Misplaced Pages

Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:39, 28 July 2012 editViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,616 edits →POV dispute: Gun control debate section: add← Previous edit Revision as of 00:41, 28 July 2012 edit undoChrisrus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers13,598 edits →Suggested article titles: Please agree that "Massacre" is better than "shooting"Next edit →
Line 174: Line 174:


I can support ] or perhaps better, ]. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 19:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I can support ] or perhaps better, ]. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 19:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but please agree that "massacre" is a better word for it than "shooting". "Shooting" doesn't do it justice. A "shooting" could be a relatively minor thing compared to this. This is best described as a "massacre". ] (]) 00:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


== Vicodin == == Vicodin ==

Revision as of 00:41, 28 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Aurora theater shooting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 days 
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDeath Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Colorado High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Misplaced Pages articles about the U.S. State of Colorado.
To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above.
For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

To-do list for 2012 Aurora theater shooting: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-02-13


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
In the newsA news item involving 2012 Aurora theater shooting was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 July 2012.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Aurora theater shooting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

READ THIS FIRST

This talk page must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. This policy also applies to the recently deceased out of concern for any living relatives and other persons closely connected to them. Contentious or questionable material should be removed from both the article and its talk page.

I quoted some of this from the hat note buried in the top of the page and entered this post at the top of the TOC. Editors should read the policies and guidelines and possibly think about edits before posting. Misplaced Pages has strict policies and guidelines about what comments can be posted on this page. I have done this boldly and in good faith in the hopes to keep this page under control. If another editor wishes to move/delete/edit this post, please feel free to do so. In other words treat it like an article section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Included as an editnotice. matt (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tables appropriate?

I don't like the tables listing "victims" by age, sex etc. To me they show no regard for the privacy of the people who were caught up in this event. I propose to remove them. --John (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Articles for Fort Hood shooting, Virginia Tech massacre, and Columbine High School massacre all list the names of the deceased. Each entry in this article was properly sourced. --Cheesemeister (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I cut the injured and support John having cut the rest. This is highly inappropriate. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
How is it inappropriate? We are not here to place our own judgements about things. Misplaced Pages is not censored. It is not up to us, as neutral editors of articles which display information, to decide - based on privacy concerns - what we should or should not add. Relevant? Yes. Sourced? Yes. Adds depth to article? Yes. There is no reason as to why not to include it. EryZ (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I also disagree. It's not like people are digging into people's personal information; the information is in published sources. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Dont include victim names, we dont normally list victims unless they are notable (normally indicated by having an article). If people are that interested they can follow the links to reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The above listed pages would seem to disagree with you, as they have victims listed. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I did say it was normal practice but we do have some articles where editors ignore WP:MEMORIAL, for some reason prevalent on American mass-murder articles. I would suggest they are few exceptions to the general trend not to include non-notable victims. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"American mass-murder" article violate the rules by a listing of victims? How about the Brits in Cumbria gunned down by Derrick Bird? How about Dunblane school massacre? How about the Hungerford massacre? Your complaint is rather ill-founded. Edison (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the information should be added wikipedia is not censored and the victims in names and brief info only are covered in many reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Victims' (those who were killed) names need to be included as they are for dozens (hundreds?) of articles of this nature.Rail88 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The victims names should be added. Coverage on wikipedia should be as comprehensive and as unbiased and reliable as any other major media outlet. All major media outlets are releasing the victims' names, one by one. However, the victims are NOT notable enough for their own pages or even for any biographical info. (That includes the sports reporter. Just because she had a large twitter following doesn't mean her life was more important than any of the other victims'. The media is just using her youth and beauty to fluff up its pieces just as they did with Rachel Scott during Columbine.) Writerchic99 (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
We are not a media outlet. Wikinews is that-a-way. --John (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
We might not be a media outlet, but I don't see how it is helpful to leave out a huge piece of information like the identities of those who died. It would be like the article on Abraham Lincoln's assassination leaving out who killed him or who was with him at the time; it's basic information. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You argument is self-defeating, as the two examples you give are both notable enough to have their own articles. Unless you are arguing that the people killed in Aurora are also notable, your argument does not make sense. --John (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I support keeping the names, so long as they are properly sourced and stated in reliable sources. Using NOTMEMORIAL here is inappropriate, because that is referring to creating separate articles on non-notable victims. It is saying nothing about including a list of victims in the article about the shooting. Silverseren 10:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My point was not that the victims should have their own articles, they should not; my point was that this information is just as important to include in this article. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Why? --John (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It is just as important to know who died as it is to know who the perpetrator is, where it took place, his background, etc. It's a major part of the story. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I was actually asking Silver seren, but any cogent reason would do from any proponent of ignoring our usual policy on this article. So far I have not heard one. Think about what you have said, 331dot. Would it be ok for our article on the Holocaust not to include all 6 million names? At present it does not. What about our article on the September 11 attacks? Should we list all 3000 names there? At present we do not. The victims are important, but they are not individually notable. Being killed by a serial killer does not make one notable. I do understand the urge some people are having for us to ignore our own guidance here, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to create a memorial to the victims. There are undoubtedly other places on the Internet that will fill this role but I do not believe we should, and existing policy supports me. --John (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is for SUBJECTS of article. (and clearly, the focus in this article isn't about the victims...) - Penwhale | 22:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
At the very least, you can include a list of victims with ONLY sex and gender, nothing else. That should balance the privacy vs not censored issue.- Penwhale | 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Listing who was killed is not a memorial; it's documentation. We list the Passengers of the RMS Titanic. If we had a list of the six million Holocaust casualties, I don't see why it couldn't be linked to or be on Misplaced Pages, but that's another discussion. In this case, we don't need anything about their lives or background. I don't think anything other than a name and age should be listed, as the above person says. 331dot (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that listing is not an invasion of privacy. Many of the families have talked to the media about their loved-ones and want them remembered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdi2811 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The media have been chasing them, some wanted to talk and others had no reason to refuse to do so. The role of Misplaced Pages is of not listing them. A mass killing is a very collective threat. The role of the encyclopedia is to be compatible with the needs of the sociologist: in a case like the Aurora killing there is no link between the individual victim and the intention of the killer other than the place they were seated, their figure, and their personal behavior. This cannot be covered by the encyclopedia without listing each single shot that has been fired, and even so names would be not relevant except when covering action. --Askedonty (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Where does anybody apply WP:NOTMEMORIAL to this? That is about not creating obituaries for those who have died (or articles on them solely because they have died). This information is documentation on the deaths in this incident and I am unaware of any policies prohibiting this. Absent that, I find the information to be relevant and important to include. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Why is it "important to include"? To satisfy curiosity? Because I'm not seeing a relevant purpose to it. Just gawking. We don't document everything about a subject, and we do not have victim's lists on Oklahoma City bombing, 2005 London bombing, etc. We do have one on the World Trade Center bombing, because a memorial plaque with the names had been placed on-site.
    • Further, these people's families are already grieving. Having some respect by not throwing their names up for the whole world makes more sense. (The Misplaced Pages entry is the top result in a Google search.) — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Then if that's true, all media outlets should be censoring the names of the victims that died. Why can the media list them, but not us? Why can we list the victims of the Titanic in their entirety, but we can't just mention names here? Not mentioning who died is just as bad as not mentioning Holmes' name. 331dot (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
We are not a media outlet, but an encyclopedia. Remember? Wikinews can use material like this, but not us. --John (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages does not censor content, which is how you characterized it by saying we should do so to protect the families. As I've said, noting the names of the dead is just as important as knowing who committed these acts and where they took place. That's not "gawking"; we note the names of victims of the Unabomber, as well as Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, and other notorious killers. We note the victims of the Columbine High School massacre (also in Colorado). Why not here? 331dot (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Without referring to other articles, why is it important to you personally to include this information? --John (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
BLP overrides NOTCENSOR. And articles have been edited out of respect for surviving family members here. All the topics you listed are long past, and families have had a chance to grieve. You've still not explained why noting the names is important. Asserting they are doesn't make you right. — The Hand That Feeds You: 11:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is noting the name of the killer important? Why is noting the location of this incident important? They're important because that's the story. That's the reason the article is here. Leaving out who was killed is leaving out a chunk of the story. It's like reading a novel with three chapters missing in the middle; it's not complete.
If you're saying that it would be better to wait awhile to add the names, since the other precedent here deals in past incidents, okay- but why wait when it can be done now(and has been done)?. I would appreciate it as a relative newbie if you could explain why BLP "overrides" NOTCENSOR, as we're not dealing with living people.
I'm not entirely sure what has been removed out of respect for the families(though I take your word that it has happened), but rewording passages to be more sensitive or withholding graphic descriptions of the crime scene is very different than leaving out chunks of information. Withholding something as simple as names and ages is just censorship.
OTHERSTUFF is not a policy saying I can't cite precedent so I don't really see why you are rejecting precedent of other articles being as complete as this one. I think it is relevant that articles about similar subjects have similar information. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

It has been proposed in this section that 2012 Aurora theater shooting be renamed and moved to 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

2012 Aurora shooting → 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting – The city should be followed by the state name per WP:USPLACE. Thechased (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The page has already been moved so i'm closing the discussion. United States Man (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It should be reopened, since the move was REVERTED. - Jorgath (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please do something about this page? I was in the middle of replying and its ended up on a new talk page lol Talk:2012_Aurora,_Colorado_shooting BritishWatcher (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 Fixed: The page has been redirected here. --NYKevin 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone should feel free to reopen the discussion, but please don't move the article until there's a consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing and move rights are tied together, it seems. If you lock an article down, so that it can't be moved by anyone but a sysops, you're also blocking the page from edits by anyone but a sysops. We'll have to rely on trusting others in this situation. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's quite possible to move protect a page. But there's no need unless everyone is going to fight over it. --NYKevin 17:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • support there are many aurora's, many of which are more famous/well known than this one. While they have not neccisarily had shootings in them it is unlikely that this event will become known as the "aurora shootings" like "columbine shootings" are. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if the article title is to be changed it should be to something that references the incident, like 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, rather than simply adding the state. No other Aurora has had a shooting incident like this one worthy of an article BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)

I've fully protected the page per WP:WRONGVERSION now. →AzaToth 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

*Support We need specificity over ambiguity until a common name is established. I see no reason to retain this page with an inappropriate title just because it will be moved again. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Support More than one Aurora in the US. Lugnuts (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    If ambiguity is a problem, what about the ambiguity of the fact there have been previous shootings in Aurora too? There is no ambiguity problems with this notable event. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    like this one at a church which is a shooting in 2012 in Aurora, Colorado too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    Unless an article about that shooting is created I don't see a problem.--24.138.41.146 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is clear enough as it is. It just takes a glance at the article to find out what state the event took place in. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The story is too big to have any confusion. KISS. As was said earlier, show me another famous Aurora shooting in 2012, where there might be confusion, then we need to make a change. Trackinfo (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is a Columbine in Alberta as well, but that doesn't mean it requires specification in the title. This article is the same. --Old Al (Talk) 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I believe the title is specific enough (compare 2011 Tucson shooting) as it is and should not be weighted down unnecessarily. Furthermore, WP:USPLACE seems to indicate that its prescriptions apply to articles solely about places, not articles that happen to contain names of places in them. DillonLarson (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The title is ambiguous because it's too broad of a location (a relatively small theater within Colorado's third largest city)... not to mention that there are many Auroras. If any sort of place is attributed to the title, it should probably be the movie theater's name? Look at Virginia-Tech, for example. Otherwise, perhaps attribute the event, e.g. "The Dark Knight Rises massacre" or something? --chris.rider81 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The title should have the city and state name in this case because the city is not instantly recognizable, such as New York City or Los Angeles, to a worldwide audience. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's good right now. --Stryn (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though I support aliases of other possible names to point to this page, "2012 Dark Knight Rises shooting," or "2012 Aurora, CO shooting," etc. Rather than move the page, just make a pointer. --Petercorless (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As said before, the guideline refers to the place articles, not necessary other articles that refer to that place. Full name is bulky and unnecessary. Reywas92 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose while there may be more than one Aurora in the US I don't think this should be moved unless there is another notable shooting in another city named Aurora this year.--24.138.41.146 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Existing title is perfectly adequate, and the location of Aurora in Colorado is clearly identified and Wikilinked within the article. — O'Dea (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should go by WP:COMMONNAME here, the average reader would see that this took place in Colorado as it's in the first sentence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, i thought of this first, too, but after checking Category:Mass murder in 2012, i see we dont include the state/country, just the city, in titles for such. I understand the nominators rationale, but thats so that the title indicates which aurora we are talking about. in this case, we only need to worry about which killing in a city named aurora we are talking about. theres only one. same reason we dont name this article "July 2012 Aurora shooting" as we dont anticipate more this year in this city. we can always go rename articles later if more events occur with similar names (also the reason no one named the Great War "world war 1" when it happened.)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think that the current title adheres to protocol, yes, yay, woot woot, but really just isn't descriptive enough. I'm not American and when I found my way here I was initially at a complete loss as to why the article was called '2012 Aurora shooting" because I had no idea what Aurora is. We aren't an American encyclopedia, and I don't see the detriment of including a tiny bit more detail to make the title more informative at first glance. Sure the info will be in the introduction, but the argument to leave necessary clarification out of a title is like saying books should have ambiguous covers (because it's protocol!?) and force the reader to read through the first few pages to understand what the book is about. I suggest something like "2012 Aurora movie theatre/theater shooting", which is the best option. Gives necessary clarification. "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting" is not so good but at least still better than the current one. EryZ (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    Further comment Actually, why do we have 2012 here? Why can't it just be "Aurora movie theatre shooting"? EryZ (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Somewhat support The city of Aurora is not that well known. The current title is not good. Some news sources have called it the Batman Movie Massacre or Shooting. This is preferred for now. Auchansa (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Somewhat support The city of Aurora, CO seems to be the biggest Aurora, but it is a popular city name (even in cities without auroras). I support 2012 Aurora Shooting -> 2012 Aurora, CO Shooting . Additionally, as pointed out by the previous support, a "2012 Shootings" (or events or whatever--but shooting(s) should link to it) should be created. It's tough to overdo indexing if you're not making an index entry too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, "Aurora" is too vague, adding "Colorado" or "theater" would be helpful. I've been following this story in the news, but if you'd asked me to say what town in Colorado it happened in, I'd have failed. Two years from now, it will be even harder. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: With the year and the city, I believe it it sufficient for the time being. If the year stamp was removed, then I would argue for a more descriptive title that would include the state or the theater. NoCitations (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As already mentioned, there is no other Aurora which has had a significant shooting in year 2012. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    It's not that there is no other Aurora which has a significant shooting, it's that the general audience don't actually know what Aurora IS. So, the title is, I guess, sort of clear in the sense that there is not much ambiguity, but NOT clear in that it doesn't fulfil its purpose of being a title that people can understand. I elaborate more on my comment above. EryZ (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    If they don't know what "Aurora" is, adding "CO" or "Colorado" after it is not going to help those people much. But, if they are typing in the name "2012 Aurora" in the search box, with WP autocompleting with ",Colorado shooting", they obviously already knew what "Aurora" was else they would not have typed it. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral There are no other major cities called "Aurora" but this one but if the current title redirects to the new one, I see no problem in doing so. Electric Catfish 11:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Completely unnecessary. Doesn't need disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As noted above, the guidelines for titles of articles about places aren't necessarily applicable to other articles whose titles happen to contain place names. In this instance, no further disambiguation is necessary unless and until another notable shooting occurs in a place called "Aurora" this year. —David Levy 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose A rename might be necessary, but not to this. I could see 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, or something along that line, but I don't find Colorado necessary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose To date, there is only one article about a shooting in a town named Aurora in the year 2012, so no further disambiguation is needed. Title can always be changed in the future if this status changes. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per previous examples, also as this is not an article about the city WP:USPLACE does not apply, WP:NCE is the appropriate convention.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the title is changed as proposed, there needs to be a comma after, as well as before, the word Colorado. Deor (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and counter proposal I agree with Ryan Vesey - a rename would be better along the lines of 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, which would be clearer. Adding Colorado is not necessary, any more than adding US would be. Tvoz/talk 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it should always be city/state for these types of incidents UNLESS it's a major city generally known by everyone around the world (Los Angeles, Chicago, Montreal, London, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, etc.). If it's Paris, Kentucky instead of Paris, France, then put the state, too. Otherwise, just put Paris. There are Auroras all over the country (and maybe the world?), but none of them are known worldwide. Everyone in the world knows NOW that the incident was in Aurora, Colorado. But how about five years from now? Or 20? or 50? Do you guys know about the 1958 Hollywood riots? Which Hollywood am I talking about? See what I'm saying? No, there really weren't any riots in any Hollywood in 1958, but I wanted to make my point. Just put the darn state and move on. ;) And the words "movie theater" in the title not only would sound very odd, but are completely unnecessary because how many 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings are there? If it was in a bakery, would you want to say 2012 Aurora bakery shootings? Or if it was a bar, would you want to say 2012 Aurora bar shootings? Let's keep it real, people. And if, incredibly, there happened to be another mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado this year, just add another distinguishing word to the title, such as the month (July 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings and October 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings). --76.189.114.243 (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyone who read the first sentence of the hypothetical Hollywood riot article would know what state it happened in so it seems to be to be a non-issue.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The incident is known widely as the Colorado movie theater shooting. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I find myself in agreement with Ryan Vesey: I think a rename is needed (the "2012" bit in particular seems silly), but I can't support this specific proposed rename. I've gathered some suggested page titles in a subsection below. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested article titles

Just gathering some suggested article titles in one place for now.

  1. 2012 Aurora shooting (current title)
  2. 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting (proposed in this section specifically)
  3. Aurora shooting
  4. Colorado movie theater shooting
  5. The Dark Knight Rises massacre
  6. 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting
  7. 2012 Dark Knight Rises shooting
  1. "Colorado" alone is too broad, and "Aurora" alone is ambiguous.
  2. "Massacre" is more specific than simply "shooting". A "shooting" could range from a massacre down to just someone shooting a gun, whereas "massacre" carries the idea that many people were criminally killed without including the less important idea of the weapons used.
  3. The name of the movie that they were there to see doesn't define the event as well as what happened, where, and when.

Note: Guys, you can't support those ones. Neither is the one being proposed. "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting" is the one being voted on, so just change support to comment and move it up to the voting section. ;) --76.189.114.243 (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I can support 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting or perhaps better, 2012 Colorado movie theater shooting. Tvoz/talk 19:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but please agree that "massacre" is a better word for it than "shooting". "Shooting" doesn't do it justice. A "shooting" could be a relatively minor thing compared to this. This is best described as a "massacre". Chrisrus (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Vicodin

(moved from user talk page)

The major news talk shows discussed Holmes use of Vicodin-in fact the Dianne Sawyer interview with various talking heads is on YouTube already-apparently this is why he was so 'calm' at the scene during his arrest. I re-added the statement using an ABC news story. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who in the media has been hoodwinked by that claim, the fact remains that no such dose of Vicodin (hydrocodone/acetaminophen) exists.   — C M B J   14:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think they are saying that - I read it as it is the amount he took, not the dosage of a pill - also, it is very possible this is an estimate - but it is Reliably Sourced, and Wiki is not about Truth but ... well, you know the routine. I would welcome the most accurate news story that you can find and cite on the issue to be added to the article. The Vicodin use has been reported by Fox, ABC, CNN ... etc.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no; the claim hasn't yet been independently reported by any agency other than KMGH-TV and even they concede in an updated article that the claim is of mixed veracity. Again, we have no business portraying a demonstrably false assertion as fact, so I'm moving this discussion over to the article's discussion page.   — C M B J   15:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw it talked about with Dianne Sawyer on ABCNEWS - the interview is online - and also CNN. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuing here, it is imperative that we either immediately clarify this claim as pharmacologically erroneous or else ensure its continued eradication until further information is available.   — C M B J   15:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Having no real opinion on this, I weaseled it until it's decided. - Jorgath (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Significance of the Vicodin reference in article

It's been asked why even have the Vicodin thing in the article, and how is it significant or relevant, since it's not an illegal drug. Ok, here goes: It was reported that because he was high on Vicodin (you can get high on 'legal' drugs too), and it was in his system at the time of the arrest, that that was one reason why he was calm and docile. Not sure why some editors don't believe that, or think that that was a "hood-wink". It was not explained by editor why that has to be a "hood-wink". It's a known fact that Vicodin WILL do that to a person. So? Why try to hide that fact? If it's reported it's reported. It's not up to us to decide per POV that it's a "hood-wink". That's not our role as Wikipedians. Also, by the way, Vicodin CAN be illegal, when not prescribed, as we all know. Regardless, though, it was stated by ABC news that that was one main reason he was calm and not resisting when approached and arrested. Vicodin can do that to a person. Make them drowsy and mellow. I think that that point should be made in the article, regarding Holmes. Jots and graphs (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If it is the case that the medication caused him to be calm, or not resist, or whatever, then that needs to be in the article. The fact that he had Vicodin in his system is no more notable than the presence of caffeine, or sugar or any other chemical, unless a particular consequence is established. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The vicodin, along with the body armor brings to mind the North_Hollywood_shootout where the assailants were armored, and used drugs to control their mood and possibly become more resistant to return fire. This shoting has echos from several previous incidents (north hollywood, norway shooting etc) where several elements seem copy-catted. The north hollywood connection was made by at least one RS http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/heart-without-compromise-children-and-children-wit/2012/jul/21/john-eagen-holmes-joins-roster-serial-killers-whil/ Gaijin42 (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
To WWGB...I'm not sure why it isn't. That point arguably needs to be put in. Jots and graphs (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have now added words to describe the significance of the Vicodin. WWGB (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
@Jots and graphs - just to be perfectly clear, my objection to inclusion of this detail has absolutely nothing to do with whether it explains Holmes' demeanor at the time of his arrest. There are, however, several serious concerns that brought me here:
(1) alleged use of the drug was reported by a layperson who equates Vicodin with hydrocodone (Vicodin is a hydrocodone/acetaminophen compound, not a single drug);
(2) if the claim indeed refers to a quantity of Vicodin totalling 100 mg of hydrocodone, which it presumably does, then it would also indicate possible acetaminophen overdose for which he was not reportedly evaluated;
(3) unless Holmes is discovered to have developed chronic tolerance to hydrocodone, a single dose of 100 mg at 2.5 hours would've presumably left him struggling to sit upright;
(4) every reputable media organization reporting this claim cites KMGH-TV as their source, who in turn cite an unnamed source, who cites an unnamed public servant, who cites Holmes. In other words, someone says someone said someone said someone said someone admitted to taking a controversial medication. That's way below our editorial standards around here, especially on a BLP.   — C M B J   05:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That's why I said that it should be carefully worded as "it's been REPORTED that such and such with Vicodin". Why? Because it's simply a fact that it's been reported...in reliable sources...regardless of the trail. But omitting and leaving out, just because the source situation may not be 1000% perfect, and the connections not as best as we want in every nuance seems over-cautious and wiki-uptight. If we do that with everything, eventually, we'll have next to nothing to ever write in articles, after a while. Some things are more solid than other things, true, but the point is that it could be stated that it's been reported by some sources. NOT that it's necessarily absolute fact. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced that quadruple-plus-hearsay based on a single unnamed source is appropriate for any biographical article on this project, unless said dissemination is itself the direct subject of critical commentary. However, even if we were to include the information in an appropriate fashion, it's still not likely to pan out very well unless we can reach strong consensus on wording. Otherwise, it's just going to continue morphing into sensationalistic nonsense again and again and again, or else someone's going to eventually get accused of edit warring for keeping a veracious version alive.   — C M B J   08:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, for verity and veracity etc, but my point is we can't go bananas with that and be too dogmatic and over-scrupulous much either. With so much wiki-lawyering and uptightness. Because if that goes on too much, then pertinent or insightful factoids and issues can go un-stated, leaving an article lacking and incomplete. Because again, my question is why would ABC News (both on the Net and on Television News) see fit to mention it, if it was so frivolous and "hearsay"? Last time I checked, ABC News is a "reliable source". And they brought that point out. Also, I'm not saying that for sure that that was the reason Holmes was so calm and docile and non-resistant with the police approached and arrested him...but ABC news seems to think so, as at least a possibility as to why, as reported. Why leave this thing out if it can help explain perhaps in part why Holmes offered no resistance, and was calm and subdued, when taken by police? Again, this was not just written in some blog or forum or message board or group chat, but reported by ABC News. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As Vicodin is a specific combination of two drugs - 5 mg of hydrocodone and 500mg of acetaminophen - that would mean he took 20 Vicodin, which includes 10 grams of acetaminophen - and would most likely be in a hospital with severe liver damage now. It could be that he took 10 Nocor - a Nocor is 10 mg of hydrocodone and 325mg of acetaminophen - which would contain 3.25 grams of acetaminophen - in any event, I don't see how the claim as to the level of hydrocodone found in his system will ever be correlated to the brand name and/or dosage that he ingested.173.74.10.29 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Alleged Vicodin use

I suggest that information be removed. While, it IS sourced, the dosage would render him unconscious at 2.5 hours after ingestion. 100mg is 20 times the initial starting dose of Vicodin (hydrocodone /w APAP).Wzrd1 (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point. I didn't read the sources, but how can they really know? We could say large, or larger than normal dose?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not just say that the suspect is alleged to have taken an unknown quantity of Vicodin before the shooting? Something like that seems fair enough, no? Mfhiller (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
Heck, just say "the suspect is alleged to have taken Vicodin before the shooting," nothing about the quantity whatsoever. - Jorgath (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Either sounds fine if you want to edit it. We should move it to the Holmes section though. If it is reverted then we should seek consensus. Btw, someone has been logging us:http://www.brianckeegan.com/2012/07/2012-aurora-shootings/ --Canoe1967 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Vicodin

Do we include it in this article? Consensus here to avoid further edit wars.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose inclusion unless/until confirmed by official medical reports.   — C M B J   06:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Belongs on Holmes page. Also poorly supported. Mfhiller (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This is already being discussed above. Let's not fragment this discussion any worse than it already is. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Can someone move this section to above? Mfhiller (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Mildly support inclusion, per my words above. It's sourced, albeit maybe not totally perfectly, but well arguably enough. And wording should be careful to say "it's been reported". ABC News (on the Net and on the TV news) has stated this, and ABC News is reliable and reputable. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: nowhere in the reporting or phrasing or anything is it "blaming" the Vicodin. Your argument is a STRAW-MAN, because that's NOT what was done at all there. So if that's your reason for your "calmly oppose", you should probably re-consider that, to a "calm support". Because the Vicodin thing was not (repeat NOT) "blaming" it for his actions. If anything, the reports were only that that's why Holmes was CALM AND DOCILE when being arrested. So please don't erect a straw-man or phantom argument, as your reason for opposing the inclusion of the Vicodin reference. Because that's not the reason for the matter of Vicodin being brought up. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing, just voting. If you find my opinion flawed, disregard it. But no, I won't change it to a support. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Extended content

 Done — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC) How is this so "done"? When this little section was barely put up minutes ago, and not enough time has been given for others to give their feedback? Isn't this proclamation of "done" a bit premature?? Uh, yeah, it kinda is. It's NOT quite "done" yet. It barely has been up. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Done refers to the section merge. I will add three below to help with policy/guidelines and avoid opinion posts.
  • Policies/guidlines to include:
  • Policies/guidlines to exclude:
  • Policies/guidlines to 'trim':

--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

POV dispute: Gun control debate section

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard § 2012 Aurora shooting and gun control

I believe the "Gun control debate" section added by Viriditas is endangering the neutrality of the article, as the user had previously commented extensively about their strong feelings on the subject of gun control. The comments on this talk page ("Colorado wackiness quotient goes to 11") were removed as they began to take up quite some space. Technician Fry (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have never once discussed my opinion about gun control on Misplaced Pages, and your reading and understanding of "neutrality" is completely at odds with NPOV. We don't edit Misplaced Pages articles based on what editors believe but on what the sources say. Therefore, your entire argument is untenable. The material was properly added per NPOV and it will be added back. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Gun control is the elephant in the room. It cannot be ignored, but nor should it dominate the article. A balanced acknowledgement is appropriate, not arguments for and against. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. An acknowledgement that the debate has intensified in the U.S. in the aftermath is a good thing. A discussion of the finer points is not. Isn't there an article on the gun-control debate in the U.S. anyway? Shouldn't details be there? - Jorgath (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The wikilinks in the sentence go to other articles. Gun control and gun laws.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but what is the deal about gun control? He had explosives in his flat, those where ilegal. So does anyone realy belive he wouldn't have gotten guns if they where ilegal? And what, anyway he had the explosives, so what if I hadn't got any guns he might have used the explosives. I would say, that would have been even more effective in the confined spaces of a cinema. Dream 84.169.213.43 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not a forum to debate the merits of gun control. This is a forum to discuss how much coverage the Misplaced Pages article about the event will give to the debate about gun control. - Jorgath (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
See the section below in this thread "Sources about gun control and this topic", which I will update as necessary. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A See Also link seems sufficient to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not sufficient, it's an integral part of this topic supported by the reliable sources, and it's not unsourced as you falsely claimed. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, InedibleHulk was right; the source I added was removed by User:Canoe1967. When I attempted to merge the content back in a later edit, it had a different source added by another editor. I'm going to fix this. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree that 'gun control' should not be part of THIS article - this is about the shooting - if, down the road, there is a major political movement motivated by this event, then it would be relevant - but not now. Let's keep the article focussed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what you agree with, gun control is a part of this article, based on the number of sources devoted to discussing it. So regardless of the continuing shenanigans being used to keep removing it, it will be added back into the lead and the body per WP:NPOV. I will now be adding the NPOV tag as a result of the continued removal. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Sources about gun control and this topic
  1. Baker, Mike. 2012. After Colorado massacre, fear prompts people to buy guns and puts moviegoers on edge. Associated Press. The Canadian Press (July 25).
  2. Blitzer, Wolf. 2012. Movie Theater Massacre; Police Searched Suspect's Home;Politics On Hold After Colorado Shooting; Romney: "Our Hearts Break";Colorado Shootings And Gun Control Debate; Colorado Horror: 71 Shot,12 Dead. The Situation Room. CNN. (July 20).
  3. Blitzer, Wolf. 2012. Campaigns Changing Tone In Colorado; Gun Control: A"Fool's Errand"; The Situation Room. CNN. (July 24).
  4. Caldwell, Leigh Ann. 2012. Gun control debate back in spotlight after Colorado shooting. Political Hotsheet. CBS News. (July 22).
  5. Condon, Stephanie. 2012. Democrats: "We can't let the NRA stop us". Political Hotsheet. CBS News. (July 24).
  6. Jervis, Rick and John McAuliff (July 24, 2012). "Colo. rampage adds fuel to gun-control debate". USA Today. Retrieved July 24, 2012.
  7. Knickerbocker, Brad. 2012. Colorado shooting highlights barriers to tough gun control: Obama and Romney. Christian Science Monitor (July 21).
  8. Mayor challenges Obama on gun control. 2012. Sunday Telegraph. (July 22): 4.
  9. Sambolin, Zoraida. 2012. Politics of gun control. CNN Newsroom. (July 23).
  10. Schwartz, John. 2012. In Columbine's Wake, Colorado Had Become Key Player in Gun Law Debate. The New York Times. (July 21): 13.
  11. Simon, Richard. 2012. At U.S. Capitol, gun-control advocates are met with 'silence'. Los Angeles Times (July 24).
  12. Spurling, Kathryn. 2012. Another shooting horror, but firearm lobby still rules. Canberra Times (July 24): 8.
  13. Sweetman, Terry. 2012. Armed Americans a danger to their own. Herald Sun (July 22).

An appeal for genuine neutrality here and at James Eagan Holmes

For everyone's benefit, please see the new section I've posted at Talk:James_Eagan_Holmes#An_appeal_for_genuine_neutrality. Respectfully, and with my thanks. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

potential copycats

http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-claiming-joker-threatens-blow/story?id=16869716

The article already has a note about the NY Dept. of Ed. worker that was taken into custody and placed under psychiatric watch. While these events are not trivia, I am not sure what coverage they should be given. I'm not going to edit based on the Maryland copycat that was caught before he acted. I leave that to others. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This may be similar to the lawsuits section above. We should seek consensus on how to handle them. I don't think we need to mention names but just basic info on them if any at all. Should we possibly remove the names and other details like we did with the lawsuit while we discuss it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, why is this now unlocked?

Its only been 2 days, why is this not locked anymore? I posted a note saying that is should be unlocked, but the administrators didnt want it to, why did everyone change their minds?184.98.114.65 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Who knows what lurks in the minds of admin? The Shadow knows.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Categories: