Talk:2012 Aurora shooting/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5


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

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

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


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

I'm sure you wouldn't care if it said gunwoman or woman holding a gun. Keep your feministic views off Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a legitimate complaint.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 DoneBrightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

A gunman cannot be called a gunman?, talk about Political correctness. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, you're correct. My edits can be reverted then. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Well i changed to armed man, can be changed to gunman if people want. But certainly needs to say male rather than individual. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We follow the reliable sources here. They say "gunman", so we do too. --John (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

They just mentioned that 12 was confirmed dead not 14. 5:48

Referencing Source

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

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

Tennessee license plates?

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

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

Requested move 1

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

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

2012 Aurora shootings2012 Aurora shooting – I think the article title does need changing, at the very least it needs to be moved to shooting, which is more accurate than shootings (which implies more than one incident) as reflected by the overwhelming majority of news organisations using the term "shooting" -Daily Telegraph, BBC,CNN,Fox,Sky news,Guardian,CBS, ABC News, NBC news,Reuters,AFP,MSN,AP. I am not sure if there would be consensus at this stage to change the name to something like 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, although i think it would be more helpful if it did have a title like that.. but at the very least we need to get a correct title like "2012 Aurora shooting". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Agreed.  Sandstein  11:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • AgreedMantion (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually I think the title is inaccurate. Most reliable sources are calling it the "Denver Batman massacre" or variations. There is no reason why not name it as such, as it is the overwhelming common name. Yes I might not be as active, but I still have that WP:COMMONNAME edge. Don't let this !Vote get on the way of taking that "s" out tho... I am just saying focusing on that is missing the point. --Cerejota (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I would support use of Denver as that is what the international press is using, but not "Denver Batman massacre". I agree that a wider debate on what is the best name is needed, i just want to see a speedy fix to this current title which is certainly inaccurate with "shootings", and not the term used by the sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Denver Batman massacre"?? It looks like the Batman conducted the massacre. In addition, American press uses Aurora. I think the local press is more accurate. --Coekon (talk)
  • Support proposed move. No appetite for a tabloidy title like the Batman one. --John (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Denver Batman massacre" added as redirect. --Kslotte (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support proposed. Definitely do not support anything like "Denver Batman massacre" not only since incident occurred in Aurora (overseas sources may simply be generalising the location since Denver is more widely known) but also since "massacre" has a strong POV connotation, IMO. Huntster (t @ c) 12:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support proposed move. DillonLarson (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support proposed, as above --Coekon (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to 'shooting'. Oppose anything that would put 'Batman' or 'massacre' in the title, we're not a tabloid. Robofish (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections to a speedy change to 2012 Aurora shooting should i list it as a technical move or is there an admin about that will be able to make this move if there is consensus? obviously its not something that should wait the standard 7 days. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I have requested a technical move here [2] to ask someone to move the article to 2012 Aurora shooting as there appears to be consensus now that is a more accurate title than shootings, and we should not wait for 7 days to correct it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks its been changed now. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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

Seriously? John Stamos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of the name of the suspect

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

Wikipedia is not censored. Krford (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Or a newspaper. - filelakeshoe 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Or factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Twyn3161 cut it out. Consensus is against you and I see no source cited from you saying that not releasing the name of a suspect is standard media protocol. I'm only familiar with not releasing the names of juveniles or victims. Here's your source with a name: Chrisbrl88 (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:BLP1E allows for the inclusion of the suspect's name, and common freaking sense says this is important information. Stop this pointy stuff. It might be irresponsible in your view, but it isn't in the view of the community. --Cerejota (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC) There's a reason that the good newspapers - such as NYTIMES have not published the name but the poor ones have. Which would you rather be reflective of?Twyn3161 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

"He looked like an assassin ready to go to war" -9news Colorado. Twyn3161, there is no controversy in terms of who is the alleged gunman.


Could people please explain why they believe a map showing the location of "Aurora, Colorado" is irrelevant? [3] [4] I thought this was the whole point of the map parameter of this infobox. - filelakeshoe 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Maybe people will find this map more suitable: Chrisbrl88 (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Smoke Grenade vs. Tear Gas Canister

NBC, CNN, and witness interviews report a tear gas canister - not a smoke grenade. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I've been following the story closely this morning and the so-called "smoke grenade" or "tear gas" has been described in the reports -- often by witnesses who are simply using metaphors to explain what they saw, heard, or in many cases simply what they've heard by hearsay -- in so many ways, it's unclear if it was truly a "smoke grenade" or "tear gas" or what. It's been described in various media reports as a "flash-bang", as tear gas, or some sort of smoke grenade. Until there is some official statement on what it was, it may be much better to describe it as what witnesses have generally described as a canister that released some sort of gas or smoke (and more properly that would be called an aerosol, but that's a minor technical point). All sources I've read or heard have used very similar terms, and no reports contradict that sort of phrasing. I'd like for someone here who can describe this in more temperate, accurate language to change the reference to "smoke grenade" or "tear gas" in the opening paragraph to reflect this. (edit at 10:15 central, I tried changing "tear gas" in the opening paragraph to "a canister that released some kind of gas or smoke" to reflect language from "Aurora 'Dark Knight' Shooting Suspect Identified: James Holmes" from, By PIERRE THOMAS (@PierreTABC) , RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW MOSK (@mattmosk) , JACK DATE and JASON RYAN @JasonRyanABC)-- and Ill try to properly footnote this. July 20, 2012 User:Ssc (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: Ok I tried to change the sentence now a few times and reference this URL: and add this sentence: "The gunman then deployed a canister that released some kind of gas or smoke before opening fire, killing 12 and injuring at least 50 - among them a six year old." -- but I can't due to an "edit conflict" meaning someone saved an edit since I began to edit the page in this particular session -- so someone who knows better what to do, please make this or a similar change. User:Ssc (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If we are using "tear gas" then, in the Warner Brothers' reaction, "...where gangster characters tear through a theater screen..." the verb "tear" should be changed to "rip." (Also 1st edit! Hi Wiki Community.) Phreshbreth (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Were there a poison gas attack by Joker in the comics? ( (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC))

License plates

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

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

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

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

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

Why the reference to Virginia Tech? Is it necessary? --Possum4all (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just be specific - if it's the most deaths then say that...if it's the most deaths and woundings, then say so. There is no need to use something as vague as "worst" when you can simply replace it with whatever criterion you're using to judge that upon. SteveBaker (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The source which cited the statement used the word "worst" without clarification. - filelakeshoe 21:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Batman Massacre

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

If it's mentioned in a reliable source... GiantSnowman 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That's the stupidest name i've heard. United States Man (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose any reference to batman being put in the first sentence as an alternative description, but if there are a lot of sources using similar such terms it might be worth including in an media reaction section. But nnot in the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not for us to decide, really. Should the media settle on a name like "Dark Knight massacre", we would most definitely include it prominently in the lead. The only reason not to do so is because it's too early to tell. -- (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe the name "Dark Knight massacre" is far more widely used in the news media. Following my request, it has been created as a redirect to help people looking for more information after reading one of the many online sources referring to the shooting as "Dark Knight massacre". But even though many news articles call it that, I don't believe it warrants mention in the article, for now. There is no "official" name for the shooting, so the current generic title is perfectly fine. Only if and when after a couple of weeks the media appear to settle on one or more names for the shooting, we can then discuss including them in the article lead. -- (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Fox News, BBC and CNN, specifically, are calling it the "Batman Massacre." --Petercorless (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And ABC too. -- Luke (Talk) 15:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, then create a redirect from Batman massacre. -- (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No, not a redirect. If you want this in the article or as a redirect then list the actual sources. You can't source live TV. United States Man (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As you can see, the redirects have already been created. They are highly useful for the many people coming to Wikipedia from those news sources which refer to the incident as 'Batman massacre' or 'Dark Knight massacre'. These two names appear to be the most commonly used, and they should probably be included in the intro. -- (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Well that comment eas a little late. That redirect was created more than 2 hours ago. United States Man (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You're looking for sources calling the incident 'Batman massacre' or 'Dark Knight massacre'? There's plenty for both variants. -- (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to call it that, sounds more like a tabloid headline. Might just be a case of WP:Recentism, better to not promote that name and revisit when more information is available. Theo10011 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

i found both references to the batman massacre on and at — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEA0:D600:6CEF:A770:D9B8:E53A (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

World Reaction

"In France, the shooting is major news. It's the top story on leading newspaper Le Monde's website and also top national broadcaster TF1's site and also on cable news network iTele and BFM TV's sites. It was also the leading story on public TV network France 3's 12 p.m. news program." Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Jonathan.richmond (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Perhaps we should see if we can get consensus on a moratorium on updating the reactions section for an hour or two. There are so many reactions coming out right now (especially with Obama speaking) that it could cause a lot of problems with edit conflicts. Anyone in favor? Chrisbrl88 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
With the exception of maintaining what's currently there, I agree. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Perhaps we could have something like "The leaders of various countries, including (country),<ref> (country),<ref> and (country),<ref> expressed their condolences Friday." Thoughts? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Until Romney leads a country (or relevant state, district or town), his opinion is irrelevant, aside from the unrelated upcoming election. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I kind of have to agree here. It seems like Romney was added to balance out the statement from Obama. Election year or not, Wikipedia is not required to provide equal time to candidates, and his inclusion seems out of place. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


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

No, that is not needed because it has nothing to do with the shootings. Its probably just video of the police running around and victims still trying to figure out what happened. And, please use capital letters when you start sentences or people might think you are lacking common sense. United States Man (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There are many different videos of the aftermath anyway which dont seem to add to much (although an acknowledgement of the existance of these clips, if there isn't one already would be a good idea). FM talk to me | show contributions ]  15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mayor of New York comments notable ?

The mayor of new york has commented, with more than mere expressions of sympathy for the incident.[5] would that be worth including in the reaction section and possibly using it to link to an article on the US gun debate? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Lack of / need for emergency warning

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

What do reliable sources have to say on the matter? GiantSnowman 14:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's policy on this. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm excited to see discussion from some people on this! Chrisbrl88, I'm actually aware of that policy, but I think that if this article is to have any value, it should do what so many other mature Wikipedia articles do and move beyond what I like to call "emotional voyeurism," which is where I believe this article currently resides. What I mean is that, for example, having a comment about what the NYC mayor said about the shooting... that just doesn't seem valuable (I might even take it as possible political propaganda). But I see an emergency exit door being propped open without any kind of emergency response/mitigation effect as at least worthy of mention! I don't want to step on toes or argue here (which is why I'm engaging the community via the talk page), but if some appropriate sources can be found to at least mention this, would everyone agree that it's worth inclusion into the article? chris.rider81 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Find reliable sources that talk about it, including talking about its relevance, and it can be added. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Good sourcing on the propping-open thing there. You'd need sources on the relevance of any alarm system (working or not working or not there) to add anything on that, but this was a good start. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Only Positive Responses Be Posted?

If a politician uses events like these to advance his political opinions, should that also be noted? A minor Republican politician in Texas is saying this incident is the result of attacks on Judeo-Christian belief systems. He's a minor character, but in 2007, Gingrich said the same thing about the Virginia Tech shooting, and he was a somewhat more major player. TychaBrahe (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Should not be included unless notable in some way, just like the positive ones. If this launches a larger gun control debate, or society debate that is widely covered and itself notable, then some of these types of things would be included. Not yet though. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And if that politician becomes more prominent in years to come, the news story about his comments will likely still be available (unless the Huffington Post goes out of business). I agree that there's no need to add the comments of some random person who has no connection to the event itself. --ΨΦorg (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

John Stamos

Mr. Stamos is much more notable than and as equally irrelevant as Mitt Romney. I see no reason why his reaction should be excluded, if Romney's is allowed. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Point noted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Personal attack noted. -- (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Poor grasp of what constitutes a personal attack noted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You accused him of indulging in pointy behavior, deliberately and dishonestly dismissing the validity of his argument. At the very least, you're being highly uncivil here and not contributing to a constructive discussion. Cut it out. -- (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Petty bickering noted. GiantSnowman 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Incorrect. Hulk was engaging in WP:POINTy behavior in adding the Stamos thing, as Hulk tried to remove Romney, then started adding Stamos with comments about him being more important than Romney. Admittedly, that someone is being WP:POINTy doesn't mean they don't have a point. I disagree with Hulk on this one, but that doesn't mean I dismiss their argument, it means I counter it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm 100% not personally offended and 100% guilty of being pointy. It's cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually, reccomend you add the reaction from someone who was in the movie in question. Also, the presumptive nominee of the major opposition party is relevant to any event of national significance. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Mitt Romney is running for President of the USA. John Stamos is running for Mr Twitter USA. WWGB (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
But what does the election have to do with a shooting? Everyone else quoted has some relation to this event. Romney has a relation to Obama, who speaks as the current President of the United States, not a candidate. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Gun control is an incredibly political topic. GiantSnowman 16:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If anyone can find the official reaction of the NRA, that'd be nice. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If anyone can find the official reaction of Rebecca Romijn, that'd be nice. (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Denver Batman massacre deletion talk, fyi Herp Derp (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Numerical disparity in the lead


The lead was recently changed [6] to say that there were 13 deaths. This disagrees with the infobox and the victims section at the moment, but cites a source. Should we update the other numbers to match? --NYKevin 17:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source then go for it. United States Man (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Reaction

Is it worth including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's reaction? It was more of a call for action than the other more sympathetic reactions.

During his weekly appearance on WROS, Bloomberg said, "You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country. And everybody always says, ‘Isn’t it tragic,’ and you know, we look for was the guy, as you said, maybe trying to recreate Batman. I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it’s just got to stop. And instead of the two people – President Obama and Governor Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, okay, tell us how. And this is a real problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them concretely, not just in generalities – specifically what are they going to do about guns? I can tell you what we do here in New York. The State Legislature passed the toughest gun laws – some states may say no. That’s okay, what do you want to do? And maybe every Governor should stand up. But in the end, it is really the leadership at a national level, which is whoever is going to be President of the United States starting next January 1st – what are they going to do about guns?"[1] [2] --Mattge3 (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree a sentence from the NY mayor should be included, it could then link to the article on Gun politics in the United States BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No, we can't have every politician's reaction on here. Plus, he really has nothing to do with it. He is in NYC and this happened in Colorado. United States Man (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
But Batman lives in New York (kind of). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to include Mayor Bloomberg's reaction, on the grounds that (i) he is a major politician with a national reputation, and (ii) he said something beyond the usual expressions of condolence and regret. But perhaps we should wait and see how much coverage his reaction gets; if it's not much, it need not be included. Robofish (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps "New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for the presidential candidates to state what they are going to do about guns". Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like hot air to me. Maybe notable enough for the Bloomberg article.InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a Medical Student

While the San Francisco Chronicle initially reported that the suspect is a medical student, he is in fact a Neuroscience PhD candidate at the Graduate School of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus. Since he is not associated with the School of Medicine located at the same campus, he is not a "medical student". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I copy pasted this from Talk:2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting since someone posted it there without realising that the move-revert had occurred. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


I've seen a few references to 9gag. What is the relationship between the suspect and 9gag? Also I just heard from the police cheif Oats that there has been social media pranks. Evidently someone called a tv station pretending to be the police cheif. Should any of that be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the 9gag connection. I would say it is not appropriate for the article as a WP:HOAX unless it gains significant coverage or is determined to not be a hoax. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Agreed, it should only be included as a known false rumor if it gains widespread belief and notoriety in the general public, or is proven to be true. Old Al (Talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep, assuming this gets significant coverage there could be a hoaxes and pranks section; however, in light of the severity of this, I don't expect media to focus on it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree, I removed it again causa sui (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Louie Gohmert

Louie Gohmert's comments on the shooting are not really about the shooting at all; he is using the shooting merely as an excuse for a disjointed rant about religious persecution. The article shouldn't be used to provide a soapbox for Gohmert's irrelevant commentary. (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Gohmert's comments, in addition to being inflammatory, are quite irrelevant to the event in question. siafu (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. When they were described earlier, I thought they were more to the point; they're not. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
However, if his comments get commented on extensively, negative or positive, we may have to include them, though probably not in such detail. PS, the original source, huffpo, says they made a reporting error, and first reported he said it was the "crazy act of a derelict." He in fact called it "a crazy act of terror like this."source: [7]. i will refrain from commenting on this elected representatives ideas.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of family section

Can someone point me to how the information removed here is a BLP violation? It appears to me that names should not be given, but the rest is relevant. Specifically the families statement on the guilt of the son. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph may be unnecessary, but I find the second paragraph relevant. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I really think that the family is not needed. United States Man (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a clear violation of WP:BLP. The second paragraph was content duplicated elsewhere in the article. causa sui (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, so here's the problem. We both ([8] [9]) removed what was the second portion of your family reference as a duplicate at virtually the same time. Do you have any problems with me reinstating that second section? Ryan Vesey Review me!
I see. If it is restored it should probably not include the quote that "you have the right man" or whatever. I am not comfortable with that quote until we know that it actually was his mother. causa sui (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph was fluf, bu the statements directly by the family with condolences and admitting they were afraid are very relevant. Since they are making those statements voluntarily through the poilce and media WP:BLP should not be used to hide the statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the shooter's family's reactions add much of substance to the article. At least they should be condensed to one sentence, as with the political reactions, and included in the respective section.  Sandstein  19:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, though I repeat my caveat that the "you have the right man" quote should not be included. causa sui (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Gangster Squad

As of the 9am est showing of "The Dark Knight Rises," at least one theater in Washington DC was still showing the Gangster Squad trailer. Has the trailer actually been pulled or has it just taken a bit of time for them to pull it?Pjk645 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this page: "At 6 AM, Warner Bros started notifying the theater circuits to pull the offensive Gangster Squad trailer. That is being done all over North America today. Meanwhile, Warner Bros’ marketing department is scrambling to get out its second-generation Gangster Squad trailer already in the works. This new trailer, without the movie theater scene, will be swapped out for the offensive one within a week. Warner Bros says this is now the whole story." -- Zanimum (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That explains it, 6am pacific time was not in time to get the trailer pulled for a 9am est showing. Pjk645 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point, about the PT time zone. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of BLP Violations

What is the problem with referring to James Holmes as the alleged suspect? He is the only current suspect and the word alleged means we are not convicting him. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Alleged suspect" would be wrong as a matter of logic. Either "alleged shooter" or "suspect" are correct, as long as they are attributed to a source that verifies that it is the police who are doing the alleging or suspecting.  Sandstein  19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"Alleged suspect" works logically. The newspapers make the allegation (which, though not really debatable, is still an allegation). But yeah, it's needlessly complicated to go that way. "Suspect" seems best for here. Note that "suspect" is much different than "criminal". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"Alleged suspect" is either redundant or misleading. Nobody is alleging that he is the suspect. He is the suspect in the shooting. causa sui (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The term alleged suspect is incorrect. I was primarily referring to the action of removing his name even though it was not convicting him. I think it would be safe to say "alleged shooter" or "suspect" and still include his name. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It's misleading and we shouldn't use it. I was just saying it can be technically correct. Allegations don't need to be unproven or disputed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You are walking a tightrope if you use his name in the section that describes the events of the shooting. It will be very easy for you, or someone who edits your prose later, to presume guilt by inadvertently implying or stating that the subject actually did do the deed. It is better to stand back from the electric fence entirely, in my opinion, and use the suspect's name exclusively in the section about the suspect. causa sui (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2 more dead

According to this article (Pic 15) 14 are now dead

Unspecific source; can't find that there. We'd need a written article that also explains why the casualty number was again revised.  Sandstein  19:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yet their breaking news banner says 12.. ABC is also being used to claim this is the biggest mass shooting in American history which is highly questionable. These are not reliable claims at present. We need more sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Which shooting(s) may have shot more people? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
When the point was initially added to the article it was simply saying biggest in US history, it didnt actually say that was based on total victims shot or killed. This might be when both dead and injured are counted the biggest, but id like to see more sources saying it rather than just ABC news which is all there was earlier. It has again been added to the intro without clarifying that it is basing it on total victims, it confuses people as there have clearly been bigger shootings in terms of deaths. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Pretty clear now, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


The date is incorrect. I'd edit it myself, but the document is semi-protected. Loki149 (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What you mean? It happened on July 20, 2012. --Stryn (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Meaning? it happened after midnight.Lihaas (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, someone corrected it. It used to say June. Loki149 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Warner Bros

Read about marketing change as they are dropping some ad spots where he baddie wheres a mask akin to this ones gas mask

Bloomberg also mentioned an immediate share price drop for Cinemark (aklso need their reaction) and its cited as related to this. It said NY wil increase police at said locations showing this to prevent copycatsLihaas (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Someone should webarchive them as theyre bound to change/update as a breaking news tpopic.Lihaas (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

would it be acceptable to mention?

That apparently some boutique got in a bit of hot water after claiming that Aurora was a trending topic b/c of their new Kim Kardashian inspired dress called Aurora. I saw this on HuffPo. (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, but thanks for the suggestion. causa sui (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Is it really necessary to mention he is introverted and shy? Besides stigmatizing introverted and shy people, I don't see how it is relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I get you. But his personality BEFORE the shooting is encyclopedic, IMO. Curious readers may wonder how he behaved in society before this even happened. Best, ComputerJA (talk)
    No, personal, anecdotal and subjective interpretations about his personality should be removed until he is interviewed by a mental health professional. We aren't doing body language analysis here either. causa sui (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed. News media of course tend to include whatever best info they can get a hold of at any given moment, but the quoted statements can safely be considered to have been reported in lieu of more professional assessments yet to follow. These anecdotal accounts may serve a developing news story, but not an encyclopedic account. -- (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Charles Whitman

The see all section links to Charles Whitman. Is this really necessary? It seems like we could link to any other shooter. On a side note, is there a template for "mass murders"? Peter.C • talk • contribs 21:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the link. GoingBatty (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspect had red-coloured hair and called himself 'the Joker'

Can't provide a quick website, but according to CNN, the man had coloured his hair red and called himself 'the Joker'. (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The information was removed with this edit. Does the CNN claim say anything to the affect of information given by the Aurora PD? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I put that in the article hours ago, with a source. Its breaking news. We have other people who are more equal than others, deleting things. Trackinfo (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is the article protected?

I see that administrator AzaToth protected the page, and by way of explanation linked to an essay on Meta, the first line of which is "This page contains material intended to be humorous. It should not be taken seriously or literally." No surprise there, then. Any other particular reason why the page is protected? (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

His joke was about how it was move protected. This page is semi-protected because there are huge risks of BLP violations. You can request material to be added on this talk page as long as you provide a source. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it protected because of something that has happened, or because of something you fear might happen? (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It was me who semi protected it actually, and even before it was featured on the main page there was a load of IP vandalism going on. See [10] High volumes of vandalism are especially disruptive on current event articles as they progress. - filelakeshoe 22:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I do hope you keep unprotecting it from time to time, to see how it goes. There are so many eyes on this that any inappropriate edit will last about a nanosecond before it's reverted. (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It won't be protected indefinitely, just while it's a high profile news event. - filelakeshoe 22:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a pity that you're going to leave it protected for the duration of its life as a high-profile event. Problematic edits are quickly reverted on an article like this. If a vandal comes along, protect it for a few hours, then unprotect it would be my suggestion. (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. When I'm not at work and can police more closely, I will unprotect the article and see what happens. causa sui (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Good. Thanks. I hope (and expect) that it won't just be you policing the article. Although high-profile news events attract more vandals than other articles, they are also policed much more closely than other articles. It's the semi-obscure articles where BLP violations can go unnoticed for months which are the real problem. Most of the vandalism to this kind of article is just infantile nonsense which can quickly be reverted. (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


In the line "The authorities evacuated five buildings as their tried to figure out how to disarm the explosive materials and clear the area" in the biography section about his home, the word 'their' ought to be 'they' (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from renaming the infobox without good reason...

I changed the infobox title from "The Dark Knight Massacre" to "2012 Aurora shooting". (Someone had added "Dark Knight Movie Massacre", and that was further edited to what it was before...with no sourcing, and a Google search shows neither term being used at all.) From similar pages, I would say that should remain the infobox title. Some nicknames may pop up as time goes on, and they can be be put in an appropriate section in the box. (What's worse, since there is no common name, leaving that there might result in Wikipedia nicknaming the event!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is this locked?

This isn't really a very huge event, but some poeple thought that many would be upset about the batman movie, could we please make this open to editors who might want to contribute some information if accurate? I will also ask before getting permission to, thanks. (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrators usually have pretty good reasons to semiprotect articles. Use the {{editsemiprotected}} template to suggest additions and changes here on the talk page. (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Nolan's reaction

Source Would his statement be notable for the reaction section? Erick (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say no myself, because we already have a statement from Warner Bros. If we didn't have any statement connected to the movie, it might be, but I think the Warner Bros statement is sufficient. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It doesn't add substantially to the Warner Bros. statement, which in turn can be considered as having been made on behalf of the corporation as well as the movie's cast and crew, including Nolan. -- (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wallstreet Member

James Holmes was/is a member of the Colorad0o Occupy Wallstreet movement, specifically the radical "Black Block" group. He had been a member of the San Diego Occupy movement but left as they were "not radical enough." This has been reported by several media outlets and in the Holmes own statements to police ( He was upset that the Batman movie portrayed the Occupy movement in a negative way.

The national Occupy Wallstreet group has confirmed his membership on their webpage ( (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Black Bloc is a part of the Occupy movement. It has existed long before Occupy. The link is also dead.AndrewK760 (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Block bloc is not an organization, and is therefore not a "part" of any group. Obviously, it has existed as a tactic for some time, but claiming that someone is a member of the "Black Bloc" is absurd, and similar to saying that someone who is protesting is a member of the "radical Slogan Chanters" group. This is also a common mistake made in the media, and should not be repeated here even if Mr. Holmes is proven to have been a violent protester of some sort. siafu (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The 2nd link you posted confirms it from what I can read, it also looks like a reliable source of information, at least at first glance. JeffreyW75 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I watched the movie this morning and the association of Gotham's villains with Occupy Wallstreet is about as strong as Hussein's connections with 911. That is to say, there isn't one. If James Holmes told police that he felt the movie portrayed the movement in a negative light, then he truly is unhinged from reality. Pjk645 (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. All of this is from this blog, which is clearly (from its own text) doing speculation. The OWS page is dead now, but if you google that URL, you can see a cached copoy of the text, which is the same text as in my link here, crossposted Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The GodLikeProductions link is a legitimate source.AndrewK760 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
GodLikeProductions is a conspiracy website, not sure if serious? --Rarian rakista (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the original was from cheatersflorida (aka Bill Warner the "private investigator"). I commented on this blog post a few hours ago, saying "Interesting. You not only have a misleading title, and you grasp at no facts whatsoever to back up your claim. Also, you include pictures which had nothing to do with said incident, or with Holmes." He subsequently deleted my comment, and closed them. In regards to the two places where this was cross-posted, my guess is that he did this, and tried putting it here to sort of make it seem "legitimate". I have no proof on that, but needless to say the text itself makes it not worthy of inclusion as it is not based on fact. Further, it is shameful that Bill Warner would make something like this up, so that he may capitalize on a tragedy. AndrewRayGorman (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Mark l anderson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The link is not reputable. It merely has a video of the crosspost to the Occupy Wall Street forum, before their administrators deleted it. Interestingly enough, you didn't even take care to blur out the part that specifically says "This content is user submitted and not an official statement". And I now question the reliability of the "journalism" website "The Western Center for Journalism" for reposting this. Lying is a cardinal sin, and trying to pass of this nonsense as journalism is an affront to the profession. Gormanilius (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


Should the article really say "he was an active member of his local church"? We have no idea when this was from. It was from a retired neighbor in his San Diego community. I don't see he was a part of a church while he was in Colorado, and thus we have no information he was an "active" member of a "local" as in Aurora church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:16, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Number Killed

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

See above section...reports are between 12 and 15, with 12 being the currently reported figure by most places. Huntster (t @ c) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Now 12, see "Can't resolve bad refs" in Talk. Regards, Laguna CA (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Added "Eagan" as suspect's middle name

There have already been a number of spurious web articles about Denver-area "James Holmes" targeting entirely innocent people with the same first and last names. I saw one irresponsible blogger tried to point to an entirely innocent person's Facebook page. He was rightly lambasted by feedback and pulled down the link. But, to head off such craziness, I am adding "Eagan" as the published middle name of the suspect to ensure other people do not make dreadful confusion about entirely innocent individuals. ([11]) --Petercorless (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And Brian Ross of ABC News apparently also misidentified a wrong "Jim Holmes" of Aurora, CO.[12] Hold on to your hats, folks. Without any direct proof one way or the other, people have already tried to blame Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. We might need to create a section about misidentification and witch-hunting if this goes on. --Petercorless (talk)
Agreed, a non-unique name. (See — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talkcontribs) 02:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Could this be why the media always sees about the middle name of assassins? John Wilkes Booth? Lee Harvey Oswald? Although that has not always been the case, considering there has been killers such as Leon Czolog, Charles Guiteau and Louis Freeh. (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding Romney (and Stamos).

Is Mitt Romney's reaction relevant to this story, or is he merely included for political reasons pertaining to an unrelated upcoming election? Also, is John Stamos' reaction relevant? He is arguably far more famous. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Firstly, "far more famous" is POV. Secondly, if enough reliable sources are reporting the reaction of X, then we should also report the reaction of X, whether that be politicians, actors or the man on the street. GiantSnowman 16:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • True. So far the only source we have for Stamos reaction was a Twitter link. Find a more reliable source. Also, political reasons pertaining to the upcoming election are relevant to this story, per what seems to me to be WP:COMMONSENSE. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Gotta love the American media circus. Unless there is a meta source that discusses the notability of politicians' and celebrities' comments in the context of this particular incident, none of them should be included. -- (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It is newsworthy the shooting has put off U.S. Presidential election campaign activities. It may even be newsworthy to quote each of the major party candidates. But other celebrities are generally not relevant if they are merely expressing opinions. --Petercorless (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with Peter's above comment. Note that if this happened in Canada or the UK, the Leader of the Opposition would be quoted. For all intents and purposes, within a Republican system, Romney fills the same role. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless a major candidate stated that they had a change in policy opinion as a result of this, I would not find their reactions encyclopedic, even if they are newsworthy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I highly disagree. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Exactly right, Ryan. The difference between newsworthy and encyclopedic completely eludes many editors though. -- (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I feel that the reactions included in this version are appropriate. I don't feel that more (Mitt Romney or John Stamos) should be included. I do feel when the president of a country comments on something it is notable enough for inclusion. Ed Purlmutter's reaction is relevant because he represents the district. Janet Napolitano's reaction is relevant because it is similar to a terrorist attack and an aspect of homeland security. I would reformat the Warner Bros reaction and the NYCPD reaction into a new section. While these are reactions, they are relevant as actions taken as a result of the attack, not as statements. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia should use reliable sources to verify statements, but not model its presentation after them. US news is obsessed with the election and every mention of Obama is therefore juxtaposed with one of Romney. Obama is the current President of the United States and speaks in that capacity here, not as a candidate. This is an encyclopedia article about a mass murder, not a pissing contest about who condemns it more. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If president obamas is there, Romneys should be for balance, also the media have covered what romney says. I put on skynews here in the UK a few hours ago and they had it at a romney campaign event waiting for him to speak on the matter. His comments are notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Nope. They may be newsworthy, but we are not news and not everything that is deemed newsworthy has a place here on Wikipedia. -- (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sources are gold, so find them or you cannot list either one. United States Man (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    There ARE sources for Romney. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Comment: I just re-added it again. I'll happily abide by consensus if it goes against, but it should stay as is until this discussion is complete, IMO. This per WP:BRD, since the Bold is the removal and the Revert is the re-addition (as the initial addition was uncontested for a while). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Condense all reactions. I find the detailed inclusion of politicians' condolatory boilerplate statements in general to be unnecessary, because they are invariably made after high-profile events like this in more or less the same manner. At most, I'd say something like: "President Obama and other U.S. political leaders made statements deploring the shooting and extending their condolences." Anything more is really not interesting unless it is somehow unusual or particularly reported.  Sandstein  17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone located any sources for Stamos other than Twitter. United States Man (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The one I originally added it with was some celebrity news site. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That might be okay if we could find more, but I don't think it can stand on just that. United States Man (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the media is requesting comments from Romney can be encyclopedic, and the responses from Romney relative the media requests as well. But the fact that Romney has made statements regarding the shootings, is not relevant to the primary event here, but only to the election event. AzaToth 17:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Having gone away for a little bit, I have a compromise suggestion: let's have subsections in the Reaction section. Subsection 1: reactions by related gov't officials, including Obama (- the part about his campaign stops), Perlmutter, Napolitano, and to be expanded by adding reactions from the Colorado Governor and Senators if any, etc. Subsection 2: reactions by other political figures, including Obama's campaign-stop info, Romney, NYC police commissioner, foreign heads of state, etc. Subsection 3: related entertainment reactions, like Warner Bros., various theaters showing it, etc. Thoughts? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Note I added a commented-out note at the top of the Reactions section pointing people at this RFC. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I like Sandstein's version. Obama and other political figures. Is Napolitano a political figure or would her reaction be listed separately? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • A little of both. There's a part of her statement that involves committing the FBI and other such things to helping the investigation, which is an official reaction on the part of DHS to get involved. But her "condolences" stuff would be included in the "political figures," in this version. I could work with that. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No to both. Romney is a private citizen who is temporarily more newsworthy than usual (primarily in one country), who has no connection to the area or to the movie, and I don't see his reaction as being any more appropriate than that of the chairman of General Electric, or Rerun from What's Happening!! (or John Stamos, for that matter). And adding John Stamos's reaction is an obviously bad idea, unless it is paired with Bob Saget's. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with Sandstein in spirit, but I would go further than that. I would tend to leave out the political reactions entirely since they do not illuminate the subject at all. The reaction from Warner Brothers should be included and the rest of this section should be culled or at least dramatically condensed. causa sui (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    It's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing in this RFC so I went ahead and did it, at least for now. causa sui (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    Per my response to Ryan above, I dug up the bit about Napolitano acting in her official capacity rather than her politician capacity. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Political reactions are 100% relevant here. It shows the level o f partian politics that is "dangeorus" akin to the shooting in AZ just south ocf CO.Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • John Stamos is really not that relevant to this story, or any story. I can see the point about Romney's reaction being relevant since this event might dominate his campaign, and even shape the upcoming election. How presidential candidates respond and handle crisis in an election year, seems far more relevant to an encyclopedia than a reaction from a celebrity on a tragic incident. Theo10011 (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Relevant to the Mitt Romney article, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Quoting Mayor Bloomberg from NY times, “You know, soothing words are nice,” Mr. Bloomberg said during his weekly radio program, “but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.” - [13] People want to hear the reaction from the presidential candidates, and how this will affect their campaign. Theo10011 (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Question Why was this section expanded again? It's clear from this RFC that this level of detail to political campaigns is undue weight. causa sui (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The most important reaction is that from the movie director. The family's reactions are important in life but too numerous for the article. Certainly it is very common to want to put politician's comments, like the President, Mr. Romney, the Governor, the Mayor, but we are just being a tool of their campaign if we do it. It is the duty of officials to express condolences as is not notable. It would be notable if the President or Governor started laughing and made a crazy comment. Auchansa (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The views of government leaders are relevant. There is no legal duty for them to comment on tragic events; there may be a moral one, but government officials are not required to comment on any issue. Comments by government leaders and national politicians indicate the seriousness of the event. The views of celebrities like Stamos aren't relevant unless they have some sort of personal connection to this event, such as a relative as a victim or, in this case, appearing in the movie. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not include reactions from politicians or celebrities, except for the movie director. The distinction above about newsworthy vs. encyclopedic is on target. Consider the long view -- neither Bill Clinton nor GW Bush is quoted in the Columbine High School massacre article, because their reactions are now irrelevant and probably predictably boilerplate. The RMS Titanic article quotes neither politicians nor celebrities about the tragedy. Why should this article be different, except for recentism? Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Guns and Ammunition used by Shooter

NBC News reported on the weapons and ammunition used by James Holmes, the shooter.

"Officials told NBC News that the gunman had four weapons: two handguns, made by Glock, a Remington 870 single-barrel shotgun and a Smith and Wesson AR-15 assault-style rifle. The weapons can accommodate large ammunition clips, but authorities haven't said what kind of magazines were used." [3]

NBC News Justice and National Security Correspondent Pete Williams said that Holmes brought three weapons into the theater, leaving one of the Glock handguns in his car. Additionally, Williams added, "Witnesses say he used the shotgun first, then picked up the rifle and resumed with that."

Can anyone find other sources of this information? --Mattge3 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

During the press conference televised by CNN it was just said that he used the shotgun, the AR-15 and at least one of his two .40-caliber Glock pistols. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
"a Remington 870 single-barrel shotgun" is better described (I think!) as "a Remington 870 pump shotgun" unless someone knows of a double-barreled pump shotgun: in which case "a Remington 870 single-barrel pump shotgun". The question (in my thoughts) is how fast the gun could be fired. Some early descriptions talked about two shots, then more shots; that could refer to a double-barrel followed by the AR-15. Thus, this is a matter that needs clarity. Laguna CA (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The article says he used a "Smith and Wesson Glock." i Ithought Glock and S&W were distinct companies. Edison (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC) The ref is presently to an advertisement which mentions S&W and Glock in referring to a Glock pistol. A better ref is needed, or it should just be a "Glock handgun." Edison (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, it is indeed a "Glock by Glock," but the cartridges are ".40 Smith and Wesson."Maybe it could be reworded a bit for clarity. Edison (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney speech

It's time now to include Mitt Romney's speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talkcontribs) 17:04, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. United States Man (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Even I think that's a ridiculous suggestion, anon. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think, through the election, Obama and Romney are fair game (and important game), and it is desirable to give them both a chance to put their foots in their mouths. I think there's a different between calling a spade a spade (apologies!) and giving politicians a pass on putting their foots in their mouths. But, I confess, I speak in ignorance of official WikiP policy. A link would be appreciated! (Hopefully, I can sort it out from my logorrhea. ;) (Logorrhea: that's why we put up with English's numerous faults!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talkcontribs) 03:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible Explosive Device Booby Trap

Device in the suspect's apartment described as numerous(1-2 liter?) soda bottles wired together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:13, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Source? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
We cannot include things without a source. United States Man (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Was mentioned on the 9news live broadcast, not aware of an article source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:36, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

one source here:
also last two paragraphs. AzaToth 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

One liter. Variously: "Numerous", "several", "a few". Also from KUSA/9NBC/9news: -- I don't have an article link--sorry--but that's from official spokespeople. Note that WikiP-based back-of-envelope swags suggest this could be the equivalent of 5-6 pounds of TNT/liter, so ten would be 2.5-3.0% of a kiloton of TNT with a circa 1000 foot (300m) blast radius. PD/FD behavior seems to support this interpretation: this is mainly toward Coloradan Wiki editors--keep your distance! WikiP has no need to speculate, but be safe, Coloradans! (Back-calculated from nuclear blast effects, not forward calculated from conventional explosives.)Laguna CA (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It is absurd to jump from "pop bottles filled with an unknown substance" to speculation about TNT and a "1000 foot blast radius" like a WW2 blockbuster aerial bomb. Wait for reliable sources. Edison (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Apartment with music late at night

I haven't heard this on the news yet, but wouldn't you say that music turning on and off between 12 and 1 am (ish) that this would more likely have been an alibi? It's possible that he got caught foiling that plan, OR had changed his mind on using the alibi. For some reason the news keeps saying there are booby traps in his apartment, but they haven't really said they actually found something there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Really speculative. (Sorry!) My take was that he wanted someone to knock on or kick down his door hard enough to set off his booby traps while he was doing the cinema. (Timing fits.) He wanted to hear the boom at the cinema. Just IMO: he was fey (OE meaning: aggressive and accepting doom); beserker. "No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. What? Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here! Boom. Sooner or later. BOOM!"Laguna CA (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Speculation about his motives should not be placed here, and may be removed. Edison (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
According to this article, which was part of a news broadcast, investigators think the music was timed to incite a noise complaint, leading to police arriving at the scene and springing the trap, possibly creating a massive police concentration at his apartment around the time of the shooting. If this source is reliable, can someone ref it in the main? (I'm fairly new to editing.)--NoCitations (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This should be added to the article. Multiple sources say music was on a timer. Exact motive is speculative, so perhaps we can leave it to the reader to predict that a booby-trapped apartment with music blaring was a trap of some sort. Abductive (reasoning) 20:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Shooter Image

Images have been released to the media, courtesy of the U of CO, where Holmes was previously a student. Anybody working on getting one up here? --DimentalLabs (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

May not be in line with policy to use an image from the university. However, since he's in police custody and presumably hard to photograph, the rule might not apply. --NYKevin 17:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The image was released to the general press, so I'm not thinking it will be an issue. However, I don't have much experience in the matter of image uploads so I will defer my opinion to someone better acquainted with the policy. --DimentalLabs (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the image, and its release? I'd like to investigate its copyright status. But the short version is that unless the release is very specific about releasing copyright, it is presumptively non-free. --NYKevin 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
[14]. Huffingtonpost --Stryn (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Images taken by news sources or found on suspect's facebook etc are copyright and not acceptable for use in wikipedia. If a mugshot is taken, that would be free of copyright but has the problem with WP:MUG. How to display pics of suspects/victims has been extensively debased on the Trayvon Martin page, and it was determined that the policy supports a single non-free image of a dead person, as there is no way to obtain a new image of them. For a suspect, a mughshot may be acceptable if it is not obviously a mugshot or otherwise prejudicial due to WP:MUG In the absense of that, no pic is allowed. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's looking like the AP got it first, most other news agencies are crediting University of Colorado through the Associated Press. There's an image of him in this story here, that's about the best I can do. --DimentalLabs (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should just put the non-free one up and say that it's hard to photograph a person in custody. That won't apply once the shooter goes to trial or something, but it'll last for at least a few weeks. --NYKevin 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There are many things that is is hard to take a photo of. If that was the standard, then the entire copyright policy would be much less useful. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think we should avoid putting a picture of him up at all until formal charges are filed at the very least. Per the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A picture of the place, on the other hand, would be nice. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Avoiding the use of the word "killer" in the file name should be avoided as well... Jc3 (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The police say they will release a mugshot today or shortly, so I would think it'd be better to wait for that.

Old Al (Talk) 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Aurora police chief said the booking photo would not be released today (day of shooting) but it will surely emerge shortly, as is common practice. That could be used, as it is the work of a U.S. government employee. — O'Dea (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain about this, but wouldn't only mugshots from the federal government be pd? A local mug shot is covered by state or local law. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Would the average reader gain anything from the picture? Would it elevate his face to a level he does not deserve? I personally think the suspects picture adds nothing. I would be in favor of other pictures, just not a picture of the suspect. Is there precedence for similar acts in wiki?Mantion (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not for Wikipedia to decide if someone should or should not have his picture shown because he is evil. The shooter is central to the story, as Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan were to the Kennedy assassinations. We do not censor or punish evil by refusing to show pictures of it. This is an encyclopaedia. — O'Dea (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Tear gas grenades

This news article (from NRK, in Norwegian), says two grenades were used, not one:

Dan Oates also said that police believe the suspect set off two grenades to mislead and confuse people, before he began to shoot. Holmes had a rifle, a pistol, and [other] small arms. Police arrested him outside the theatre after he surrendered himself, standing by his white Honda. Police found an additional weapon in his car, on top of one found in the theatre.

 dalahäst (let's talk!) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I see a source for this (a TV broadcast from Denver) was added to support this now.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 00:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

International reactions?

I've seen that some ITN articles (especially the ones from Syria) include international reactions. I'm neutral for this idea, but there's already have a response from Mexico on the shooting, if anyone is interested. [15] (It's in Spanish, though). I'm also confident other countries have responded. Would International reactions be a good addition to the article? ComputerJA (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Every country/offical says the same "We share our condolences with the people of Colorado". The same thing happens with every event and there is no reason to list off the ususal folks all saying the same thing we already know they're going to say. Reywas92Talk 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been wondering why they keep including them in other articles. ComputerJA (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why Mexico should even be there, though it seems to (correctly) be gone at the moment. Reactions from anyone who's actually associated with the event should be included. E.g., from the mayor of Aurora, governor of Colorado, from Obama, the DHS, the police, the theater company, etc... Not every random world leader or other figure who sends condolences. Actually, I believe there are statements from the mayor and governor, so those should be included if possible...I'll add them later if nobody's sourced them yet. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But I've seen random world leaders' commentaries in articles like Houla massacre, Syria. That's why I asked. I'm cool keeping it the way it is right now and adding your suggestions. Best, ComputerJA (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case they might be more notable, since the Syrian situation has been debated in the UN etc. -- (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP dispute over including Columbine and other mass murders

I don't think these should be included in "See Also." We don't know anything about the gunman's motivations/etc, and linking it to Columbine and other massacres suggests it's "related" in some sense. We don't know that, AND this person is only a "suspect" for now, even if we feel strongly that he did it. Maybe we can add to the category list if needed, instead? Though that may also be a WP:BLP issue. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Except... they are related. Two of largest mass-shootings in US History, both occurred in Colorado. Sounds related to me. --IShadowed 23:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
To me it sounds more like a coincidence, I agree with the OP, the shootings aren't related in any way other than general location. BulbaThor (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, I think this is a key point here. They both just coincidentally happened in Colorado, many years apart. There's no link other than that. If that's to be included, you need to search for other nearby killings (even just outside Colorado), killings at theaters (should Lincoln's assassination be a see also?), other incidents at that movie chain...etc, etc. I don't see how you can establish any relevant link other than location. Now, if there is some other article on a mass killing at a theater...that would certainly merit a see also. Or anything like that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Kinda ironic that in the same breath as you raise a BLP concern, you declare you "know he did it". (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, because this is a talk page, not the article itself. Other editors are editing with the "he did it" mindset as well. I was primarily trying to address folks who are thinking that, to note that it's not relevant since he's a I pointed out as well. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Might be worth having a browse of the BLP policy if you think it makes a difference that this is a talk page, or what others are thinking. (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I shouldn't mention "even if we basically know he did it" even on a talk page under WP:BLP. But suggesting that I not point out motivations that others may be editing on is just silly. I replaced that bit with "feel strongly." But your "irony" here suggests that my view that he likely did it is affecting my editing of the article itself—I don't think it is, nor has anyone pointed out that being the case. Hell, I'm arguing against prematurely convicting him here, even if I think he did it. My personal views expressed on the talk page don't necessarily correspond at all with trying to achieve neutrality in the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that your neutrality is compromised by your views. I was simply pointing out that you were in violation of the BLP policy. (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I'd only suggest you point me (or whomever) to WP:BLP or whatever policy sooner, noting the violation. I didn't understand what you were getting at at first, until you actually suggested I read BLP. (Which I did, and realized I was indeed violating it myself on the talk page. I suppose your irony is restored! :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a cool exchange by the two of you. Just noting. -- (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The only connection between Columbine High School and the movie theater is that they're 17 miles apart. That's it. Source. Erick (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Linking to those articles has nothing to do with the perpetrator or his motivations, but everything with the fact that this is rampage killing and is therefore linked to the whole topic of rampage killings. So why not link to a list, that helps putting this case into perspective? And the connection between this shooting and Columbine has been made by the media numero us times. So, as long as there's no reference to it in the text, we should at least link to it in the 'See also'-section. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
He's not a "rampage killer", though. You cannot link to a "list of rampage killers." He is a SUSPECT in a rampage killing, whether or not we "feel" we know he did it. And Columbine just happens to be nearby...if it was just in the past few years, or whatever, I'd say it's more appropriate. A list of rampage killings or mass murders (not murderers), if there is one, might be appropriate. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, now I see. The problem is the fact that it's a list of rampage killers, not a list of rampage killings. Oh well, if it makes that much of a difference, even though the connection between the suspect and the deed would remain just as strongly in the latter, so be it. But, the media is still referring quite a bit to Columbine in this case, the connection has been made frequently by secondary sources, as I have shown above, so I really think we should at least put a link to it somewhere. And the fact that 'it just happens to be nearby' is actually not an argument against doing so. There are many disaster-articles that link to other, similar disasters with no other connection than locality, and to be honest, at least I find them quite useful. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
(edit conflict) While it does seem like a tiny technical distinction, I think it IS important, as far as not convicting the guy on Wikipedia. "List of spree killers" can be added if he's convicted. It was a mass killing, with a suspect who is still a suspect. It's probably best not to even include a list of killings, I suppose, since it's technically pretty close. I wouldn't have any problem with mentioning Columbine in the article, just to note that the incident has been compared to the Columbine shooting due to the proximity and number of victims, etc. But I don't think it belongs in a "See also" section with zero context. If you can find a good place to stick an appropriate reference to Columbine in the article itself (that won't provoke the wrath of whomever was reverting you before I did), go for it... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
We could write up a concise section summarizing the overall news reporting regarding the incident. Mentioning that many news reports made mention of Columbine would be suitable info for such a section. Just an idea. -- (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That would seem like an appropriate place to report this, but I'm not sure the article is lengthy enough to merit such a section. Perhaps mention it in the reactions section? "The media have compared the shooting to the Columbine incident," or whatnot. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I simply added a (sourced) note in the lead that it was the deadliest mass shooting in Colorado since the Columbine massacre. Hope that's ok. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC))
Fine by me, for one. -- (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that belongs in the lead (unless it's fleshed out FAR more), though I'm not going to revert it and violate 3RR myself, as you just did. (I believe the correct action is to revert your own edit, per 3RR policy. Other editors and admins can feel free to take over.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been following the editing history, so I can't speak to 3RR issues, but imho the Colorado "connection" is a plausible one which merits a mention, so why not leave it in the lead for now? The statement as is doesn't imply any further connection or similarity beyond location, and at least it reflects all the sources making mention of Columbine probably for that same reason (proximity rather than any other qualities). -- (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think the current edit is okay, but misplaced, but I'm more annoyed with the editor exempting himself from the 3RR policy. (And not just me, at least 2 other editors reverted him before...I reverted him twice, the second time to try to get him to discuss on the talk page before making further changes.) Sticking it in the lead is a bit over the top, unless the lead is fleshed out further, or I probably wouldn't care. Sticking it in the lead while violating 3RR as if to flaunt doing so is silly. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Did I violate the 3RR rule? I hope not, since I have only reverted each edit once, before altering it to reflect the complaints made - first by leaving out the List of rampage killers, then by incorporating the note about Columbine without indicating any connection between the two shootings. And why should the fact that it was the deadliest mass shooting in Colorado since Columbine belong less in the lead than the fact that it's the largest mass shooting in US history? (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC))
Yes. I counted my own reversion of another editor in my own count of 3; you have at least 4, and I think one from earlier from the 3rd editor who warned you on your talk page. Please read WP:3RR and also your talk page messages, if you haven't. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope you believe me when I say that they were intended as good faith edits, as I didn't disregard the complaints made, but tried to change my edits accordingly. As you can see in the edit history, User:Causa sui, by his edit summary, seemed to take offence only at the addition of the List of rampage killers, so I left it out after one revert. Apparently that wasn't ok either, as you undid that edit again, I reverted, citing my reasons, before you reverted one more time, refering to the talk-page. Only then I saw that you had opened a discussion and I came here immediately. So practically it was more like revert - correct - revert - talk - correct. But if there are still complaints, I'll refrain from adding the information in question again, if it is removed, as I don't think such a trifle is worth so much time. Maybe this is less controversial, as it has been added to the See also-section of the Fort Hood massacre, whose perpetrator is also not yet convicted. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC))
(edit conflict)I never suggested or assumed they weren't good-faith edits, or I'd be complaining on the admin noticeboard and not here. :) Again, I do suggest you revert your last edit regarding Columbine as to undo that 3RR violation, though I'm not going to get into that any further. List of massacres in the United States#Colorado seems better, though the article notes a neutrality issue and no citations, but I'd say that makes it a toss-up. (Of course, including that and improving the linked article is even better!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the "revert" over at List of rampage killers, it wasn't actually meant as a revert, but as a fix. As you can see, if you bother, User:Ryan Vesey removed the entire entry about the Aurora shooting, which was then re-added by User:Fishbert, though Fishbert's edits showed a few stylistic differences to all the other entries and missed Holmes' date of birth, so I fixed that, by simply copy-pasting my old edit, not realizing, that an 'alleged' had been added behind Holmes' name. It got lost in my edit, Ryan reverted and left this note at my talk page, before Fishbert reverted again, re-adding the lost 'alleged'. In all probability, there were only good intentions from all sides. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC))
My apologies, I did include that in the count. If you do read the 3RR's basically any revert on the same page, including edits related to the revert (e.g. re-adding the Columbine info to the lead, even though it wasn't the exact same edit.) So you reverted the first editor, then reverted me twice (my second revert was to try to steer you to the talk page...), then reverted again by re-adding the material. Sorry if that wasn't unclear, as I was just confused by someone else's (correct) WP:BLP assertion against me above... :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I should be, and probably am, familiar enough with the 3RR rule after four years of editing Wikipedia, so I should not get carried away by something so trivial anymore. But the first revert seemed too much like a "Don't-like-one-thing-undo-everything"-revert. It just happens too often that people, out of convenience, undo an entire edit, because they don't agree with a part of it. And reverts can accumulate pretty fast, if different people dislike different parts of your edit. Overall, I don't think 3RR should be enforced too strictly, as long as the editor doesn't stubbornly resist to discuss the matter. After all, it can happen to the best of us that the outrage of a horribly unjust and excruciatingly irrational revert overwhelms your mind and sweeps away your hard acquired countenance. Anyway, happy editing and thanks for all the fish. (Lord Gøn (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC))
I think you misconstrue my reply as us coming to a consensus on this. Rather, I was apologizing for counting your other edit in there as part of edit-warring, and assumed you had warred with 2 other editors on the same article (not just me and another editor.) You still violated 3RR either way; it applies to the ENTIRE article, and particularly to the same material (whether or not it's in "see also" or is in the lead or is just semi-related.) I also think it should be a looser policy, but again, I'm not going to violate it myself to undo YOUR violation, since that's a violation in itself. Thus, I'm disengaging from the discussion as you chose to both violate 3RR *AND* not undo your 3RR violation after the fact (since that's the guideline if you do violate 3RR accidentally), even if you misunderstood 3RR beforehand. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems a little bit bureaucratic to me to remove something that a majority is actually in favour of having included (at least somewhere, the count is 4 or 5 to 2 in this thread, according to my humble counting), but if it makes people happy to have it this way, let's ignore the shortcut and walk the path that is obstructed with countless formalities. (Lord Gøn (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC))
Hey, I'm just pointing out the written rules and so know, the ones that admins enforce with bans and things like that. If I wanted to be bureaucratic about it, I'd have reported it over on the admin noticeboard rather than discussing it at length on the talk page. I don't like some of the rules either, but I abide by them. Anyways, that's the last I'll chime in on this stupidly-long thread...I think we got our points across. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Although the close proximity of the two events is (presumably) pure coincidence, it means that they affected the same community. That's good enough reason for a mention of Columbine to be appropriate for the article. Formerip (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bloomberg, Mayor Michael. "Mayor Bloomberg Discusses Shooting in Aurora, Colorado". YouTube Video. YouTube. Retrieved 20 July 2012. 
  2. ^ "Michael Bloomberg, NYC Mayor, Reacts To Colorado Shooting". Web News Article. Huffington Post. Retrieved 20 July 2012. 
  3. ^ NBC News. "'Mass chaos' as 12 shot dead at 'Dark Knight Rises' screening in Aurora, Colorado". News Article. Retrieved 20 July 2012.