Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.36.233.104 (talk) at 22:37, 6 July 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Full casualty list

I think there should be a list of the names of all those killed and injured. If the killed can have their names listed, then the injured should have the same respect. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of respect. Fatalities are more notable simply because their injuries crossed a very clear line, drastically changing the entire story of the event. It's also the last thing they'll ever do.
Included among the injured are all sorts, from panic attacks to the permanently maimed. Far trickier to assign due weight to each of those, without a clear line like that between life and death. There's also BLP to consider for these. While not the same as implying minor players committed a crime, publicizing them as victims of one can have consequences, too. Nosy reporters, co-workers, Twitter folk asking them to relive tripping running from terrifying things, for one.
The dead don't mind the attention, and even from a decency standpoint, they're the ones to whom society generally expects we "pay our respects". You should't pay respects to people you visit in the hospital with dislocated shoulders or burning sinuses. It worries them. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to list everyone who was injured. The reader's understanding would not be lessened by excluding this information.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, why mention the names of only a couple of the injured? Should those stay or not? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are a bit different, because of the deeper secondary coverage. Reporters published actual articles about them, rather than merely repeating their name and summary from a primary source (police) list. We need some indication that an injury has importance beyond simply injuring the injured.
For that reason, I don't see why we note the youngest victim. We don't even know what happened to him, let alone what effect it had. I think he's here purely to tug at heartstrings, in an agist way. I hope nobody minds me removing him. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME becomes involved here. While it is standard practice to list those who died, eg at Virginia Tech shooting, a comprehensive list of people who were injured has WP:NOTNEWSPAPER problems. The name of a living person should be added to an article only if it would significantly enhance a reader's understanding.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Shooters

I'm welcoming more information from users, particularly users that are not ip addresses only with a shady history of ads.. The facts indicate that there were almost certainly multiple shooters involved in this case & showing how facts diverge from Dan Oates' narrative (ie showing both sides) is critical..

Ferociouslettuce (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was never yet an incident of this type where someone somewhere did not question the mainstream media version of events and put forward conspiracy theories instead. Policies such as WP:REDFLAG and WP:WEIGHT become involved here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
my sources are from mainstream media. mainstream media (nbc local, msnbc & an abc press coverage) all indicate there was two shooters. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the conspiracy of more than one shooter is more factual than the current 2nd to last paragraph about copycat killers and an unsourced claim there was a spike in gun sales. Holmes was not caught on camera. I'm sourcing real interviews and articles with/about eyewitnesses. Without a mention of them in the opening paragraph, this article is not neutral: http://www.businessinsider.com/james-holmes-conspiracy-theories-2012-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4Gv3PGtsHg If you want to write it yourself then go for it. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about Project MKUltra is wildly speculative. Most mainstream media sources have accepted that Holmes was the only shooter. There is a problem with promoting the theory that more than one shooter was involved by selectively quoting sources which promote this theory. See also WP:BALASPS. I would welcome comments from other editors here, as this is pretty much the same as what happened with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where some people have refused to accept the official version of events.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was some confusion in early media reports, leading to a belief that there might have been more than one gunman. The ballistic evidence was presented in court on May 14, 2015.[1] This did not include an assertion from the prosecution or defense that more than one gunman was involved. It is important not to give this impression, particularly in the WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
user:ianmacm stop violating the rules of wikipedia. Community involvement is needed before deleting a neutral POV tag. This intro presumes Holmes' guilt. Changing to suspected perp & confessed both make sense, especially as people do confess without being guilty (in order to avoid the death penalty,for example..) Keeping the "wildly speculative" (& I do agree with you there) about Project MKUltra while deleting the multiple shooter conspiracy because many in mainstream media are told not to cover it is very biased. Additionally, you deleted the only mention of FBI agent James Yacone, the man in charge of the investigation. It makes absolutely no sense to delete from an article about the 2012 Aurora Shooting, the man in charge of investigating the 2012 Aurora Shooting.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral POV Tag

user:ianmacm, stop continually violating wikipedia policy by deleting heavily sourced material & Neutral POV Tags without discussion. Most egregiously, you deleted the only mention of FBI Agent James Yacone, the man in charge of investigating the 2012 Aurora Shooting from the intro of the 2012 Aurora Shooting article, while not the first 2 paragraphs of the article that have no sources. Because the multiple shooters conspiracy theory is considerably more possible than speculative mkultra, I am also re-adding that section. Counter testimony by police in that section would be most welcome.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person reading the article should not get the impression that there is significant support for the theory that multiple shooters were involved. The trial is focused on the theory that Holmes was the only shooter, and he has admitted to being the shooter. The article has to reflect what the sourcing says, in line with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASPS. The WP:LEAD is not the place for the multiple shooters theory, because this was rejected after Holmes was charged.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are violating wikipedia policy by deleting the neutral pov tag before the discussion is resolved. You delete the only mention of FBI Agent James Yacone, who was in charge of the investigation. there is significantly more support for the theory that multiple shooters were involved than the mkultra gawker bullshit you refuse to delete. Stop reverting well sourced edits Ferociouslettuce (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
user:ianmacm, WP:LEAD indicates that unsourced material, such as the first two paragraphs, are not proper introductions. Further, both WP:WEIGHT & WP:BALASPS show that the conspiracy "gawker" source is considerably less notable than the conspiracy "business insider" source. the former has little notability, the latter has many agreeing with it. 74.88.37.67 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory Addition

I strongly believe that "Dan Oates & special agent James Yacone of the FBI arrested 1 suspect, James Eagan Holmes" should appear in the introduction. James Yacone is the FBI agent that was in charge of investigating the 2012 Aurora Shooting & his name does not appear once in the current article.

Additionally, I'd like to see something similar to the below replace the current "Conspiracy theories" section. I look forward to real discussion since Ianmacm (talk) & 98.207.226.90 (talk) were more interested in deleting all changes..

Note there are currently over 3000 characters used for the "entertainment industry response to the shooting", while the only conspiracy 'theory' mentioned has to do with mkultra despite a far more probable conspiracy in which James Eagan Holmes was not the mastermind, that the mastermind of this shooting is still at large..

Also, I'm not sure if "aftermath" is the best section to house this or if it should get its own section as well as a half sentence or 2 in the intro..

Lastly, http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/james-holmes-conspiracy/ is a very worthwhile external link with many views.

Ferociouslettuce (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning conspiracy theories in a conspiracy section is one thing, and generally fine, if reliably sourced. But changing the lead based on your blatantly apparent belief in these second gunman theories is where it turns sour. Your grammar and punctuation was also messy, but that's easier to fix. The whole thing was easier to revert. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
It was inevitable that some people would question the official version of events. Police briefly considered the possibility that more than one shooter was involved after being called to the scene, but by the time that Holmes had been arrested and charged he was the only suspect. Articles should not give undue weight to theories that lack mainstream media support.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you're talking yourself in circles.. Business Insider, Washington Post, NY Post, ABC, MSNBC are mainstream media. the official recording of the police scanner is also a quality primary source. yet you deleted the changes when they were made just to the consiracy theories section. Please address any issues with what is below as well as the highlighted sentence above. I would like to reach concensus before the article is changed. currently there is a lot of fluff & no mention of widely held belief that the mastermind of the operation is still at large Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As of June 2015, no mainstream media source is promoting the theory that multiple shooters were involved. Neither the prosecution nor the defense at the trial has claimed this, and Holmes has admitted to being the shooter without saying that other people were involved. Time to put the tinfoil hat away.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For James Holmes court proceedings see: James_Eagan_Holmes#Detention_and_pre-trial_court_appearances & James_Eagan_Holmes#Trial.

wow. 'tinfoil hat' is quite offensive (& inaccurate), especially considering you've made no changes or suggestions to either of my posts. I recommend using principles of Hanlon's razor when you're having disagreements. I certainly hope you don't believe I'm being malicious, because I am not. This is not a courtroom. Staten Island DA (now congressman) Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. found no evidence whatsoever in foul play against Eric Garner's killer, for example [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zOzkh2cKuM ]. More importantly, do you disagree with me when I say Dan Oates & FBI agent James Yacone's name should be mentioned in the introduction because they are the officers in charge of the 2012 Aurora shooting investigation? do you disagree with me when I would like to amend the weak existing "conspiracy theories" section with the one below? it would occupy a smaller portion of the article than generic comments made by DC Comics, Warner Bros, Chris Nolan, Christian Bale & Hans Zimmer. Thank you for discussion Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are always people who question the official version of events. There is no outright ban on mentioning conspiracy theories in Wikipedia articles, but they should not be made out to be more notable and verifiable than they are. If you were to believe everything in the blogs and YouTube videos, every mass shooting would be the work of a conspiracy, false flag operation, government mind control etc. Is this really plausible? Aurora is only one instance where these old chestnuts have made their predictable appearance. Quote of the day from Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "All through my life I've had this strange unaccountable feeling that something was going on in the world, something big, even sinister, and no one would tell me what it was." "No," said the old man, "that's just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the Universe has that."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. So is there any reason not to add Dan Oates & James Yacone of the fbi's names to the intro as they were in charge of the investigation? remember, this "conspiracy theory" section is already relegated as less significant than quotes by people affiliated with the batman movie about a shooting in Colorado Ferociouslettuce (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemark Theatres

I see a brief paragraph buried under "Entertainment Industry Response" between quotes by batman executives & new york city sponsored paranoia by former mayor Michael Bloomberg.. WP:BALASPS could be in play here. There was no copycat attacks nor were any batman executives affiliated with the attacks.

I'm not saying that Cinemark ought be resonsible for the shooting.. legal weapons were snuck through the backdoor. But how is it that no cameras were in place to capture the event or any of the aftermath? Has no one from the theater explained why no cameras captured anything? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This risks getting into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. It is similar to the conspiracy theory article here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Nolan, Bale & the Batman movies, but what they have to say about a shooting in Colorado is irrelevant (see: WP:NOTAFORUM, particularly "discussion forums"). Rather than a long-winded section about "entertainment industry response", we should have a more concise "Cinemark Theatres Response" (remember, the shooting occured at a Cinemark Theatre), including a 1 sentence addition, "no represantives from cinemark theatres have addressed the lack of security camera footage of the shooting or aftermath" (or something similar). This would make the article less like a forum. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless secondary reliable sources have addressed the lack of CCTV footage it would be an attempt to introduce original research. I would advise again against introducing material which tries to question the theory that Holmes was the sole shooter unless it can be sourced reliably.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder?

An editor removed the categories related to murder, apparently confusing calling the event "murder" with calling the accused perp a "murderer" (which would be a violation of WP:BLP. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're following me, and want this to stick to help you hastily call another killing a murder. Other than that, I think Holmes is going with the insanity defense. If he's not responsible, it's not murder, just homicide. The whole point of a murder trial is determining this shit, and the point of the presumption of innocence is not determining this shit before the courts do. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
The point of a trial is to determine if an individual is guilty of a crime. We can talk about the crime itself in reasonable terms without using "alleged" and without violating WP:BLP. You are the one who started removing the categories from another article to strengthen your case [2], so blaming others of the same is distinctly duplicitous. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the ongoing trial, the use of a murder category is too hasty.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought this (and Charleston) up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, if anyone's interested. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
Would err on the side of caution and leave out murder reference until BLP has had a chance to discuss. It isn't worth edit warring over. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would suggest not to. Things are already disruptive as it is. DisuseKid (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP " Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." It does no harm to wait until there's input from the BLP noticeboard. There appear to be good reasons for caution, not the least of which an ongoing trial. It is reasonable to have content like this removed first and discussed afterwards. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Aurora_theater_shooting&oldid=670266337"