Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 46.109.140.166 (talk) at 18:07, 29 July 2012 (→The shooter's motives in the attack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This 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. Death Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This 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. United States: Colorado High‑importance This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 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: Article requests : Find a photograph of James Holmes that is free to use and does not require WP:NFCC.

A 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.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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've posted at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force to see if we can centrally reconfirm the validity of NOMEMORIAL in a case like this. Without getting hung up on whether other similar articles currently do this, what would be the encyclopedic benefit of including this information?--John (talk) 23:10, 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)

• 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)

"Leaving out a chunk of the story" is perfectly acceptable, and often necessary on Misplaced Pages. BLP overrides CENSOR because it's a recent death, and respect is given to the privacy of the families for a time. People tend to scramble after a death to add every trivial detail, and that's not good for anyone. Maybe in the future names will be appropriate but, right now, it's needless stress for their families. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A name of a murdered person is not a "trivial detail" to this incident any more than the location or perpetrators are. If it were, no news organizations would be reporting them. BLP says that "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement"; I don't see how just listing names does anything but. I also do not see where WP:UNDUE says that factual information can be censored or how it is otherwise relevant here; no one is proposing some far-out theory about the incident, we're dealing in facts.

I'm also wondering who determines how long a time is "appropriate" to withhold the names. Now, it's been a week or so, is that long enough? A year? Five years? Since it's there now, I see little reason to remove it only to restore it at some unspecified future time that hasn't been determined. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 28 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)

We are not responsible for how the media acts. No one wants to list every shot fired or living victims, but the names of the dead are just as relevant here as they are at the Passengers of the Titanic page, or the Columbine shooting page, or any other tragic event where the victims are listed. Misplaced Pages may need to be relevant to sociologists but it also must be relevant to the general public who comprise most readership here, who might be interested in knowing that information. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"People might be interested" is not good enough. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was; I was only saying there should be a broader audience than a small group of scientists. That policy's mention of needing "to explain the subject fully" would also seem relevant here. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 29 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)

• Oppose That guideline is about articles about settlements, not events. The title is long enough already. --NYKevin 17:34, 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)

• Support - There is more than on Aurora in the U.S. so the state should be added to distinguish from other Auroras. United States Man (talk) 17:51, 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)Oppose the move. "Aurora" is sufficient until the press can figure out a WP:COMMONNAME. The Colorado thing is in the lede. - Jorgath (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Further comment: Find me another notable shooting in 2012 in another town named Aurora, and I will change my vote. - Jorgath (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)

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

• Oppose existing title is sufficient, nothing is gained by lengthening it. Ronnotel (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. More than one Aurora in the U.S. Shark96z (talk · contribs) 18:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Years from now more specificity will be helpful to readers. ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support While it is likely that the media will generate a unique name for this event in the next few days, for now the disambiguation is appropriate given the number of places named Aurora in the US, some of which, like Aurora, Illinois (setting of Wayne's World) have become somewhat well-known already. siafu (talk) 18:24, 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)
  • Comment I'd be willing to compromise to "2012 Aurora movie theater shooting" or even "2012 Aurora theater shooting." - Jorgath (talk) 20:56, 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

• My (current) preference is for "Colorado movie theater shooting", I think. Bland, but descriptive. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• I support "Colorado movie theater shooting" as well. To non-Coloradans (I live here in CO), "Aurora" is not that descriptive. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• I support "2012 Aurora, Colorado massacre", because:

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Suggestion. I haven't tried it yet but you could do a Google fight to see which gets more hits 2012 Aurora shooting vs massacre? Just a thought. That may decide what readers will search for. As long as all the other names have re-directs they will find it anyway.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. I would suggest "shooting" is much more neutral than "massacre". We're here to neither do something "justice" nor to embellish, we're here to report facts. "Massacre" is only used to intentionally evoke strong imagery, which is not our purpose. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. We should also not mention the movie name or the word theater. Unless another one occurs in Aurora in another state/country we don't need Colorado either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I just checked 2012 Aurora shooting 3 to 1 over 2012 Aurora massacre anyway.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions 3, 4, 5, and 7 should absolutely not be the title because they do not specify time and place in the same title. Suggestion 6 is too specific and 1 and 2 are currently being decided. United States Man (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't disagree because "shooting" is more "neutral" than "massacre". The word "massacre" is a reference to a particular kind of event: this kind. It may be used for propaganda purposes, but it is also a good English word with a clear technical meaning: a mass killing all at one time, as opposed to serial killing, and which was criminal in nature, as opposed to legal, as in wartime. That's just what a massacre is. That the word has negative connotations is a result of the nature of the thing it refers to, just like "murder". The connotation or misuse of the word "massacre" does not preclude its use as not "neutral". A "shooting" would cover all kinds of things that this was not, so it doesn't describe it as clearly or as well. "Shooting" doesn't imply that it was a criminal, not legal, shooting, it doesn't necessarily imply the mass nature of a massacre, and the fact so many of "shootees," if you will, died, as the word "massacre" does. The word "massacre" describes this event more accurately than the word "shooting", and there is no reason to worry about unfairly applying a negative word to this negative event. However, if "shooting" is what the culture has already settled on calling it, that's another thing. "Massacre" has greater WP:precision than "shooting", that's all. Chrisrus (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you figure "massacre" is more precise? Anything where multiple people are killed can be called a "massacre." It's purely an emotional term, not a precise one. "Shooting" says what actually happened. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, "shootings" include many incidents where multiple people are not killed, so that's why "massacre" is more precise. This wasn't just a "shooting". It was a shooting which was a massacre, in which people were killed en masse, which is what actually happened. This is such a notable event because it's not only a mere shooting but also a massacre. If it had been a mere shooting and not a massacre, a mass shooting in which many people were illegally killed, we probably wouldn't be here now. The fact that this was not just a shooting but also a massacre is the reason for the article to exist. The word "precision" says what happened more precisely than "shooting". Please agree that WP:PRECISION would favor "massacre" over "shooting", even if, as you seem to be saying (I would disagree) that WP:NPOV would favor "shooting" over "massacre". Chrisrus (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Continually asking others to agree with you (including via your edit summaries) isn't helpful. You're welcome to present your arguments, with which others will agree or disagree.

I happen to disagree. "Massacre" provides no indication of the means by which the attack (which also is notable because of the number of victims, most of whom survived) occurred. —David Levy 16:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right that "shooting" does imply the weapons used, whereas "massacre" does not. I agree with you about that and concede that point. Please do the same when I point out that the opposite is true about the extra-illegality, the large numbers of victims and the fact that people died. "Shooting" obviously provides no indicaion of these three things. Next, please notice that question then becomes which is more important to communicate, the former or the latter. It should be easy to get people to agree that the fact that it was a mass murder is the basis of notability here, not what kind of weapons were used. Therefore, please, everyone agree that "massacre" is preferable to "shooting". Chrisrus (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This entire discussion is mind-boggling. Misplaced Pages should have clear guidelines about choosing article titles for incidents like this. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 03:37, 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)

• Calmly oppose, unless we also blame the shoes he was wearing and a band he listened to. Maybe Grand Theft Auto. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 27 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)

Strongly oppose due to singular source reference that mentions a dose that was a significant overdose that would render him unconscious in the time frame outlined. If further reputable sources document narcotic use, it may be noteworthy.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

POV dispute: Gun control debate section

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)

This Talk Page is not a forum at all. And every editor's reasonable positions can be stated here.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What sources can you offer to support your position? Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 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)

It's a matter of relevance, not NPOV. At this point, no political actions have been taken, so I don't see the point. The fact that a bunch of 'talking heads' are discussing it is not surprising, that's what they do - they will move on to the 'next story' as a matter of course. We have links at the bottom of the article page, that's enough for now. This material should be put in an article about gun control at this time. Remember we handle via Consensus and not any Wiki-warrior agenda on the articles. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I remind editors that this is a global encyclopaedia and that this event gained coverage all over the world. Not surprisingly, given how lax American gun control is compared to the rest of the civilised world, that aspect was a major part of the coverage outside the US. To rule out coverage on the basis of no political action yet inside the US is too narrow a perspective. To the rest of the world, gun control is probably the major issue of this event. This is a global project, so gun control should be a significant part of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I kept abreast of BBC and German coverage, and have not noticed any particular debate more intense than on U.S. talk/round-table shows. Also, how has this international debate affected U.S. law at this time? There have been statements from Congress that no legislation will be taken up on the issue this year, at least. Please leave out descriptions like 'civilised' as you are bringing a potential insulting reference to the U.S. on the talk page. At this time, I don't see 'gun control' being part of the article outside of linking it to the topic elsewhere in Misplaced Pages.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does it have to affect US Law to be mentioned in the article. You have come right back to saying that it's only what America does that matters. As I have said this is a global encyclopaedia. If the rest of the world is saying "this happened because of America's gun laws", that makes gun laws significant in this instance. And how can it be insulting to use the expression "rest of the civilised world"? The word "rest" says that America is included in the civilised world? I went out of my way to avoid saying anything offensive, and you still took offence. I don't get it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The "rest of the world" is NOT saying that, just those persons - who may even be in the majority! - who feel that this was the reason. Why not take these op-ed discussions, protest marches (have there even been any?) etc., to the appropriate articles on gun control in Wiki and strongly represent them? I don't mind a brief mention on this article but not using it to drive some particular platform. Btw, just about every nation in the world consider themselves civilized, let's just drop that point, it's potentially insulting. We may feel that Iraq and Iran are currently basket-cases politically, but they have an ancient civilization. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC).

None of the sources offered to support this material are "op-ed" discussions; they are straight news stories. Intellectual honesty is required—it isn't optional. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not discussing what I wrote rationally and logically. You're deflecting and distracting with silly arguments about single words. I meant no fucking offence. Get over it. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. That was just an aside, as we're supposed to be following the Talk Page guidelines on being civil. My point about the merits of the gun control debate in the article are clearly stated. If you happen to disagree, so be it. Also using that sort of language is not really constructive here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Your "points" are at odds with the sources. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardly. Nobody disputes these sources exist, we're debating the level of their inclusion in THIS article. As you see, many editors simply want a brief mention here, with links to the appropriate articles on the topic. Also, please keep your remarks on-topic and impersonal.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that you've read any of these sources, so I can't imagine how you could "debate" their inclusion. Your argument (and those of others) who say they want a "brief mention" isn't based on the sources or any policy or guideline. In fact, WP:NPOV demands balanced coverage, and the sources indicate the importance that exceeds a "brief mention". Anyone who continues to argue for a "brief mention" based on neither the sources nor the policies and guidelines, will be corrected. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Accusing me of insulting America when I did nothing of the kind was pretty personal, or stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There will be a whole lot of issues arising from this incident: gun control, security of cinema exits, having little kids at midnight films, etc. That doesn't mean they all need to be canvassed here. WWGB (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course there should be a section on the gun control debate following this incident. To not have any mention of it is infact blatant bias. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Instead of an entire section, what about a brief mention in the Reactions section with a link to the various appropriate gun control articles in Wiki?HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources about gun control and this topic

Note: These sources are news stories, not op-ed's

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. Clift, Eleanor. 2012. Gun Owners Say They Want More Controls, a GOP Pollster Says. The Daily Beast. (July 27).
6. Condon, Stephanie. 2012. Democrats: "We can't let the NRA stop us". Political Hotsheet. CBS News. (July 24).
7. Harris, Paul. 2012. Colorado shooting renews anti-gun mission for Columbine victim's father. guardian.co.uk. (July 22).
8. Hartman, Rachel Rose. 2012. Gun control surfaces in CT, VA Senate debates following Colorado shooting. ABC News. (July 23).
9. Honan, Edith. 2012. Colorado shooting draws attention to gun control. Reuters. Christian Science Monitor. (July 25).
10. Jervis, Rick and John McAuliff (July 24, 2012). "Colo. rampage adds fuel to gun-control debate". USA Today. Retrieved July 24, 2012.
11. Knickerbocker, Brad. 2012. Colorado shooting highlights barriers to tough gun control: Obama and Romney. Christian Science Monitor (July 21).
12. Martinez, Michael. 2012. Gun-control, gun-rights groups ready for renewed debate after Colorado shooting. CNN. (July 21).
13. Mayor challenges Obama on gun control. 2012. Sunday Telegraph. (July 22): 4.
14. McGreal, Chris. 2012. Colorado tragedy prompts calls for urgent action on gun control. guardian.co.uk. (July 20).
15. Montopoli, Brian. 2012. Gun control debate returns after Colorado shooting. CBS News. (July 20).
16. Sambolin, Zoraida. 2012. Politics of gun control. CNN Newsroom. (July 23).
17. Schwartz, John. 2012. In Columbine's Wake, Colorado Had Become Key Player in Gun Law Debate. The New York Times. (July 21): 13.
18. Simon, Richard. 2012. At U.S. Capitol, gun-control advocates are met with 'silence'. Los Angeles Times (July 24).
19. Simon, Richard. 2012. Colorado shooting. Police groups call for tougher gun laws. Los Angeles Times. (July 26).
20. Spurling, Kathryn. 2012. Another shooting horror, but firearm lobby still rules. Canberra Times (July 24): 8.
21. Sweetman, Terry. 2012. Armed Americans a danger to their own. Herald Sun (July 22).
22. Ward, Olivia. 2012. Colorado shooting: Politicians stay silent on gun control debate. Toronto Star. (July 23).

I'll agree with HammerFilmFan. A reference to renewed debate, with links to the gun control articles are more than sufficient. Rather than re-write those articles in this article, with all of the edit wars that would result. This article is about a shooting incident, not about gun control or the lack of gun control.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Also agreed, this deserves at most brief a mention, with see also links to the appropriate articles about gun control. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with all three of you. The small sample of 23 sources up above is about this shooting and the reaction to the shooting by the authorities, the public, and the victims and their response in terms of gun control. As the preponderance of sources demonstrate, neither a reference nor a link are sufficient, and either several paragraphs or an entire section are appropriate. Consensus to exclude (which you do not have here) does not override WP:NPOV, which according to the sources demands much more than a brief mention. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also no consensus for such a section; in my quick estimation, there is a slight majority to those opposed, but again, no consensus either way. Yes, there is plenty of discussion in the media and in politics about gun control after this incident, but I see it more as a sparked parallel discussion, rather than one that is totally intertwined. Gun control has, for a long time, been something that hovers just under the surface, waiting for a major incident to show itself (though it rarely lasts for a long time). Speaking for myself, I don't think more than a sentence or two should exist in this article, given there are others that are more dedicated to the subject. However, do continue to seek such a consensus...either the community will gel in favour of such a section or they will not. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, as others have removed the NPOV tag and pointed out, this is a relevance/undue weight dispute, not a neutrality issue.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving discussion to Gun laws in Colorado and Gun politics in the United States to prevent WP:CONTENTFORKING.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

DON'T MOVE IT. THAT'S HIDING THE DISCUSSION. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. See also: Talk:Gun laws in Colorado--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop fragmenting the discussion. There are now discussions here, at the gun law article, at WP:NPOV/N, on talk pages, etc. Keep discussion in one place. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I will refrain from moving comments around. The issue is appearing in dispute forums all over WMF the same as the 'ethno-taggers' and 'tabloid pushers' etc. When it carried on to my talk page thought I could move it to the proper discussion page citing WMF policy on all text being free licensed. The arguments on both sides I thought were valid on the only two pages that many feel they should be on. If an article has a gun issue then it should be discussed on a gun law page or a gun debate page not in the articles about incidents with guns. If the debate on guns is spread through every article that mentions a gun and every dispute forum that can be found, then that does not help the project. It just forks the debate on how much we should include it in all of these articles. In other words it should be in the proper forum. I hope this makes sense.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a forum to discuss it now: Misplaced Pages:Gun debates in article space--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So, after my asking that the discussion not be further fragmented, you went and created another discussion forum. I'm at a loss here. Please keep the discussion in an existing location. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This dicussion has probably happened in almost every article that has a gun in it. I think it should finally be contained into one forum specific to it, be discussed, seek consensus on a guideline/policy, and then implemented. I think that will improve the project instead of beating it to death every time news happens. WP:Ethnicity in article space and WP:WikiTabloid, etc. should be two more that could probably do the same.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What you've done is completely contravene Misplaced Pages's guidelines. You don't put a discussion in project space (ie anything that starts with WP:). That's reserved for Policies, Guidelines and Essays. The exceptions being the Help & Reference desks, and the Village Pump. I'd suggest you toss a db-author on that page and let it be deleted. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There are also folks (including prominents e.g. Ted Nugent) saying that if others in there had been armed casualties would have been 1/10th what they were. We could start going off the cliff into the zillion topics that are related to the topic but not about the topic, but IMHO we should avoid those and stay on topic. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

I believe this was answered on the James Egan Holmes article's talk page, and Misplaced Pages is not censored or tailored for one person's personal opinion? I'm going to remove the tag based on that, as this article seems to be very neutral and following BLP lines.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The POV tag was not added by JoeSperrazza. It was added by me due to the above gun control thread and NPOV dispute filed on the noticeboard and I gave notification about this tag on the talk page. Please do not remove the tag until the gun control dispute is resolved. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 28 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)

No-one changed their mind. The block for edit wars was noted on the template as a 48 hour block. It expired after that time. WWGB (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenic

Other than the fact the psychiatrist who was treating the suspect has written papers on schizophrenia and a note on her website that she "specializes in schizophenia" there is no source whatever, other than the guesses of others, that he suffers from that syndrome. Gross errors in this matter by major news media are not an excuse for us. I have removed the suggestion as a violation of Biographies of living persons. Also, creating the impression that "schizophrenics" are dangerous in the manner the suspect was is extremely harmful to community mental health efforts. A few are, but most are not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

While true that someone under treatment by one who has a specialty in their field does not always mean that the treatment is for that specialization, one also has pause due to privacy laws. IS it a fact that the suspect was under treatment by a psychiatrist? If so, how was this information acquired, as the psychiatrist revealing that violates numerous federal laws that could result in the loss of license? At first blush, the suspect SEEMS to behave in a manner consistent with at least paranoid schizophrenia, that is conjecture, as one would have to perform a psychiatric examination of the suspect to make any diagnosis. That said, "creating the impression" is irrelevant, as impressions are not encyclopedic in nature, facts are. The article on schizophrenia gives the facts on the disorder, it does not "create an impression". If any mention IS made of the suspect's mental health status, with a reputable citation, there should also be a link to the schizophrenia article and be NPOV. Fortunately, the article seems to have no mention as to his mental status currently.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That is because I removed the suggestion. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The same editor restored the suggestion, but it is a WP:BLP violation on the basis of the current evidence. According to this news story "The suspect in the Colorado cinema shooting was being treated by a psychiatrist at the university where he studied, according to court records. Earlier reports said James Holmes, 24, had sent a notebook describing a massacre to the university. Defence lawyers are seeking the source of the media leak, saying it violated a court order and put a fair trial in "serious jeopardy"." This is a reference to the Fox News article earlier this week.--♦IanMacM♦ 05:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus between the James Eagan Holmes article and the shooting article

There is a marked lack of consensus between the article on the suspect and this one in terms of personal equipment, where I still see mention of ballistic protection that I fail to see elsewhere. Granted, the shooting will cause confusion in the press initially and the lack of knowledge in the press regarding ballistic protection and weapons is legendary, however, by this time, we should be able to ascertain if he did have ballistic protection. If one goes by some news media articles as fact, the non-ballistic protection Blackhawk assault vest (and my old military LBV) are all ballistic vests, though are incapable of even stopping a pellet from a pellet gun. That requires responsible editing when writing the article here, lest we repeat errors of the press and write an article that is inaccurate. Thankfully, the Blackhawk vest issue was laid to rest quickly. Does anyone have specifics on the groin protection and leggings? Also, perhaps a mention if ballistic protection equipment is legal in Colorado, as the legality of such things varies by state (perhaps another article is in order for that on a state by state basis)? Is there any information on the source of his funding? The financial outlay on weapons, ammunition and vests (ballistic or not) is quite significant.Wzrd1 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of this should go in the article on the suspect. As to legality there is a link to Colorado gun laws at the bottom of the page. That article is a little wimpy right now. I can't see anyone objecting to having it re-named to 'Para-military equipment laws in Colorado' type thing and have Colorado gun laws re-direct to a gun section there. Sites like the NRA may have sources for the laws or be accepted as a source themselves.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to detail every last bit of body protection he was wearing. And the financial outlay really isn't that significant. The body protection was the only unusual part of his equipment. The rest is commonly available and not terribly expensive. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I think we have sources that the shooter wore the stuff but we don't have sources that the suspect bought the stuff. Until there is a conviction they are two different people.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The shooter's motives in the attack

Yes, the suspect is only a suspect... the following is not intended to be controversial or to incriminate a suspect who has not been convicted of a crime, but it is admittedly not from a well-known source: Another Perspective on the Batman Theater Shooting

Quoting from a different post on that site, "...if people can be trusted when they say that they think unemployment is the most important issue in the United States, and it has been shown that unemployment is associated with a substantially higher suicide risk, someone might logically conclude that people who oppose available ways to create jobs literally want unemployed people to kill themselves and acting in a way that causes people to support job creation could save lives even if some are lost in the process. If people don't want this to happen, all they would have to do is openly come out in opposition to the idea that people should be trusted or that they, personally, can be trusted. In this way, it is not realistic to expect everyone to 'secretly' agree that people cannot be trusted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.64.252 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS is the obvious policy to quote here, meaning there is not much point even discussing this source. I'm not saying the thesis may not be correct, though. All in good time. Formerip (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I ended reading it about the time he talks about two people attacking him from behind, when it was clearly stated that he used some sort of teargas, and no one really believed it was anything but a show or hooligan until he started the shooting... Ever tried to attack someone covered in teargas? besides I don't know how is that supposed to be a reliable source? 46.109.140.166 (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of rounds of ammunition bought?

This needs to be somewhat addressed, I find this changes constantly from 6000 to 7000, which is it? can we pick one, because it is confusing.TVWolf (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the sources. I don't think anyone knows for sure. It actually belongs in the suspect article possibly. This one should include rounds fired by the shooter, not rounds bought by the suspect. Until a conviction they are two different people.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Miscarriage

The miscarriage should be noted . --Boycool † (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A sad event, but there is no independent evidence that it is attributed to the cinema incident. WWGB (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Sad news, but there can be no certainty that it's connected with the shootings. Hard to justify including anything in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer

...Has written a soundtrack titled "Aurora" with the proceeds from downloads to go to the victims . --Boycool † (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we decide to include it when proceeds are higher than X amount and actually paid out?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be included in the reaction section in some form. Maybe at some point a sound clip could even be added. --Boycool † (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be done with consensus or everyone with a CD may try to slime their name into the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Boycool † (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting vandals

If you revert a vandal try to put a template on their talk page: Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#Warnings. If we don't do this it will take longer to deal with them. If you don't have time or don't wish to use your signature on it then just leave a note here or another page where someone will tag them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Glock .40 cals.

Does anybody know what model Glock .40 cals were brought by Holmes? Like a Glock 22, Glock 23, or Glock 27? No speculation here, only relible source articles. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've not seen any reliable sources which are that specific. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• C-Class Colorado articles
• High-importance Colorado articles
• WikiProject Colorado articles
• Colorado articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Requested moves