt (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians have incredible difficulty with editorial judgment. There's enough information to write a biography about any individual. The question is whether a separate article makes sense here. The answer is no. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? Insufficient text? Ajoykt (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of proportionate coverage. The event (the shooting) is certainly notable. Inside the event's article, you'd obviously discuss the suspect and provide a few paragraphs' worth of background about him. However, as a standalone biography, there's nothing of substance beyond this individual's involvement in this shooting. Can you write a full biography (i.e., is it possible to)? Yes, of course you can, that was my point. You can write a full biography about anyone. Does that mean that including such a biography here is appropriate? No. This individual is notable for one particular event. I don't see what value it provides to anyone to create and maintain a biography on the individual when there's an article on the reason anyone is discussing him. Do we really care that "in the summer of 2008, Holmes worked as a counselor at a residential summer camp in Glendale, California, that catered to needy children aged 7–14." Of course not. However, Wikipedians have difficulty with editorial judgment, as I said. The ability to provide in-depth coverage about a subject very often overshadows the more important question of whether a subject needs such in-depth coverage. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "of course not" is your opinion; clearly others think differently. It isn't a question of what we care about. The idea of an encyclopedia is to assemble relevant facts others can use for their purposes. Obviously the issue of articles on a mass shooter has been discussed before on WP, and the WP:BIO1E "separate article is generally appropriate" policy guideline is the consensus answer from those discussions. If you oppose that you should bring up your objections on the policy talk pages first. But as long as that is the policy, a separate article is appropriate, and even recommended. Ajoykt (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a particular Wikipedia guideline or policy says isn't directly relevant. Both you and I are capable of assessing this article as it is and as it relates to the underlying notable event. I've commented that I don't support a separate article and I've laid out my reasoning why. You and others are hell-bent on having a separate biography. Oh well. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support If he's presumed innocent - and he is - then why is he notable?198.161.2.241 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Merge per WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. Subject unmistakeably satisfies GNG, of that there is no doubt. In addition, BLP1E, which has been cited by almost all the editors of the opposite opinion, clearly points to the inclusion of a separate article for this subject. The subject is clearly high profile, which requires that we interpret BLP1E in support of a separate article. WP:BIO1E clearly points in to maintaining the separate article for the same reason as BLP1E. Safiel (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Sorry, but since when is being accused of a notable crime "playing a significant role"? This is ridiculous. --IShadowed 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the subject is identified is the sole perpetrator of the event, he played an extremely "significant role" in the event.--Oakshade (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Individual not infamous outside of this one event. No reason for a separate article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. He has done nothing significant outside of this event and does not deserve his own page. I say delete his page altogether until he is convicted and we can add him to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentond (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High profile historically important, no less than the Unibomber and other high profile killers. This singular event is the worst mass shooting in American history. 9/11 was also a singular event yet every single hijacker has his own wikip article. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly one of the worst but calling it the worst is questionable. There are four mass shootings in the U.S. listed at List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas with a higher death toll, which does not include school or workplace shootings. My point is this: our perceptions of the historical significance of this event may be distorted by recentism. 72.195.132.12 (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 1

Strongest Support Possible for Merge per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:CRIME. Yes, the individual definitely passes the notability criteria and should therefore be included on Wikipedia, but the question here is where. WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT explicitly cover this (A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person). As the individual in question is only notable for the 2012 Aurora shooting, any information on him should be added to that article. A great example of a similar criminal case is with Casey Anthony, the accused perpetrator and mother of murder victim Caylee Anthony (also note that Mr. Holmes is currently only accused, not convicted). Casey's background information/media criticism/etc is all included in Death of Caylee Anthony, not in a separate article on Casey herself (one additional article exists on the timeline of the court proceedings). This needs to be the case for James Eagan Holmes as well. Issues with the oppose rationales here;
  1. From WP:BLP1E arguments; "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Sorry, but since when is being accused of a notable crime "playing a significant role"? This is ridiculous.
  2. Mr. Holmes is not in the same boat as individuals such as Ted Bundy, who was involved in and convicted of multiple cases of rape and murder (which is why Bundy qualifies for a standalone article, in addition to coverage from court proceedings). Mr. Holmes is only notable for one incident of crime, regardless of the number of victims.
  3. See also WP:BALL. It's irrelevant whether or not an article may or may not exist in the future--until the individual qualifies for a standalone article, they should not have one. That simple.
  4. "The Aurora shooting article will be too long if we include him in it" is just plain ridiculous and not a valid oppose rationale at all.
I absolutely have to echo MZMcBride on this one--I really hope the deciding admin weighs the arguments against each other rather than just the number of votes in support or against because otherwise, jeez, this would be the day someone uses WP:CRYSTAL as a valid oppose rationale... shudder. --IShadowed 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on my earlier argument, the event and the person's role in it are meant to be considered in BLP1E. While the Casey Anthony case received wide coverage, it's significance was far less than this event is. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, he and Ms. Anthony are currently in the same role -- accused. --IShadowed 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on Ryan's post, specifically WP:BIO1E within WP:BLP1E. No, what Casey Anthony was charged with was a not a notably notorious crime. And, as somebody else mentioned, analogies aren't true arguments. Ajoykt (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already made an argument based on the relevant guidelines (if you can read the first few sentences of my rationale...) The analogy is just icing. --IShadowed 22:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with WP:CRIME in your stsement is that it does not apply "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" This being called "The largest mass shooting in US History" [1] screams noteworthy to me when it comes to James Eagan Holmes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That statement only currently speaks to the notability of the incident, not of the individual in question. He is merely the accused perpetrator at this time. --IShadowed 22:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Super-Powerful Omega Blast Kryptonite-Powered Falcon-Punch Oppose Level 9000! I am always amused by this ongoing behavior by editors where they feel they need to add multiple superlatives to their vote. It doesn't make it any more powerful than a simple Support or Oppose. WCityMike (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BALL. It's irrelevant whether or not an article may exist in the future. Until the individual qualifies for a standalone article, they should not have one. That simple. --IShadowed 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If there is enough coverage from external sources it makes sense to keep both articles, most likely other editors will wind up making it anyway. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:BLP1E clearly indicates that someone notable for certain high-profile events is sufficiently notable to merit a separate article. The comparison offered there is an assassin of a major political figure, but obviously expands to include spree shooters who get considerable national media attention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This article is nothing but a content fork about the shooting. Further, he is not notable outside of that event and so any biographical content we may introduce in the future in this article that does not illuminate the shooting is unencyclopedic. causa sui (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for merge - If we redirect Holmes' article to that of the event, the history of Holmes' article will be kept. We can put ALL of the information from Holmes' article (or that to which the populous concedes) into that of the event. If the article becomes too large, then we can talk about splitting it off. I'd never heard of Holmes until today, and I'm sure many others have not heard of him either. Therefore, I must agree that he is not notable outside of this ONE event. Thoughts???--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge, per WP:ONEEVENT. This is the one-time event of a crazy person, whomever the person turns out to be, and whether or not the current suspect is that person. Wikipedia should not make each crazed-spree killer into a "hero" with his/her own Wikipedia page, at least not if Wikipedia does not want to be a part of the incentive for other would-be-spree-killers to kill so that they, too, can have their own Wikipedia page to gain the attention and recognition that their otherwise sorry lives would never have. N2e (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd actually read WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP you'd realize that this is not a "textbook example" for anything. There is quite some room for interpretation in these guidelines, and as you can see in the discussion above, a lot of people have a different opinion than you in this case. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
For those to lazy to click to read, "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person. Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For perpetrators: 1) The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. 2) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in addition most of the keep articles are based solely on WP:WAX and even then their examples are of people who are DEAD and not subject to BLP or have been convicted. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a matter of consistency, and if you read WP:WAX carefully and in its entirety, it says that an argument should not be dismissed simply because it's a comparison EITHER. It says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Also, again, your full quote above about notability and crimes was the words "not normally". That's not a hard fast rule against making a separate article. Again, it's this simple: 1) is the case itself notable, and 2) is the ROLE by the suspect or perp in the case minor or major, small or notable? If both things are notable, the suspect or perp gets a stand-alone article. And yes, "X"...Klebold has his own article. Do you suggest merging Dylan Klebold with the Columbine shooting article? If not, why not? As I said, it's a matter of logical consistency. And it IS a valid argument. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Klebold is very clearly not subject to the LIVING PERSONS policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Jared Lee Loughner is, as are Nidal Malik Hasan, Robert Bales and Anders Behring Breivik. None of them is convicted yet, nonetheless community consesus in each of these cases was, after similarly heated debates, to keep the articles. (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Also, to add to that, do you think that if Klebold were alive today, if he never killed himself that day, but stayed alive, and was arrested, tried, convicted, and put away, etc, that (given what he and his partner did in Columbine) he would not have a stand-alone article? Jots and graphs (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As your highlighting shows the guidline clearly says 'should not', and not 'must not', so exceptions can be made and have been made frequently in similar cases. And what you conveniently ignore is that we should consider not to create an article about an alleged perpetrator. As far as I can see, the consideration is still ongoing, and no decision has been reached yet.(Lord Gøn (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support merge per WP:BLP1E but I'd prefer to see as much as possible merged. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Yuri Gagrin is famous for only one event, too. Holmes shot more people than anyone else in a mass US shooting, according to the article, so his notability is secured. — O'Dea (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - this person will likely eventually have an article, but the time to build a neutral article about this subject will be after the dust settles and extensive information about the subject is available. As a deeply emotional current event, content should be managed centrally until it is less active. VQuakr (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Even though the subject will quite probably merit an article soon (possibly before this discussion is concluded), as a matter of principle and per WP:CRIME and WP:CFORK, we should be waiting until there is enough solid and reliable information to make the article worthwhile. The harm may be theoretical in this case, but being over-eager to create an article about the latest celebrity killer can give rise to severe breaches of WP:BLP, as happened with Murder of Joanna Yeates. We should really have a rule that reverses the assumption in these cases, so that bio articles for perpetrators are squashed until there is a positive consensus to create them. Formerip (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the article is locked, it is no longer possible to add "enough solid and reliable information". WWGB (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not possible because enough such information does not yet exist. Formerip (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. The event for which the subject is known does not currently meet the exception of WP:PERP, "it is a well-documented historic event". That it is expected to do so in the future is an issue of WP:CRYSTAL, and I would respectfully suggest that those !votes referring to this likely future state be discounted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The standard for events like this should be articles like Cumbria shootings, where there is no separate article on the shooter, despite massive media coverage and the fact that the event was probably even more notable, as the first (and to date only) mass shooting in the UK after the restrictive gun laws were introduced. Black Kite (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should "Cumbria" be the standard? Why not Columbine? No, you're wrong, Columbine should be more of the standard since that happened in the U.S., and so did this. Cumbria is in Europe. So why should THAT be the template or model? Simply because you say so and want it to be that way? I guess you'd be ok with merging the Dylan Klebold article into the Columbine shootings article, if that's the case. Jots and graphs (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree if the suspect had died in the firefight or killed himself but cases like James Eagan Holmes, and Jared Lee Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Mark David Chapman involve a captured alive status. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what you mean there - why would they be more notable purely because they're still alive? Of course, that means there'll be a trial, but details of that should go in the main article anyway. Black Kite (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? "Columbine should be more of the standard since that happened in the U.S., and so did this."? It may surprise you to know that 96% of the world's population doesn't live in America. But hey, it's already well-known that one Brit = ten frogs = a hundred wogs, and no-one would've given a fuck about Madeleine McCann if she was a Pakistani teenager. Sceptre (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:ONEEVENT. The shooting is the only thing that he is notable for. Maddie talk 02:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Jared Lee Loughner were only involved in one event as well. Eventually there will be a trial and other facts which'll need to be consolidated into this article anyway.Robert Beck (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge: IShadowed hit the nail on the head that, despite the existence on biographies on individuals such as Loughner, this still violates 1E. The problem with articles about crime perpetrators, especially for crimes committed after the inception of Wikipedia, is that we can too easily collate news sources on one event and the reactions thereof ("He was such a quiet boy", the elderly Smith couple said, "never got into any trouble"), thus leading to an article including invasive biographical filler and duplication of much of the content in the article about the event. In an essence, that's why BLP1E exists in a first place. A lot of the article about Loughner, for example, could be condensed without a meaningful loss of information into a section of no more than five paragraphs in the article about the Tuscon shooting. Holmes has not reached the levels of Chapman or Oswald, and it's gazing into a crystal ball to suggest that he will. And besides, there's already a place for collating news coverage and covering current events; it's called Wikinews.
    I also sense some American systemic bias here; there are, by virtue of geographical size and population placement, a lot more news sources in America than in other countries, which makes these stories seem more covered than they are. We don't have articles about Derrick Bird or Raoul Moat, even though the gun crimes they perpetrated dominated the news cycles as much (and may be even more notable than this'll turn out to be). Neither, indeed, to we have an article on Gillian Duffy, but we have one on Thomas Muthee, despite Duffy having more of an influence on a major election campaign than Muthee had on the 2008 election. It's seriously something we need to discuss on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Systemic bias is not a reason not to keep the article. That it runs rampant on Wikipedia is true, but unavoidable. You could as well say, there is a Western bias, or massive recentism, because most mass shootings occurring in third world countries, or 40 years ago don't even end up with an article about the event. But that does not mean there shouldn't be articles about them. It's just that too few people actually care, and even for those who do, the lack of sources makes working on it difficult. Just imagine how this article would look like, if it had happened in the USA. In all probability more like this one. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose merge per WP:ONEEVENT. Firstly, WP:ONEEVENT does not and has never banned articles about people for being notable for one event. It is simply a guideline on how to deal with individuals notable for one event. It states very clearly "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I will also add Oppose merge per WP:BLP1E which states clearly that it is meant for "low profile individuals." This person, whether anyone likes it or not, is in no manner "low profile. --Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Merge I agree with above arguments against the merge, nothing to add more, than my opposition. NECRATSpeak to me 04:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a lot of good information at Timothy Mcveigh and Anders Behring Breivik, information that couldn't be merged into the articles about their respective atrocities. It's entirely possible for the same to happen here. Euchrid (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This guy is the suspect in the deadliest mass murder in US history? Of course he is going to have his own page. It is hilarious that there is a discussion about this. If this doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I don't know what does... Ajcadoo (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one said he doesn't meet the notability guidelines. We've said he only meets the notability guidelines for his role in one event--therefore should be included on that event's page, not a standalone article. IShadowed (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Knowledge is more important than sensitivity. Other shooters also have profiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay Juicer (talk • contribs) 06:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While many of those opposing this merge make arguements that other spree killers have their own articles its important to note that Holmes has not been convicted and so must be considered a suspected spree killer. As per WP:CRIME a living person suspected of a crime should be presumed innocent prior to a conviction and we should not create an article about him prior to then. 70.113.92.82 (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The criminal and crime are inherently different subjects, and which information goes where is easily distinguishable. To merge the article will result in the butchering of pertinent information. It is standard practice in cases like this to keep separate articles. Everything in its place. --CrunchySkies (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose simply through his actions he became a person of biographical interest and consequently deserves to have a biographical entry. Entries such as this one provide fuel for the questions that should be being asked, and it's fairly obvious that those who are opposing this article are hoping he'll be put away fast and don't want questions being asked that could delay that process. Wikipedia needs to continue to be a neutral and unbiased source of information and not be swayed by the emotional output of those who feel it necessary to crusade on behalf of the people affected even though in most cases it is nothing whatever to do with them. Nevart (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a single rationale here revolve around emotional support for victims. If you think all the guidelines being referenced here are emotional pleas, I suggest you go back and read carefully. IShadowed (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I now see one, and that obviously isn't a sufficient support rationale. However, there are tons of totally valid supports here, the vast majority of which are in no way emotionally motivated. IShadowed (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 2

  • Support. We already have guidelines for that. WP:BLP1E. The person is only know from one event covered in detail by an article. Trying to start a biography of this person right now, before the end of the trial will only result in pport quality article and in repeats of the main article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The basis of this article is that this person is notable with an array of information available. I cannot say I see there as being a considerable quantity of information available, as details about this individual and his back story having been fleshed out. I do believe there could eventually be a substantial amount of information for an individual article, just not as of yet. DarthBotto talk•cont 11:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP: ONEVENT. Holmes is infamous and has no claims of notability other than this event. Electric Catfish 13:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys really need to read the comments for keeping the articles separate. Your argument of "he's only known for this one event" is old and tired, and has already been thoroughly addressed and refuted, as not a valid argument. Please read the comments addressing that stuff already. Thank you. Jots and graphs (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the second event he's known for? And I've just run a character and word count on the biographical details, it runs to 4KB/658 words. If this was in the article about the event, no-one would seriously suggest splitting it into its own article. Sceptre (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that there was a "second" event. But the point is that there are two reasons he's stand-alone...1) the case itself is notable...and 2) his ROLE in the case was not minor but of course major, and notable. That's it. Would you suggest merging Dylan Klebold with the Columbine shooting article? Simply because Klebold was only known for that one event? Jots and graphs (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Textbook case application of BLP1E. Given that he's likely going to be sentenced for life (or otherwise) for this, he's not going to have any other likely events to give him notability. If perchance someone were to create a detailed psychological profile and publish it as a book there might be something for a separate article, but BLP1E trumps anything else right now. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also to add: the current Aurora shooting article is short enough to include the first section of this article about Holmes' past prior to the incident within it. I don't believe any of the above merge supports are suggesting deleting this information. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've just said above, the biography section runs at 658 words. We could merge it without losing a single byte. Sceptre (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Addendum: using Dr.pda's prosesize tool: Aurora shooting is 8.4KB/1,400 words, biography section is 4KB/658 words. Way below the size suggested to split (40KB of prose). Article can easily be merged without losing a byte or running the risk of overburdening the article with biographical details (though I think the current coverage is too invasive to comport with BLP). Sceptre (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Until more is known about him and a spinoff of his biography is required by WP:SS, most material in this article pertains to the attack rather than to his biography proper; this creates the risk of duplicatiing text and effort.  Sandstein  14:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. As stated before, numerous and detailed articles exist on other identified perpetrators for many other single events. Such articles provide valuable case studies for examining their motives. --Cheesemeister (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is enough material to warrant a separate article, with much more to come. The main article will become too long with all details about the shooter included. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Being one of the most prolific spree-shooters within the United States' entire history, the profile and details of this person (James Holmes) will certainly look better and be more efficient on its own page. Also, when looking back at other situations such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Norway attacks, they are similarly divided into a "shooter" article and a "event" article. This format is just better overall, less cumbersome, et cetera. LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - This is a high-profile case, and it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. This was the largest mass shooting in American history and thus the shooter warrants an article.--Ðrdak (T) 17:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - To merge this would be inconsistent with other persons connected to "events" such as the Norwegian attacks - we have an article for Anders Breivik so why not this article? However, I would say move to James Holmes, again, for consistency. Spa-Franks (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have already given my opposition on policy grounds above. I would like to expand that with another reason to oppose a merge. We are written by the readers and this encyclopedia is written for the readers. I feel that it would look terrible on our part to not have an article on James Holmes, a person who the media and readers have clearly decided is significant/notable. Note the 153,000 readers who have viewed this article. This encyclopedia is written for them and exclusion of the material could hurt the credibility of this project more than anything else we could do. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support merge From an inclusion policy/guideline viewpoint I think this it is fairly obvious we can have an article.
    • WP:ONEEVENT says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I feel this is a highly significant event (as evidenced by the massive coverage) and it's clear his role is a large one.
    • WP:BLP1E says "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" and is basically the same as the above. It isn't clear that the subject's role is yet "well-documented" but it is certainly documented in a lot of source (just not clear ones yet).
    • WP:CRIME requires that "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy". Given that the execution of the crime is unique (in numbers etc.) this seems to be clearly met.
The next question is if there is some reason outside of our inclusion policy/guidelines to merge the article. And there are a few. One is that we really don't know much about the person or his motivations. That's a pretty strong argument really. We shouldn't be writing an article, especially a negative BLP, on a subject where we don't have a whole lot of actual data. Another, and much weaker argument, is that we shouldn't be rewarding people with articles for doing something horrible. I actually believe that (I'd hate to learn he did this just to get a Wikipedia article for example...) but it flies in the face of our own policies (not censored) and so is at best an IAR argument. Finally, there is the fact that 153,000 folks have viewed the article. I think they'd be fine with a section in the event article.
So policy wise we may have an article, but I don't think we yet have enough reliable, relevant and sourced information to require we spin the article out from the event article. So I support the merge for now more or less per Sandstein/WP:SS. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article would be merged, I'm pretty sure a lot of information would be lost in the process, because some might claim, maybe rightfully so, that info-bits A, C and X are not relevant in the context of the shooting, while they may be relevant in the context of Holmes' biography. Others might claim WP:UNDUE, if the biography-section becomes too long for their tastes (has happened to me once), which would also risk a loss of relevant information. Overall, having an article about the perpetrator now would give editors a lot more leeway to add information. And that we don't know much about the perp atm might be a little bit speculative, because a lot of stuff might've been already reported that can not be added due to the locking of the article. And even if there's not too much to work with right now, chances are high that more details will emerge in the coming days. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose Sooner or later he will become a notable individual guys, also this decision to vote on to merge or not was made too fast, give this case and his psychological profile some time to unfurl for the answer lies ahead. (22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkspartan4121 (talk • contribs)
Sooner or later is irrelevant. The question is does he merit a standalone article now?, and it's pretty clear he doesn't. Once again, WP:CRYSTAL is not a valid rationale. IShadowed (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oppose" The shooting is a topic. The person 'alleged' to have done it is a topic. Note that the "beltway sniper" is broken up into the "event" and the two snipers (and others) Alanbrowne (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a high profile person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.171.215 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the article exists, it is virtually impossible to merge it or delete it. What should have happened is that the article should not have been created in the first place. What should happen now is, the editor who created the article should feel appropriately troutslapped for violating BLP1E and CRYSTAL -- alongside every admin who noticed the redirect but didn't simple fullprotect it for the time being, thereby inviting this easily preventable wikitypical snafu. --213.168.117.36 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it was only a matter of time before his article was created, based solely on whether the content could reasonably fit into the massacre article. any and all information on his background not directly pertinent to the massacre should be in an article about him, and we have just enough now to justify his bio. Any and all arguments about BLPIE, or not honoring a bad person, are irrelevant. BLPIE is designed to keep trivial single events from being used to incorrectly justify a biography. this incident is obviously not trivial, so BLPIE doesnt apply.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Totally agree with the merge arguments (BLP1E and CRYSTAL). I wish wikipedia authors would have a bit of restraint and not write this guy's biography before they bury the people he killed. --MarsRover (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your policy objections don't hold; neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:PERP apply, only WP:BIO1E does. See Talk:James Eagan Holmes#The applicable policies. As to the rest, writing about the guy is honoring him? Don't you think the idea of an encylopedia is to collect facts others can use to learn things? There is nothing to learn in this case? For none of our readers? Ajoykt (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about "honoring"? It should be CRYSTAL clear that the argument is based on the fact that it is way too early to gauge Holmes' lasting notability. Therefore, it was too early to create this article. It has nothing to do with "honoring" your strawman, and everything to do with properly writing and maintaining an encyclopedia (and not treating the project like an indiscriminate info dump). --87.79.227.72 (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Ajoykt, the answers to your questions are "I didn't say that", "Yes", "Yes it possible to learn a lot from this case. Luckily we already have an article about the case.", "Yes the readers perhaps can learn something from the case. Like gun control, movie theater security, etc". Thanks anon, you and I are in total agreement. We must convert the masses. --MarsRover (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia consensus doesn't run on precedents. We decide case by case unless we specifically settle on a categorical classification. The other articles you cited have no relationship with this one in terms of community consensus. Just because you see a superficial similarity does not make those cases "the same". Also, prematurely creating articles is a bad habit anyway. How could we and why would we excuse questionable editorial judgment with other examples of questionable editorial judgment? --87.79.227.72 (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The precedents show that that the community already has settled on a consensus to keep articles on suspects in widely-reported recent mass murders. We should indeed avoid questionable editorial judgments -- such as merging away perfectly valid and encyclopedic articles. —Lowellian (reply) 14:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:WAX says: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." To say that there is only a 'superficial similarity' between this case and the others is, well, your opinion. Other people might see it differently. I know that I do. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
No, it doesn't have to be incorporated into the article about the event. The relevant guidelines aren't as clear as you might want them to be and opinions are digressing, as you can see here. Talking in absolutes, when there are none isn't really forwarding anybody's cause. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
You're only presenting your opinion, against good arguments from many people. I therefore have no choice but to assume that you are resistant to and in fact not even interested in arguments. The entirety of your input can safely be ignored for the final outcome of the merge discussion, and it should be. --87.79.107.90 (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does having an accomplice affect the merger of this article? He didn't have an accomplice anyway. United States Man (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 3

  • Support Merge - He kept a very low profile and did nothing notable prior to this event. As the media reported, he almost no digital footprint. Therefore, his bio in a separate article and his bio within the shooting article are likeley to be nearly identical due to the lack of notable bioagraphical data. --User101010 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - He is hugely notable after this indecent. People are undoubtedly interested in his upbringing and overall background. That information will not mesh well on the 2012 Aurora Shooting page. Keep it separate, as is routine for these high profile cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systematic1 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Interesting remarks from Hobit below. (1) Those citing WP:ONEEVENT have to explain why "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." does or doesn't apply. Significance of the event: I suppose Wikipedia-style significance (how much it's talked about) is what's meant. Currently high. The Onion dares to suggest that it will soon be low. Homilies will be recited, the issue of military firearms discreetly not explored, sociopaths and others will continue to go on rampages. (As for actual significance, well, as of three years ago about a hundred people died in the US every day from (mostly unglamorous) traffic accidents.) His significance within the incident: As I understand it, he is the prime, sole, and indeed obvious suspect. However, he isn't known to have claimed responsibility, let alone been convicted. So we don't know what his role was. Moreover, he's alive and (seemingly) well, so presumably the legal system will determine what his role was. (2) Those citing WP:BLP1E have to address "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" does or doesn't apply. Again, the significance is moot and the individual's role within it is a matter for the judicial system. (3) Those citing WP:CRIME need to address "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" does or doesn't apply. So far we know nothing about the motivation for the crime. If the accounts I've read of it are accurate and the suspicions are correct, its design and execution seem rational. ¶ Meanwhile, I see no sign in the article that Holmes has any significance outside this mass-murder. Merge. -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree "while it could be argued that the only reason this alleged psycho is notable now is because of this one act (or one set of acts on July 19-20), and he's simply part of the subject of the shooting, and not notable otherwise, let's face it...every mass murderer gets his own article anyway at some point, so why not now? At this point it could go either way, but if one is honest, it won't be an "either way it can go" type situation forever. The Columbine murderers have their own separate stand-alone articles. This loser Holmes is really no different, and in a way more notable. Since he single-handedly perpetrated chaos on a scale surpassing anything else (At least 70 casualties in one day, not to mention that booby trap nightmare at his apartment.) So no merging. He seems to be unfortunately stand-alone enough. And if not now, very soon will be anyway". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.165.249 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:ONEEVENT. --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 03:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Each time a spree or serial killer pops up, there is this same discussion on WP: Should he have a seperate bio article (and thus be treated as a "hero") or should he be dealt with only within the article about his murder(s)? Almost each time this happens, the "separate bio" position wins. Why is that ? Probably because in such events, however horrible, it is the personality of the killer which is interesting. We ask ourselves: "Why did he do this?", "How did this guy become a killer?". Each of these cases offers a rare glimpse into such apsects of human nature that are usually hidden under the mask of social normalcy. Having a dedicated article for such people is not to treat them as heroes but as freaks of nature that deserve study. Fi11222 (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support
    Kind regards, Klaas ‌ V 13:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC) All criminals their own article especially after one act yet? No way[reply]
  • Strong Oppose the articles should not be merged. The shooter in one of the worlds worst mass shootings should have its own article. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shooter [...] should have its own article. -- He should have "his own" article, whatever that means, but you're neutering him? Sorry, couldn't resist. At any rate, "should" is a very weak position to argue from. We should imho arrange info in the most encyclopedically sensible way. For a crime where there is very little to no information about the shooter which is unrelated to that crime, we shouldn't maintain separate articles. If, only if and only when relevant material surfaces that couldn't plausibly be integrated into the main article, we can then discuss splitting off an article about the shooter himself. --87.79.107.90 (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. BLP subject known for only one event, with virtually nothing known for certain about the individual until the trial is finished. That we already have a separate article on the subject shows that poor judgment is rampant in this community. This should not have to be subject to a long debate. Our content policies and guidelines–from sourcing to notability–all point directly to a merge as the appropriate option. All other arguments against a merge at this time can only be classified as "I LIKE IT" arguments and should be discarded by the closer. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WWGB; this article is inevitable. 201.166.45.119 (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Oppose -- Nobody cares about the victims, only the killer, as evidenced by even Wikipedia's own policies on notability. The perpetrator has a name and the victim has a number. What a useless discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoulis (talk • contribs) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, per WP:BLP1E. This person is only noteworthy for their involvement with this one event. I fail to see how having a separate article rather than a merged article improves the encyclopedia. Instead, it creates problems due to having to keep overlapping information in both articles in synch. Regarding claims that this event is noteworthy enough to deserve articles for multiple aspects of the event, that generally applies to events like 9/11 and presidential assassination attempts, not (regrettably common) mass shootings. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge Per WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT. Edison (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Until established consensus can be reached. I'm assuming this one will require a closure by an uninvolved editor after a day or two. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who won? 189.215.1.7 (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is technically not a vote as such, as weight is given to the quality of arguments on each side. That being said, I see 31 requests to merge and 41 opposing merge, as of this moment. Since the arguments on both sides seem to be fairly consistent among participants, I think sheer numbers are going to end up deciding this in the end. But there will be probably another day or two of comments and the balance could still swing the other way. We will just have to wait it out. Safiel (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the arguments are consistent among each agreeing side (ie, someone who supports is likely to use the same rationale as someone else who supported, and the same with oppose votes), the merit of those arguments are not necessarily the same. I really don't think the number of votes is going to be the deciding factor, seeing as there are a ton of seriously bad oppose rationales and a few seriously bad support rationales. A blanket count of the votes would be asinine. IShadowed (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example "This guy is notable" isn't a valid oppose rationale. Everyone knows he's notable. The question is where content on him should be included. There are literally opposes using just this rationale, with no regards to guidelines/policy whatsoever. IShadowed (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who won? -- Either the better arguments won, or we all lost. --213.168.117.36 (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked carefully at this discussion with an eye toward closing it (yes, I was considering being that brave). The problem is that the two sides are mostly talking past each other and so you are likely to end up with a "no consensous to merge" outcome because neither side is really addressing the other's arguments. There seem to be three main guidelines/polices in play:

  • Those citing WP:ONEEVENT have to explain why "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." does or doesn't apply.
  • Those citing WP:BLP1E have to address "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" does or doesn't apply.
  • Those citing WP:CRIME need to address "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" does or doesn't apply.

In all cases, arguments that he is "not famous outside of this one event", or just wave at one or more of the above guidelines are fairly weak. We though we often don't have articles on folks noted for only one event, we do in some situations. The question is if this is one of them. And right now we mostly have just a vote, with few arguments about why this is or isn't a situation were we should have an article on a person notable for only one event. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is not all. I clearly stated why I believe that WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual makes Holmes notable enough for his own article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that those citing WP:BLP1E should also address why they think Holmes is (not) a low-profile individual, because if he's not, all arguments based on WP:BLP1E are simply irrelevant. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Both of you have raised basically the same point. If I were really closing this I'd have mentioned the essay and that arm of WP:BLP1E to which it applies. I'd frankly concluded that no one had really done a good job of explaining why the quotes I gave were not met for BLP1E and ONEEVENT, but on the other side no one opposing the merge had really directly dealt with justifying that the quote from WP:CRIME was met (The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy). Hobit (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that both sides are claiming policy in diffrent lights, the fact that Holmes has all the reliable sources and widespread media coverage proves he is a high profile person in this event. This is not about someone who was a mere bank robber - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a major hindrance in getting people to come to a uniform conclusion here is that too many of those conditions are a matter of subjective interpretation. Do I, for one, think the event is highly significant? Yes I do, and the media frenzy all over the world, not just in the US, tells me, that many people are thinking the same. Is Holmes' role in this event a large one? Some may say no, because he's only a suspect and not yet convicted, whereas I'd say the condition is met, because he's the sole suspect and police says they're sure that nobody but Holmes was involved in planning and commiting the crime.
Is Holmes still a low-profile individual? I say no, because his whole life is already under intense scrutiny by hordes of journalists, and even if he would not be convicted, as small as this chance may be, he would remain high-profile, because the police, the media and the judiciary would've made fools out of themselves for presenting and prosecuting an assumed mass murderer that turned out to be none. Just imagine what would happen if it turned out that it wasn't Holmes who killed all those people, that it was a mere coincidence that he was at the scene of the massacre, clad in body armor, armed to the teeth, and with an apartment full of booby traps. There would be an outrage, and Holmes would be in the center of it.
Finally, do I think the execution of the crime was unusual? Of course I do. I mean, how often does it happen that somebody storms into a cinema and kills a dozen people, after setting up bombs all throughout his home? As someone who has read a lot about mass murder, and I mean a really big lot, I can tell you with some confidence that it doesn't happen very often, not even in the USA. In fact, I can't remember a similar case at all.
But all my opinions aside, and you may call WP:WAX and WP:CRYSTAL all you want, you can't simply ignore the fact that there have been numerous precedents in this whole regard, precedents that have shown A) that a majority of editors on Wikipedia is in favour of keeping articles about notable mass murderers (Again: how often has it to be discussed, before consensus becomes policy? Or do we really want to have this again and again to infinity and beyond?), and B) that there will be continuous coverage about Holmes in the years to come, as has happened to other notorius mass murderers that survived their crimes like Howard Unruh, George Banks, Ronald Simmons, Colin Ferguson, Kip Kinkel, Edward Allaway, Charles Starkweather, you get my point, even if you've never heard of any of them. To say it might be different this time would be pure speculation that has no basis in history.
Furthermore, it eludes me why there should be any difference in dealing with serial killers and mass murderers, only because the former have killed their victims over months or years and not within minutes. Both are high profile criminals, but only in cases of mass murder there are these endless discussions, if the perpetrator should have his own article or not. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
An important point to note is that WP:CRIME actually gives a two-stage test, and a lot of editors are only reading the second part. While it's true that "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy", this is only actually supposed to matter once it is established that there is no other existing article that does or could include the (fairly small amount of) encylopaedic material that is currently available about Holmes. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again exceptions can be made, as the relevant passage reads should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article. If this is one of those normal cases or one of the exceptional ones, you decide. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
"This may be an exception" is not of itself good enough grounds to make something an exception. Formerip (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but still, exceptions are possible and it's the community who has to decide, if this is one of those cases where an exception should be made. The point is that WP:CRIME doesn't rule out categorically keeping this article.(Lord Gøn (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

James Holmes quickfails all of the above because of a lack of documentation and conviction. His connection is purely accusatory at this point, and as WP:PERP states, A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. As MZM said, some here should be ashamed of themselves for sacrificing core editing principles in the name of convenience (seriously, how many people have tried to use "the article may exist eventually" as an oppose rationale? Jesus christ, that is so irrelevant. Until he merits a standalone article, he doesn't get one!). Especially in a case like this, where the line is so thin between fact and libel. I can't believe the amount of speculation going on here. As Sceptre said On a point of order, you can't IAR on BLP, or any other Foundation-derived directives. They're there for legal reasons, not to represent agreed practices. IShadowed (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the process of considering not to have an article about Holmes is still ongoing, as you can see, (note that WP:PERP doesn't categorically rule out having an article about him) and obviously there are quite a few people who think he merits an article already. Everybody is entitled to his opinion, of course, but deciding if he merits one or not is subject to anybody's subjective assessment. I don't find the "the article may exist eventually"-rationale that absurd, btw, after all, if the article would've to be split from the main article later anyway, why not keep and improve it now, instead of, say, in two weeks or a month? Last, what kind of 'speculation' are you talking about, and where do you find any libelous content in the article? If there is, point it out, so it can be removed. The fact that he is a suspect in a mass murder can't be it, after all it is just that, a fact, reported by countless trustworthy secondary sources and as long as this fact is presented in a neutral way there shouldn't be any problem with including it. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I didn't say reporting he's a suspect is libelous. That would clearly count in the fact category. But the line is very thin in cases like this how much accusatory content can be added as opposed to what can actually be demonstrated. Speculation as in "article may exist sometime in the future" - ie, WP:CRYSTAL. It appears to be a popular argument in this thread. IShadowed (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question to be asking is: how can this article expand without repeating any information that will obviously be in the article about the crime itself? Holmes was young and pretty much all that's in the biography section is all that is encyclopedic about him outside of the crime itself. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but he's likely going to be sentenced to life, so he's not going to have any post-event actions to add to this. Ergo, this article, as to Holmes himself, has grown as far as it can. It doesn't matter how "major" this crime is, all the information about him outside of the crime is tiny, and easily can be merged into the crime article, thus meeting BLP1E and all other policy. The standalone article makes no sense at this time or the immediate future without CRYSTAL balling long-term sourcing. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have to merge this - see this cartoon making fun of the media and by implication, us. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: we're an encyclopedia, not a news source. There are ethical problems in this sort of invasive press coverage, and Holmes, even after the events that have transpired, is still a living person, and we want to pride ourselves on not engaging in unethical practices the rest of the media does. If the rest of the media jumped off a cliff, would we do so too? Sceptre (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, from WP:NOT:

Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person.

So we have policy reasons for not engaging in the "such a quiet boy" invasiveness the media does. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Agree with reasons of those who are opposed. Social perspectives on Holmes as a figure will undoubtedly occur in later archiving; this does not seem appropriate to put in the article on the event. For example, Holmes likeness has been used to criticize Obama; the Facebook "shock-pages" to support Holmes; and a movement to ban the use of Holmes name and image in media occurred. I do believe the last issue affects talk about the presentation of Holmes on Wikipedia as well. I believe this wiki article will be much like the one for Mark Chapman. Thelema418 (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mugshot

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

I would strongly oppose using a mugshot as a infobox image, according to WP:MUG. There are some images that can be uploaded to describe the subject of the article that can be used under fair use. -- Luke (Talk) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the extent to which WP:MUG should apply to someone who's only notable for a crime. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To note, the mugshot is up for deletions on commons at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:James Holmes booking photo.jpg. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for that, I'll see if there are any Colorado ones in there. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gates said it was speeding, like 120 in a 55 MPH zone. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

… appropriateness as lead image

Is it appropriate to be using a mug shot as the representative image of a person who is currently only suspected of committing a crime? Its use deeper within the article under discussion of his arrest might be appropriate -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sick bastard should not have this amount of recognition, especially on a respected, extremely frequently used source of information such as wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.120.107 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

… to provide illustration of dyed hair

Holmes' dye-job is ref'd in this article and deserves a picture for clarification purposes. Clarification is necessary because most news articles, including the basis of this entry, claim that Holmes' hair was dyed red. "Red" sounds like a natural hair pigment, but if you see the mugshot, it is orange and looks unnatural. An image (mug shot or trial photo) would give readers' insight about the dye-job that cannot be captured easily in words. Thelema418 (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAIR does not allow images of living people.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The link pertains to non-free content, but the mugshot is free content. Even if it is non-free content, according to WP:FAIR it is appropriate to use a photo if it relates to commentary in the article and is iconic in illustrating a historical event. Also, if the photo cannot be replaced with a new photo in the future it is fair. There is no reason to expect that a picture of Holmes with the dyed hair will occur again, and it is significant to his being a suspect. Thelema418 (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

news stories appearing he was being seen by a psychiatrist

Email sent to oversight. Removed talk page entries pending oversight and WMF. Boldly and in good faith.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored - please don't remove - there are no TP violations occurring in the following discussion. We're discussing an AP news report. I appreciate your motives but they don't apply here on the TP. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/11364613/

The above link refers to a legal 'gag order'. I boldly removed content pending WMF policy on gag orders.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to the psychiatrist story? That's an Associated Press story which is a Reliable Source. I didn't add it into the article, just brought it to the TP for discussion by editors on the best way to incorporate the new info. I think gag orders apply to the defense/prosecution teams and cannot be legally used on the Press. They wouldn't be applicable to an international news org, anyway. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do American gag orders effect the WMF servers in Florida?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Freedom of the Press and all that sort of thing. The gag order was issued to the prosecution and defense to stop leaking info to the media. Leaks will continue to happen-today there was one from one of the suspect's jailers, anonymously. "This isn't Spain you know - this is England!"  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gag orders are for a direct entity: in this case the University. It affects the reliability of what the news sources. They can only get info from people willing to leak. That info is only one perspective and cannot be checked against other perspectives. From a Wiki perspective, the gag order does not make it illicit to share the info, but makes it difficult to determine what qualifies as fact for the article. Thelema418 (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defense / Prosecution Statements

In the CNN article and AP article, the "psychiatric patient" claim is a move on the part of the defense to protect documents. The prosecution claims that Holmes was not a "psychiatric patient" and this may be fabricated by news outlets (this appears in the CNN article). The issue is currently a contentious issue. Thelema418 (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the defense is making a claim to protect documents falls flat, as US law and state law protects medical records. They may not be destroyed nor may they be divulged without a court order. Consider both the Privacy Act of 1974, then add further protection through HIPPA and a few additional laws that current escape my memory. Improper disclosure can easily result in loss of license and civil penalties. Improper destruction can easily result in criminal penalties. Failure to comply with a subpoena again carries penalties. In short, the defense made a claim, now they will have to make a discovery motion, as claims to the press are not reliable for anything early in a case.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the psychiatrist admits that Holmes was her patient (in the familiar sense) in an upcoming interview, etc. then it should be documented. In the meantime there is a debate about this issue. Fact is needed for the wikipedia entry. That's the only reason I'm posting the info. Keep an eye out for things that look speculative. Thelema418 (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Lynn Fenton

The AP release on this story features some unusual details about Dr. Lynn Fenton, the medical director of Anschutz's Student Mental Health Services. These details include disciplinary actions taken by the state for self-prescribing and some weird statements about acupuncture. I'm posting it here in case it becomes useful at a later time. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_lDyz8m3VLePnk8xpv07zKCaFxg?docId=883953506ff04481b079fa76082223ee Thelema418 (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange - wasn't aware the Air Force had "acupuncturists." HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The temptation to self-medicate is often irresistible to someone who carries a prescription pad and has salesmen regularly providing samples. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HammerFilmFan, I had to look that up. Apparently, the US Air Force has been experimenting with battlefield acupuncture. As for the claim of irresistible temptation, that hints of editorialism, Fred. While there is a documented number of cases in medicine where a medical professional gives into temptation, that is a small percentage of professionals. Your statement hints that there is a substantially larger number. You know better than to say such things, Fred! The citation given stated, "Fenton was disciplined by the Colorado Medical Board in 2004 for prescribing herself Xanax while her mother was dying, state records show. She also was disciplined for prescribing the sleep aid Ambien and the allergy medicine Claritin for her husband, and painkillers for an employee who suffered from chronic headaches." That doesn't hint at a significant abuse potential or anything beyond a professional lapse of judgement for her self-prescription and the matter for her husband and employee are typically overlooked if the first instance wasn't on record. The statements on acupuncture aren't firmly attributed to her, though they might be, that is far from certain and most certainly not germane to this article at this time. Now, if someone provided a citation that she espoused acupuncture for the treatment of mental illness, it may become germane.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more info about Dr. Fenton and her treatment of Holmes. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of merge discussion

Whenever it is the appropriate time to close such a discussion, I'd like to suggest that perhaps an uninvolved admin (ie, someone who has not voiced an opinion here) reviews the support/oppose rationales and closes the discussion as they see fit. I think there could potentially be a lot of bias here (from either side of the discussion), and I'd really like to see this closed by an un-involved party. IShadowed (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no one edits it by the time the bot archives it then that is taken as a closure I would think. Closed as stale and no consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure someone is just going to take it to AfD, then. At which point, my request above would still pretty much stand. IShadowed (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to actively request an uninvolved administrator to come in and settle the Merge thread as merge, oppose or no consensus. Not sure what noticeboard to make that request, but I will go looking. Safiel (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the request for closure board would be suitable. :) That was easy enough. Safiel (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for closure has been made. Safiel (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more note, I have placed a Do Not Archive Template on the Merge thread, which I will remove once an administrator makes his review. Safiel (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:James_Eagan_Holmes.23Merge--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've semi-protected the page due to a series of SPA and likely block evading socks attempting to close improperly. Feel free to unprotect once an uninvolved admin as closed it properly. Since I've been protecting and sock blocking, someone else should. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the merge discussion has been properly closed by an uninvolved admin, I have removed the semi-protection as it was there only to prevent block evading IPs from improperly closing the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the merge

Change {{mergeto}} tag at top of article to nothing (that is, delete it). No consensus to merge, and none likely even if we wait a week more.

 Not done Consensus or admin will close it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (as the closing admin, subsequent to above comment). Manning (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk Page archiving was switched from 5 to 2 days

That was done the other day without any explanation. Is that where it's supposed to be? Psalm84 (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is patrolled by people that monitor the size and adjust accordingly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Admin's comments on merge proposal

I've closed the merge debate with the (predictable) outcome of "no consensus". My "back of the envelope" calculations put the vote at 56:43 opposed to the merge. While closing debates is not just a matter of tallying votes, it was pretty clear to me that no consensus had emerged, or was likely to emerge, in favour of merging the two articles. Manning (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the closure. There was a lot to read, and I suspect many other admins might have shied away from the task. WWGB (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit it's not the most fun I've ever had. I'll also reserve the right for my tallies to be imperfect, I only counted once. (But even if I am slightly wrong, they'll be near enough for the 'no consensus' conclusion I drew). Also, had I voted, I would have supported the merge, so I feel pretty comfortable about my objectivity in closing. Manning (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a perfectly valid close. I removed protection now that it has been properly closed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin response

The current version of this article seems to violate BLP in several ways and serves to "build" a case against the suspect before he's even gone to trial. This will probably go down as another bad close. Looking at the arguments for keeping this vs. merging, I can't see how "no consensus" trumps the arguments for merging. The burden is on those wishing to keep, and they have clearly failed to meet that burden. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP requirement to keep the article neutral (ie. he has not been convicted of anything) is irrelevant to the above "merge/don't merge" discussion. My role was to assess the overall consensus of the community on the merge topic, and I comfortably stand by my assessment. Potential BLP violations (ie "presuming guilt") remain an issue of concern and should obviously be addressed. Manning (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you came to your conclusion, did you eliminate the SPA accounts, the "me too" responses (which as far as I can tell is the majority of opposes) and the ILIKEIT opposes? Because when you do that, how do you get "no consensus"? I would like to see the rough numbers because I just don't buy it. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All we have to do is keep the shooter and the suspect as two different people as I have mentioned numerous times in both articles. They are two different people until there is a conviction. Remove all the material about them from the wrong article they are in and just leave wikilinks/section re-directs between the two articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, knowing nothing certain about the suspect, we keep building a case against them, using sensationalized media reports that aren't confirmed. This makes sense in what world? Certainly not on Earth. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The prosecution builds a case against the suspect not us. If the sources sensationalize it there is no reason we have to. If you see such in the article then it should be removed and not replaced until consensus is reached on whether to replace it and neutral wording. I mentioned this in the other article about the suspect section. Some editors may wish to remove it and just leave a wikilink, others may wish to copy/paste this whole article into it. I have yet to see a response over there on how it should be dealt with.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I should note that it would probably be proper, now that the merge discussion has closed, to take this article to AfD, as there is obviously a substantial segment of editors that wish to see this article deleted. Safiel (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a waste of time. They will just debate forever and never find enough policy to delete it. Deletions go by policy points countered, not votes. Many may consider it disruptive if tagged as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. I don't think this article would survive AfD if the discussion was properly vetted, and looking at the sources, every significant data point we have on Mr. Holmes is covered in the parent shooting article. We really can't have a bio article on this guy until the trial is over. Viriditas (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a waste of time. Of course, it may end up as no consensus again, maybe not. It would not be disruptive. Now if the merge discussion had ended as an unambiguous keep, an AfD could be considered disruptive. But since the merge discussion was ambiguous, I don't think an AfD tag could be considered disruptive. If people want to battle this out in AfD, I don't have any problem with them doing so, although personally I am still leaning toward keep. Safiel (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't see spending a lot more time discussing whether this article should be kept, merged, or deleted to be a best use of the community's time and resources. Typically, we want to avoid having too many articles about the lives of either one-incident criminals or one-incident crime victims because it is often difficult to write reasonable biographical articles on such people given that the sources will focus specifically on the one incident, and also because of the policy considerations inherent in the biographies of living persons and undue weight policies. Given the extraordinary notoriety of this particular individual and mass-murder, it is somewhat fictive to apply these policies reflexively as if this were a more ordinary sitaution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only problem is, this bio is almost a complete duplicate of the 2012 Aurora shooting article. There's nothing here worth keeping. Since there's no reason to have this separate article, why do we have it? Best practice is to merge smaller articles on the same topic with the parent. This article consists of only 5954 characters (989 words). If this was any other bio, we wouldn't even be talking about it—we would merge without thinking about it. But because this guy is a mass killer we suddenly ignore best practices? Sorry, that makes no sense. Viriditas (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be so sure that the article would not survive an AfD, as in similar cases the article was kept. Anyway, deleting the article would be counterproductive, because keeping it as redirect would be necessary no matter how the poll would end. And as not all the relevant information about Holmes is present in the article about the shooting (contrary to what you say, there's little duplicate and quite a bit is missing in the article about the shooting), the question would again be merge or no merge. And since the proposal of merging has just ended in no consensus, with both sides battling over the interpretation of guidelines and policies, I don't see how an AfD could look any different. And that the article is too short, well, I think that's a very subjective opinion. At least it's longer than some of the articles about the lesser known assassins in this list.(Lord Gøn (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Tell me what relevant info is missing from the parent article. The AfD would look different because it would require much more than "counting" votes, and it would discard the numerous METOO, ILIKEIT, and OTHERSTUFF votes that clutter up this page. Viriditas (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pretty much the entire Biography-section is missing in the article about the shooting. You could say, of course, that most of it is not relevant in context of the attack itself, though it is relevant in the context of Holmes' biography, which is one reason why I am of the opinion the article should be kept. I think it is pretty certain that most of that info would get lost should it be merged or deleted. I'm not sure though that an opinion can be discounted simply because it doesn't reiterate all the arguments presented before and is reduced to the most basic statement like keep or merge. After all, it can be assumed that they agree with any argument in favour of their opinion. Anyway, the arguments presented make fairly clear that the same guidelines and policies are used to either defend keeping, or merging the article. And who decides which interpretation is the correct one? You? Me? The admins? Or maybe the majority? Could it be that either way this would've ended in a majority vote? (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Does this happen often enough that we should create a pre-AfD discussion tag and then if consensus is reached we can use a full Afd one or should we create an intermediate one as well?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a {{prod}}. Viriditas (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding {{prod}} to this would be disruptive. "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is a candidate for uncontroversial deletion". Ryan Vesey 16:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We may need another tag or 5 then. I am going to go make some templates then--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anything else is needed. Consensus is not needed to take an article for AfD and I don't see a reason for pre-AfD discussions. In any case, make sure whatever you are doing is supported by policy. Ryan Vesey 17:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody plans to tag again, please create a separate page for the discussion and link to it. Otherwise, one has to question whether the change is in good faith. These discussions completely mess up this talk page. 130.65.109.101 (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD, by its very nature, is an admission that the deletion is likely contested, so no consensus or advance notice is required, only good faith. Keep in mind, any new "tag" would not be recognized as valid, as it wouldn't be an official process, where as PROD, CSD and AFD are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where do i submit my new tag? User:Canoe1967/Template/Pre-Afd? (kidding)--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as being opposed to an AFD. You can oppose a deletion, but you cannot oppose the discussion of a deletion. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry thats what I was meaning to say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

I hate to bring this up, but my penchant for proper disambiguation compels me to question whether James Eagan Holmes is the best title for this article, per our general naming guideline and naming guideline for people.

First question: If there were no other articles about anyone named James Holmes, meaning that disambiguation was not a concern, would James Eagan Holmes still be the best title for this article? I.e., is the subject best known and most recognizable as "James Eagan Holmes" or as "James Holmes"? Unlike many similar subjects, my own feeling (and I haven't done any research on this) is that he's better known and more commonly referred to as just "James Holmes", and thus that the ideal title would be James Holmes (again, if disambiguation weren't an issue). But if the consensus is that he is best known with the middle name -- in other words, that the average user would be more likely to look for him under James Eagan Holmes than under James Holmes -- then the current title is indeed the best one.

Second question: If James Holmes would be the best title, but we're unable to use that title because of the need to disambiguate, what is the best disambiguated title? Maybe not James Eagan Holmes, per WP:NCP: "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." As I mentioned, I have an interest in disambiguation, so my thought is, when people go to the James Holmes disambiguation page looking for this article, what title would be the best for helping them find the article they're seeking as quickly as possible? Will they see James Eagan Holmes and realize that's the right article, or would something like James Holmes (Aurora shooting) be more helpful? (Yes, regardless of the title, there will inevitably in this case be a description of the link on the dab page. But it's my belief that a bad title is one that will always, or almost always, need such a description in order to identify the topic; the more people that can recognize the article's topic immediately going by the title, the better.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My response may be the only sane one you get here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Is Theoldsparkle serious? Viriditas (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my post didn't make it clear why I thought this was an obvious question to bring up for informal discussion (emphatically not a Requested Move or any other kind of binding decision). You are completely free to avoid reading or participating in this section if you don't find the topic worthwhile enough for your standards. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While not a serious issue at this point, I would support James Eagan Holmes as there has already been at least one notable instance of the public identifying the wrong person with the same first and last name. This is unlikely to happen again in the future, but I believe the Eagan name is being more widely used in sources now, to avoid the taint of the original mis-identification. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Holmes (murder suspect)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.223.98 (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there will be an acceptable disambiguation for this article until after he is convicted. Until that point, James Eagan Holmes is probably the best solution. Ryan Vesey 16:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would stay with the full name. There seems to be a long penchant in this country for referring to infamous people by their full names (i.e. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray). I don't see any reason not to stay with the current title. Safiel (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PHD Studies Labs and Course Work

There was not much on what Holmes was studying at the university, the courses he took, and the labs he attended. Specifically, what kind of biological materials was he in contact with during his lab work and what fields was he specializing? According to a Dr. of psychology from Colorado, a person at Holmes education level would have been doing a lot of lab work and the university is looking into that aspect. He also said it is not unusual for a mental break down to happen this quickly, but it is not the norm. 204.153.240.130 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the info box states that Holmes holds a Bachelor of Science, but U.C. Riverside's neuroscience department offers both a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science. All the news articles I have read only state that he has a "degree in neuroscience", but do not state what type. I am marking this for verification. Thelema418 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed today that UC Riverside has a site for PR releases with James Holmes. This contains a direct confirmation of his degree and years at the school. It might be useful for cleaning up some citations to multiple news releases about his education. http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/tag/james-holmes Thelema418 (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he

charged with two counts for each victim? 12 dead, 58 wounded, and he faces 24 murder counts and 116 attempted murder counts? Is there a reason for this? 75.94.63.254 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject. If your intention is to propose a change to the article, or discuss some aspect of it, could you please rephrase to make that clearer? Euchrid (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable question, the information is now in the article. WWGB (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Euchrid, as noted, the question the IP asked is directly relevant to the article. Why do you chide someone for bringing up a reasonable question? --89.0.205.146 (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be helpful to mention to readers the reasoning behind doubling each charge in this case. Unfortunately, I can only guess as to why this happens and although I may be close with my guess, that isn't useful in this case. I would love for someone to enlighten us all and add it to the article. Anyone? LogicalCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it's in the article. "The multiple charges expand the opportunities for prosecutors to obtain convictions. For each murder, one count included murder with deliberation, the other murder with extreme indifference." If one charge fails, they can still get him on the other. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since these two sets of charges are mutually exclusive (per each individual killing) and Holmes will be convicted of at most 12 of these 24 counts, can these be considered 24 separate counts in a meaningful way? --87.78.136.142 (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the sense that that is how reliable sources describe them. It's not up to us to interpret how many charges there are, merely report what others have said. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It makes logical sense to file the 24 charges, since his motives are apparently unknown. At the trial, they will decide which charges apply. Meanwhile, I don't understand why there's a separate page on this guy, since the only thing he's known for is the shooting. Wouldn't it be sufficient to cover both entities in the same article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Debated and lost: Talk:James Eagan Holmes#Merge. WWGB (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes referred to threat assesment team by psychiatrist

The University of Colorado Denver psychiatrist seeing accused murderer James Eagan Holmes was so alarmed by his behavior that she notified the campus-wide threat-assessment team that she helped create years before, a source told The Denver Post.

Read more: James Holmes referred to University of Colorado threat-assessment team, sources say - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21212797/alleged-theater-gunman-was-referred-threat-assessment-team#ixzz22P405YOe

WP:FORUM : if true, likely puts significant legal/financial liability on the Uni if they did not follow up appropriately. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Section Background

Change 

"Holmes was born on December 13, 1987,[2] the son of a registered nurse and a mathematician working as 
 a senior scientist.[4][5][6] His father has degrees from Stanford, UCLA and Berkeley.[7] James Holmes was 
 raised in Castroville, "

to 

"James Holmes was born . . . his father has degrees from Stanford, UCLA and Berkeley.[7]. 
Holmes was raised in . . ."

Using the full name first and last name later is more common.  Done

Edit request: Section Detention and cour appearance

Change the very last sentence of the section: 

Holmes answered "yes" when the judge asked if he agreed to waive his right to a 
preliminary hearing within 35 days.[59][60]

to 

Holmes agreed in court to waive his right to a preliminary hearing in 35 days.[59][60]

The exact words he used isn't relevant; nor is the mechanics of usual courtroom procedures (the judge asks; defendant answers).

 Done Rivertorch (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Infobox reference for BS in Neuroscience degree

Change 

Reference #1

to

[1]

  1. ^ Ross French (July 20, 2012). "Information regarding James Eagan Holmes". UCR Today. University of California, Riverside. Retrieved August 2, 2012.

The current ref #1 is used in just one place. While there is nothing wrong with it, the UCR reference, as noted by an editor above, is more solid.

 Done. Mdann52 (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: remove poorly sourced text in Biography/background

Change 

When he graduated from college, the only job he could find was working at a McDonald’s,
a situation which caused him distress. [1]

to 

<Nothing>

ie., delete it. A websearch of National Enquirer, the citation reference source, gives, as their official summary of themselves: "Celebrity gossip, scandals, and the latest from Hollywood."

Feedback

Wouldn't it be more acceptable to post the conviction charges after media coverage has died down?184.98.143.25 (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ National Enquirer Edition of August 6, 2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Holmes_(mass_murderer)&oldid=505721928"