Talk:James Holmes (mass murderer)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Holmes (mass murderer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 5 days ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of James Holmes (mass murderer) be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Holmes (mass murderer) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 5 days ![]() |
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
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
|
---|
Why does this need a separate article from the massacre article? FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary Section Break 1
Arbitrary Section Break 2
Arbitrary Section Break 3
DiscussionHow long does it take to make a decision about this article. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
|
Mugshot
… copyright status and Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion
CBS announcement. Higher resolution here. Colorado police records are public domain ("State agency authored documents are in the public domain.") Lazy eye is much less evident in CU photo and this video but still somewhat evident. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would strongly oppose using a mugshot as a infobox image, according to WP:MUG. There are some images that can be uploaded to describe the subject of the article that can be used under fair use. -- Luke (Talk) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of the extent to which WP:MUG should apply to someone who's only notable for a crime. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- To note, the mugshot is up for deletions on commons at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:James Holmes booking photo.jpg. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Fair use strictly says that you can't use images of people that are living. That is why we have so many BLP articles without images. As to WP:MUG, I still don't know why Paris Hilton has one in her article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The Wikicommons category Mug shots of people of the United States contains over 250 mugshot pictures with various licenses. I mention it as a policy research resource. — O'Dea (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I'll see if there are any Colorado ones in there. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bill Gates has one in his article as well and they have lost the records on what he was arrested for.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Gates said it was speeding, like 120 in a 55 MPH zone. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Full Wikicommons mugshot discussion at File:James Holmes booking photo.jpg. — O'Dea (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
… 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)
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)
… 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)
- WP:FAIR does not allow images of living people.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Strange - wasn't aware the Air Force had "acupuncturists." HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Here is some more info about Dr. Fenton and her treatment of Holmes. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 19:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Perhaps the request for closure board would be suitable. :) That was easy enough. Safiel (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Request for closure has been made. Safiel (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- Request for closure has been made. Safiel (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps the request for closure board would be suitable. :) That was easy enough. Safiel (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:James_Eagan_Holmes.23Merge--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Closing the merge
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Done (as the closing admin, subsequent to above comment). Manning (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
- I think it is patrolled by people that monitor the size and adjust accordingly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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))
- 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)
- 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))
- 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)
- 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))
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- It's called a {{prod}}. Viriditas (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Where do i submit my new tag? User:Canoe1967/Template/Pre-Afd? (kidding)--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just my two cents but I would be fully opposed to a
AfDdeletion of this article for many reasons including the ones put forward here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just my two cents but I would be fully opposed to a
- 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)
- Sorry thats what I was meaning to say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- My response may be the only sane one you get here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Is Theoldsparkle serious? Viriditas (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- Agreed. Is Theoldsparkle serious? Viriditas (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
James Holmes (murder suspect)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.223.98 (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
Fixed. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- A reasonable question, the information is now in the article. WWGB (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Debated and lost: Talk:James Eagan Holmes#Merge. WWGB (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Edit request: Section Background
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Edit request: Infobox reference for BS in Neuroscience degree
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
Reference #1
to
- ^ 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)
Edit request: remove poorly sourced text in Biography/background
![]() | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at James Holmes (mass murderer). (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
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)
- ^ National Enquirer Edition of August 6, 2012
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs of scientists and academics
- Wikipedia requested photographs of people
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class Colorado articles
- Low-importance Colorado articles
- WikiProject Colorado articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- Wikipedia requested images of people of Colorado
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests
- Wikipedia edit requests possibly using incorrect templates