Jump to content

Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Anecdotes about his personality

I've been involved in some back and forth over this bit:

Acquaintances described Holmes as a generally pleasant person and as a "really smart" student who showed no signs of violence.[45] He was also described as an introverted and shy person, and as strongly involved in his local church.[45]

I don't see any point in including the subjective anecdotal opinions of "acquaintances". We should be reserving descriptions of his personality to trained and qualified mental health professionals after they have interviewed him. causa sui (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this one...however, it seems many of these descriptions are high school recollections, reading the linked ref. I'd remove it on WP:BLP grounds for that alone; accounts that CAN be shown to be contemporary are probably okay, I think. The only dated "contemporary" account in the given ref seems to be from a maintenance worker who remembers him as "quiet", which doesn't seem all that relevant. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with causa sui here. These "facts" are just anonymous people's judgments. No real educational value. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Updates, timeline, and theater map

Reuters and CNN are updating rapidly, and have several details the article lacks, some of which seem very important but I'm unwilling to excerpt because I think editors should read both of those stories in full. Of particular interest may be this CNN timeline and theater map. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

the bit about the fact the guns were legally purchased is certainly notable and needs adding, but many bits of valid info in those article yes.BritishWatcher (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a very well annotated aerial view of the neighborhood at this USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-20/shooting-movie-theater-denver/56351098/1 "Motive sought in deadly shooting rampage at Colorado theater" The caption references the AP and Denver Post as a source, apparently, for the image. It may be worthwhile citing somehow in this Wikipedia article.User:Ssc (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Terrorism

If the FBI said they do not believe this was an act of terrorism, why is this article under WikiProject Terrorism? The definition of terrorism is very narrow —it was given earlier in the talk page—. Just a thought. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 01:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed WikiProject Death, which is even less pertinent, to WikiProject Terrorism, which explicitly includes acts by individuals. The scope at WP:TERROR may be different than the FBI's definition. I wouldn't object to removal, but I predict it will be replaced if it is removed. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's the quote from the WikiProject Terrorism page:
  • "While we have to date limited ourselves to acts of violence against civilians by Violent non-state actors ("VNSAs") for political gain, users are encouraged to add their own new focus. It is impossible to fully separate "terrorism" from "counter-terrorism", as the methods used are often similar. One should use common sense in labeling an attack on unarmed civilians at the Munich Olympics as "an act of terrorism", while an attack against an Iraqi military base might be better suited to the Military history Wikiproject."
Per this quiote, it seems the scope of the project doesnt include this incident, yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I feel that the quote specifically puts this into WikiProject Terrosim. It is an attack against unarmed civilians. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The FBI is saying this is not an act of terrorism, this was a "lone wolf". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Terrorism is anything that causes terror. It is oftentimes used as coercion, but doesn't have to be. As of right now, we don't know if this act was committed for some reason. At the same time, the FBI hasn't labeled it as terrorism yet so we can't label it as terrorism in the article. We can label it as terrorism for behind the scenes work. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The two are not mutually exclusive; Nidal Hasan and Anders Breivik were both lone wolves and both terrorists. 70.99.104.234 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It was not part of "organized terrorism." There is a difference. Terrorism is terrorism whether by a group or an individual. Just my 2 cents, but I think the grouping is appropriate. --Korentop (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

difficulty finding a job? says who?

This is a well sourced article but the statement "Holmes had difficulty finding a job after obtaining his master's degree." is unsourced. Can someone source it or remove it? --76.237.227.4 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 DoneI removed it entirely. It wasn't in the source cited, and the only ref I found Googling it was a neighbor saying it. Clarified the statement about him dropping out too, as it seemed unclear as to whether he was forced to or not (and dropping out is contrary to being expelled...) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source that quotes his San Diego neighbor saying the only job he could get after getting his degree in neuroscience was at McDonalds. Its not exactly a point admissible in court, the original posting of "master's degree" was inaccurate but its a reasonable source and a logical assumption beyond that. Trackinfo (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, a 16-year-old neighbor suggesting that. Honestly, that's not a very good article, so I wouldn't trust the poor source interviews there without additional facts. And just noting that "he could only get a job at McDonald's" doesn't actually SAY anything...other than that he might have been able to get hired at McDonald's if he wanted to, but not whether or not he even worked there. Making assumptions past that isn't our job, nor does it seem relevant to the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Batman film template

I dont think the Batman film template should have this article as a "related articles" link, and thus i dont think the template should be placed here. If we are not going to list actors on navbox templates, surely this is even more tangential.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I have removed it. Having it there suggests that this incident was part of the film series itself. Why does anyone exploring the incident need a box full of links to other stuff related to the films? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2012

You have a second reference )"Holmes" in the sentence that the suspect bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition. Below that, in a subsequent paragraph, the suspect is fully identified with first reference style. So you need to fix the "Holmes" in the ammunition paragraph.

68.52.144.183 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e deckertalk 05:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Category: White People

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Troll thread closed
Extended content

I strongly suggest that we add Category: White People to the categories list for encyclopedic reasons. Can someone add this promptly124.176.222.19 (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Erm, how does a nonexistent category exactly apply for encyclopedic reasons? ZappaOMati 04:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well obviously because this massacre was carried out by a white person... I'm sure we would have the African American category attached to every single meaningless pety crime committed by an African American... well I thought that was obvious but appareantly not to you... And on it not existing, this is pretty bad for an encyclopedia of Wikipedias proportions, let's say we add this category and start applying it to all white people who have committed crimes?124.176.222.19 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The Talk Pages are not a SOAPBOX - please take these sort of comments elsewhere. HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"White people" is much too general to be a category. Who do you include? A majority of Europe and the Americas plus South Africa and a heap of other countries? If an article got created on the shooter and depending on what the final decision is on guilt, the page will probably be added to Category:American mass murderers. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Besides, racist, much? Besides, looking at the Miami cannibal attack page, the crime was carried out by an African American, so where's the category? Columbine High School massacre, nothing. So what's the point? Besides, the category would be INSANELY long, considering how many crimes were committed throughout the years. ZappaOMati 04:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to me? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree I dont even know why we are discussing this, doing this would label people and that I could see being a WP:BLP issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT. Do not feed the troll. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I am appalled at the racism against White people. And I am not White.– Lionel (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chief Oates

Saw his press conference on Fox News. I was moved by his empathy--for a minute I thought he was going to break down. Anyway his article Dan Oates is a disgrace. Let's fix it up, yes. He is indeed a Great American! – Lionel (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to fix up his article, but the place to talk about it is on the talk page for that article. You can discuss your platitudes about his Fox News-approved Great American-ness over there better than here. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2012

Another young woman was confirmed dead.

Twenty-three-year-old Micayla Medek was also among the dead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120721/us-colorado-shooting-victims/

123.50.148.17 (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. You don't need a special edit request template. This article will be updated fine without them. A regular request should suffice. I am just clearing the backlog of requests.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Question on putting any sources regarding cinema security in other countries

I've seen articles in Canada regarding cinema security being stepped up. Is it okay to post it? Ominae (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Media Reaction

Both FOX and CNN have articles regarding the impact this could have to the movie and franchise, with quotes from Nolan and Warner Bros. Should these be included in the article? Here are the links:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/showbiz/movies/dark-knight-shooting-film/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/07/20/colorado-theater-massacre-could-hurt-dark-knight-rises-at-box-office-experts/

Thoughts? --Korentop (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This incident is likely to have a long term impact on public perception of the film. However, this article is primarily about the shooting, and a detailed look at this issue is better suited to The Dark Knight Rises.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, that would be better placed on the film's page. It's not really relevant to the shooting incident what happens to the sales of the film being shown, I think. However, if it leads to some cinema-wide changes (e.g., no more midnight premieres, or extra "security" measures, or whatever), then it might be relevant to putting on this page. But that hasn't happened yet. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2012

Fourth person dead.

Alex Teves

http://twitchy.com/2012/07/21/friends-tweet-name-of-third-possible-aurora-shooting-victim-alex-teves/


123.50.148.17 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. The article will be updated fine without edit request templates. I am just clearing the backlog on the board.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick point

In the "At the Scene" section, quoted "Although there were rumors that the suspect had dyed his hair red and called himself "Joker", a villain from the Batman series;[43] they were "not true"[44], according to Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates.[45]", I wanted to point out I read citation 44, and the article neither confirms nor denies the statement that the shooter called himself "The Joker". Every media outlet I've read from ABC News to TMZ claim he did call himself such, why is Wikipedia's stance that he did not, based on a vague statement in one citation? Sakaki22 (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm changing it back. Whatever the facts later turn out to be, the VANCOUVER SUN story does not say what the editor supposes it does. The major news outlets are saying not one but two federal law enforcement officials say he DID. I think we must take ABCNEWS, etc., over a smallish paper like the VANCOUVER SUN. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
CNN just updated their story and are maintaining the dyed hair/Joker account. Oates' statement is hard to fathom in light of this. We'll get the facts pretty soon as the media are all over this story.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Enrolled in School of Medicine

Again, the suspect is not enrolled in the school of medicine and is not a medical student. The University of Colorado School of Medicine awards MD degrees, and the suspect was not seeking an MD degree. The suspect was seeking a PhD degree, which is awarded by the University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Graduate School. http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/Pages/SchoolsColleges.aspx The article currently reads that the student is enrolled at the school of medicine which is incorrect and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.236.69.177 (talk • contribs) 07:40, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

I edited it to note the "University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus." I think that's correct, as far as it matching the longer name on WIkipedia itself, and what the campus uses in its releases. (And you're right, it's not the med school at all, in any case.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - Christopher Nolan's Response

I wish I could have done it myself, but I think Nolan's response is suitable given the film that was showing at the time of shooting. https://www.facebook.com/thedarkknightrises/posts/441104415930174 (unsigned comment)

This quotation was already on the page and was removed. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 09:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - movie trailer

In the Reactions section, please make the following edit to correct poor grammar, remove a redundancy ("showing a trailer" and "trailer which was shown"), and link to three articles referenced in the sentence.

CURRENT: Warner Bros. stopped showing a trailer for the film Gangster Squad, a trailer which was shown prior to the Aurora screening at which the shooting occurred, because of a scene involving a mass shooting in a movie theater.

CHANGE TO: Warner Bros. announced that the trailer for the film Gangster Squad, which preceded the The Dark Knight Rises screening in Aurora and other cities, will no longer be offered because it contains a scene showing men shooting a movie theater audience with automatic weapons as chaos ensues.

The sentence is already sourced, twice, in the article.

--76.189.98.33 (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done With some changes. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 11:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick edit, but I'd appreciate it if you would change it per my request. Warner Bros. did not "stop showing" the trailer because movie companies do not show trailers; theaters do. Movie companies "offer" trailers to theaters, which decide whether they want to show them or not. Also I specifically included the mentions of automatic weapons and chaos because it exactly mirrors the Aurora incident. Also, I included "other cities" to explain that Aurora was not the only city to show that particular trailer. Also, the phrase "Aurora screening at which the shooting occurred" is redundant; readers obviously know that the Aurora screening is where the shooting occurred. So, all the words and details I used in the sentence serve a purpose. I hope you'll just edit it to my suggested version. Thanks and have a great weekend! --76.189.98.33 (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I do see your point and will make the changes, but, QUESTION does the trailer show weapons that are technically "automatic", or are they just semi-automatic rifles like the one Holmes used? I have not seen the trailer and this would affect the wording. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 12:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, Hajatvrc. I've checked reliable sources, including the two another user included in the article, and they all use either "automatic weapons," "automatic guns" or "machine guns." This source says that a Warner Bros. executive used the term "machine gun." But here's an interesting discovery I just made: According to multiple sources, the Gangster Squad trailer did NOT show at the Aurora theater. Here are two of the sources reporting this: The Boston Herald says "A person familiar with what was shown at the Aurora theater said the trailer did not play there" and E! Online says, "Contrary to some reports, however, Warners tells E! News that the Gangster Squad trailer did not run before the packed midnight Dark Knight Rises showing in Aurora." If that's true, then the edit I suggested can just remove the part about it showing in Aurora (see below). Plus, you have these new sources if you want to use them, which support the claim that the trailer did not show in Aurora. The rest of the sentence of course is still very relevant because of the remarkable similarities between the shootings in Aurora and in the trailer.
CHANGE TO: Warner Bros. announced that the trailer for the film Gangster Squad, which preceded the The Dark Knight Rises screening in some cities, although not in Aurora, will no longer be offered because it contains a scene showing men shooting a movie theater audience with automatic weapons as chaos ensues.
--76.189.98.33 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done The only further changes I made were to more accurately reflect the source. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 13:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! But regarding another change I noticed you made... the word "demanded" needs to be taken out. It's way too strong and gives the false implication that there's some sort of battle between Warner and the theaters over showing the trailer, when in fact both sides are in total agreement on the issue. That's why I just used the factual phrase that Warner is not "offering" it any more (which, in cinema terms, means the theaters are not permitted to show it). But if you want to use something else, use a word like "instructed" instead of "demanded." And regarding your inclusion of "all across North America," it doesn't even need to be mentioned because Warner is simply not offering the trailer any more... anywhere in the world. Also, "all across" is redundant; it would just be "across North America" or, better yet, "in North America." To make this simple, you could just use the full edit I suggested. It's perfectly accurate and totally sourced. ;) Thanks. --76.189.98.33 (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
'Instructed' is a good word. The source used the word "notified", I just did not want to take their word as the sentence would then be too close to the source. I did not put much thought into the word I chose. I have not slept in over 24 hours :) Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 14:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha, thanks for your help on this. And get some sleep! You deserve it. :) P.S. There are two final quick fixes needed. I just noticed them. First, it should be "in some cities", not "at some cities". Second, I mistakenly typed "the The Dark Knight Rises". Get rid of the first "the". --76.189.98.33 (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The "at" was done by another editor. All fixed. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 15:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2012

NYT important, also need state level coverage External links

184.78.81.245 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

More biographical info

Here is a source with good information. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18937513

Some of it appears to already be in the article, but there it is anyway. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 16:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AdultFriendFinder and Penis size?

What does mention of suspect's alleged penis size have anything do with the tragic shooting event that occurred in Aurora? And why is the article locked from editing, while ridiculous statements of "fact" such as above are posted?

We shouldn't speculate about the murders, and officials did not say if he had an account on that website. I'm inclined to file that image on WP:FfD. -- Luke (Talk) 17:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks like another editor removed it, however, some sources have said that he did have a profile, so it may be notable to include in the article later. -- Luke (Talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


What does mention of suspect's alleged penis size have anything do with the tragic shooting event that occurred in Aurora? And why is the article locked from editing, while ridiculous statements of "fact" such as above are posted? Further, are the administrators aware of the photo of the girl on the AFF profile?

Note to Admins: Please stop deleting my posts on the TALK page. --

The penis size comment has been removed. The Adult FriendFinder mention is notable because it is one of the only leads we have on the suspect's apparent premeditation of the murders. The article is semi-protected to reduce the amount of reverts we have to make by ill-informed editors. You are right, even with semi-protection bad edits get through. Imagine how bad it would be if the article was not semi-protected. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, it was not an administrator who removed your post. Anyone can use the undo function. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 17:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
If it is indeed an ad that Holmes placed, it is hard to fathom how this would be a factor in causing him to go on his shooting rampage. I'd say it would be more appropriate just as bio-background info? HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree that there should probably be no mention of it right now, but it is very possible that mention of the AFF account will be included in the future. Of course the photo was silly, but if it is confirmed that the account was his, the fact the he outright posted "will you visit me in jail?" on the site will definitely be notable. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 17:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It is an important fact in his mental makeup at the time, and gives indications he was up to something but not "why" he did it. Later addition-if current, the photo confirms the (bad) dye job of his hair that some authorities have stated he had when arrested. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


Comment - I initially used rollback to remove this section because it appeared similar in content some posts by another IP editor who has recently become fixated with sexual articles and topics, and was worried this was a bad edit. I looked at the article, found the reference to the AdultFriendFinder, but not the other part, and so temporarily removed it from the article because of the post here contending it was an inappropriate addition, and despite only seeing the AdultFriendFinder part of the post, assumed good faith and immediately reverted myself on the Talk page. Hope that explains it. -- Avanu (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Biographical info sourced from californiality.com blog of dubious reliability

I'm not sure we can trust this [1] as a reliable source. Several facts have been added that I can't find elsewhere or differ; the long list of "facts" lists some out that straight out conflict other reports, along with what's on Wikipedia, as well. I don't think this should be used as a sole source for those data in the biography section. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Like a mad scientist"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/aurora-colorado-movie-shooting-police-conduct-controlled-detonation/story?id=16825054#.UAsRu45vniM

Some good info there post-first disarming of trip wires at the door. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

First section and archive

Someone may wish to add a permanent first section to this talk page like we did with Talk:Luka Magnotta. I used Template:Do not archive until to keep it from archiving. You also may wish to set auto-archive to just a few days to keep the page trimmed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that all that has already been done. United States Man (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The archiving is set at 24 hours right now. The next run of Miszabot will probably clean out a few threads and then we can ease the archiving back as things slow down. Safiel (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we consider a first section 'Read this first' type thing that we did on the page linked above?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Victims Names and Talk Page Protection

I don't understand why the victims' names aren't included in this article. By now, many major media outlets have released at least 9 victims' names. Check the official Aurora Shootings facebook page for links to these media stories.

Also, should this talk page possibly be protected? It is getting extremely crowded and 99.99% of the posts by non-editor IP users are irrelevant or are already common knowledge amongst editors of this page. I don't know if there has been a precedent on wikipedia to protect talk pages of major, current events but maybe it's time to set one. Only those who actually spend time working on Wikipedia should be allowed to edit; not random band-wagoners who are reading news stories on all 8 billion internet media outlets and think they know something. Writerchic99 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

See #Tables appropriate? above. --John (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I can see your point for protection. Talk pages have been protected before. You could add it to the list of protection requests. In the section above I mentioned we added a bold statement to a talk page that had similar issues. There also has been discussion in other forums about editors being able to remove any statements that violate policy. You may wish to try this as well. See WP:TPOC and its talk page about removal.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I submitted the protection request. Hopefully they'll listen. Writerchic99 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
If it is declined we could still add bold 'Read this first!' Section to the top like Talk:Luka Magnotta--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

His test scores

Washington Post is quoting unnamed sources saying the recent bad test scores are for his PhD comprehensive exam. This is relevant; failing a PhD comprehensive exam is a serious setback (of course could very well be the result of earlier issues). Just saying "test scores" isn't the same as saying "test scores for the PhD comprehensive exam." Also, on Wikipedia, we don't judge primary sources, we judge the quality of secondary sources. We assume the secondary source has done its job of vetting whoever it quotes. The Washington Post is credible that way. Ajoykt (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay; the problem here is that I didn't understand that. If you readd it noting the significance, I don't have a problem with that, since then it's clearer how it could be associated. I think most folks wouldn't get the relevance past just poor test scores in general; I'd say most folks who aren't on a PhD track would be unfamiliar with the significance, which is most of the population, including me. :) The Washington Post has vetted the source of course, but it's still an "anonymous quote", and unclear...reading more as if it's just someone musing on the matter. The thing is, I can't tell whether or not it is...thus, since this is a BLP issue, it seems safer to not include it unless we have a more-firm statement. It's just too vague. I don't have a problem with including the added info on the test scores, because that's just factual information being passed on...but whether he's getting remedial education (and whether formally or not) or "perhaps" being put on probation just isn't a clear statement, so again I feel we should err on the side of caution as a BLP matter. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, we can't add information on significance; that would be OR or SYNTH. The Washington Post article does note the significance--there was a chance of him getting booted out of the program altogether (unfortunately the Post doesn't explicitly say that; just implies it). The statement is vague because it is talking of something that might have happened; once the guy decided to withdraw, the whole point would automatically become moot. The quote is about a hypothetical situation, what would have happened if he had stayed on. Ajoykt (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly there's a reference to note that it's a significant setback, or might have prevented him from getting his degree, or whatever? I'd imagine it could be included with a very short referenced blurb, just to make the significance clear (and thus make the information more relevant to the article for the vast majority of readers.) I'm not going to argue the WP:BLP issue further, since I'm a bit tired from the last such argument...if anyone else thinks including something this vague from an unknown source is a possible BLP violation (remember, we need to apply heightened scrutiny in the case of BLP), feel free to take on the debate. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Source isn't unknown - a faculty member of the University of Colorado, Denver, Neuroscience department. Since this is the Washington Post, one can assume they didn't make this up. The source is just unnamed. Ajoykt (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Back to the PhD comprehensive exams: I wikilinked to Comprehensive examination#Graduate. Feel free to fix if it's not appropriate, but I think that solves the issue I was having with your edit if it is. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Oops, and I had just edit conflicted and overwritten your edit as I was writing that...I merged your edit back in. I'm happy with the results for now, since your edit also addresses the BLP issue for me as well, by using the source more loosely, and just saying they weren't planning to expel him. Which I think the quote from an anonymous faculty member can support without it being questionable. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, looks good now. Yes, the citation was a duplicate. Ajoykt (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories

I added Category:Spree shootings in the United States but it has been removed without explanation. It seems relevant and in my view should go back. TerriersFan (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be readded. United States Man (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
A spree shooting occurs in multiple locations. That is not the case here. WWGB (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Title

I believe the appropriate name is "2012 Aurora shooting" (singular), corresponding to something like "2011 Tucson shooting", which was also a single event, not like "Toulouse and Montauban shootings", which was a series of three shootings. DillonLarson (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this, by the way - my semi-protection of this page was to stop IP nonsense but I think the title should be singular, it would be constructive if people stopped edit warring over it and discussed, though. - filelakeshoe 10:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please compare 2012 Tulsa shootings. Mephtalk 10:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, please don't move articles by copying and pasting content. Mephtalk 10:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is another article at 2012 Aurora shooting. one needs redirecting. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion Aurora shooting or Denver shooting is more accurate than shootings. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article should be 2012 Aurora shooting, and redirected this page to that one. Can we please have some agreement on this? Robofish (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Any change of title should be accomplished with a move, not with a redirect to a mostly copy/pasted version of the original. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Since there's no concensus over 'shooting' and 'shootings' among similar articles, I'd suggest deferring to whatever title was originally given when first created: [2]. Mephtalk 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The singular should be more appropriate.--Coekon (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
2012 Aurora shootings is the older article by five minutes, so let's keep it at that for now. I still think the singular title is more logical though. Robofish (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed this is main article but at wrong title. it should be shooting, but i do think it worth considering if this should be Aurora or Denver. The international media is heavily referring to this as Denver. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
But domestic media is referring as Aurora, such as CNN. In my personal opinion, the domestic media shall prevail.--Coekon (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If there's no convention let's leave it here for now - I merged over the extra section + stub cats you added from the other article, when more media usage comes out we can move it if necessary over one of the other redirects. - filelakeshoe 10:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that the plurality is accurate nomenclature. While there is a convention on WP:PLURAL for adopting the singular, it's also the case that 'shooting' denotes an instance of a shooting, rather than multiple shootings, and hence the singular fails to signify properly: [3]. Mephtalk 10:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that while the media may be using 'Denver', that's actually inaccurate - Aurora, Colorado is a separate municipality, although it is part of the broader Denver metropolitan area. Robofish (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The 2012 Aurora shootings article (which began as 2012 Denver shootings) was created 42 minutes before 2012 Aurora shooting, not five. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say that I'm glad it was moved back to shootings so quickly. Massacre is an emotive word and not appropriate here. Douglasi (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Massacre would be appropriate if that was what people were calling it (Srebrenica massacre) but otherwise, yes, I agree. - filelakeshoe 10:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
What people? The ones on wikipedia? Just 'cause CNN has it as a headline doesn't mean that it's not a sensational word. In fact, I'd argue that the fact that a major news outlet called is such means it's designed solely to attract clicks and views. It should stay shooting and be part of the canonical Spree Shooting entry.--Possum4all (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Different media organisations saying shooting.. . Daily Telegraph, BBC, CNN, Fox, Sky news, Guardian, CBS, ABC News, NBC news. The overwhelming majority of sources are saying shooting not "shootings", which implies more than one incident. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC) few more.. Reuters, AFP , MSN, AP BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we just change it to shooting and create a redirect for shootings.. ?? Wouldn't it make since to adjust it sooner then later and then we can all just stop talking about the titleMantion (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to name the article "2012 Aurora Theater Shooting" or "2012 Aurora Theater Massacre?" 75.57.176.68 (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I argued for Virginia Tech's Tragedy, and still would, that the term "massacre" is biased / loaded and shouldn't be used for spree shootings of this nature. --Possum4all (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Depends on what reliable sources say. GiantSnowman 15:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Give me a break. It's a sensational word and shouldn't be part of a reference entry here. Just as it shouldn't be part of the Virginia Tech title. --Possum4all (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
In this case, I'm not sure how "tragedy" is any better than using "massacre." But I have taken care of major alternate titles by creating the following redirects: Colorado theater massacre, Colorado theater shooting, Aurora, Colorado theater massacre and Aurora, Colorado theater shooting. It took me several minutes to find this article under its current title -- 2012 Aurora shooting. And although it should have dawned on me that it was using such a title given my experience with the 2011 Tucson shooting article, I had to click on Aurora, Colorado to find this article. So these redirects should help the majority of our readers who will be searching this case under one of its more WP:COMMONAMES. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe a clearer fuller wording for the article name would be "2012 Aurora shooting massacre" rather than just "shooting" because "shooting" alone doesn't make clear enough that it was not just a simple one or two gunshot shooting. But massive. Just my opinion. the name of article should be enhanced a bit. Per logic and facts, and thoroughness and clarity. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that the articles for Virginia Tech and Columbine High School tragedies are labelled "massacres" in their titles, and that the Aurora tragedy has been confirmed as the largest mass shooting in American history in terms of total number of victims (wounded and killed), would it not be most appropriate to title this article "2012 Aurora Massacre" or something similar using the word "massacre" instead of "shooting"? Is there some magic number in which something goes from being a "shooting" to a "massacre"? 70 people were shot in this tragedy, 12 of whom have died. I'd say that qualifies as a "massacre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.44.248 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Batman movie massacre

Some news sources are referring this event to the Batman Movie Shooting or Batman Movie Massacre. We, in Wikipedia, should not make up our own name. That is original research and prohibited. Auchansa (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. MahdiTheGuidedOne (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The keyword there is "some". — Moe ε 20:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think as the story progresses the preferred media title will change and eventually settle on some variation of the Batman lore. It will end up being called universally the "Batman Massacre" or "Joker Massacre". Something like one of those. I think the title of this article should change to reflect that instead of giving a more technical name. In either case the article should have redirects coming in for those various titles. Additionally James Holmes should be listed under the "Joker" disambiguation. I'm guessing he will likely get his own article soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.239.68.236 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because the media stylizes the name in order to get better ratings does not mean it is original research to give it a technical name. The current name follows Wikipedia's standards of naming conventions in the few days and weeks after an event before a broad consensus by authoritative organizations has determined a name. It is very possible that in a few months it will only be called one thing, but that day has not yet come. In the meantime, we will redirect all of the stylized names to this article so people can find it. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 10:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Resemblance to Bane?

Is it important to note that the gas mask resembles the main antagonist of the film? SwimFellow (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we need to keep speculation out of Wikipedia. --Petercorless (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Source it and include it, or don't source it and don't. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to find some reliable sources on the resemblance. -- Luke (Talk) 16:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I heard Matt Lauer say something about it, but it's a stretch. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is a comment by one of the moviegoers. "Holmes was caught by police in the parking lot of the movie theater shortly after the shooting still dressed in his riot gear, an outfit eerily similar to a villain in "The Dark Knight Rises." I am not sure that's enough to say it's ok yet. Jhenderson 777 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The only phrasings I can think of to put that in run afoul of WP:WEASEL, I think. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I would agree to not put that either. It sounds like speculation. BTW haven't any of you guys heard of the news that guy supposedly claimed he was the Joker? Jhenderson 777 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems more like an opinion, that he resembled bane even from the link cited above. I'm assuming he was wearing a gas mask, since it was reported he threw in a gas cansiter of some sort. The article already mentions "He appeared to be wearing a costume" which doesn't appear in a lot of sources I saw. Theo10011 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Even if sourced, I think it's a stretch. We are supposed to use judgement. Use gas: use a gas mask! Are we supposed to link Sherlock or Mycroft Holmes because of the perp's last name? Sure, Holmes might have been under pressure because Sherlock (fictional) and Mycroft (f) are both geniouses, do we decide James has an inferiority complex because of the fictional Holmes's? OR much? Laguna CA (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, SPOILERS! Thanks a lot! 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rampage by Uwe Boll

I don't want to indicate anything, and admittedly this can be a mere coincidence, but Holmes' outfit, as it is described by the media, reminds me of the one worn by Bill Williamson in Uwe Boll's Rampage, especially because gas masks and helmets, other than bulletproof vests, are rarely parts of a rampage killers equipment. Also, this is the second such incident that is more or less connected to a Batman movie, even though in the other case, the Dendermonde nursery attack, this connection has proven to be unfounded. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC))

I see what you mean, but until reliable sources confirm any inspiration / even mention the conncection, neither should we. GiantSnowman 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Lord G that the other incident (Dendermonde nursery attack) should at least be briefly mentioned on this page. The possible relation to The Dark Knight film is mentioned on THAT wikipedia page, proving that it is notable enough to be included on the wikipedia site. So, why shouldn't it be mentioned on the Aurora page? Just because it occurred in another country and had a lower death toll and less notoriety, doesn't mean it isn't important. It reflects the possible psychiatric aftermaths of such films and will add to the heated debates about violence in pop culture that will most likely follow in the coming days. (Side note: It's sad how callous people can be unless something happens in their own backyard.) Writerchic99 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Enough of the spoilers, please, even if they're spoilers of other movies. 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't resolve bad refs

Hi (if that is appropriate considering the tragedy of this event),

Based on the c. 19:00 20 July news conference: Total casualties are 70 (exactly): 12 dead; 58 wounded. He did, indeed, dye his hair red or orange, and say to the police he was the Joker.

I can't make the refs work, possibly because of simultaneous edits. I. Give. Up. !. ;)

KUSA: http://www.9news.com/video/player_live_2.aspx ff, seems to be a reliable source.

Note on timing: it appears (not Original Research [OR], but obvious) that he started shooting before his ____ [I forget genre] music ended at his apartment. So (OR?) he was trying for a two-fer, demolishing his apt. building and the theater. Of course, this will depend on the result of the apt. disarming. I have my own judgements about it.

IAC, thanks to those who are more adept editors and tighter in with WikiP than I!

PS: R.I.P. PPS: "difficulty finding a job? says who?" KUSA for one. (from memory)

Laguna CA (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty finding a job came from a neighbor in SD, I believe - probably already referenced. According to the girl in the apartment beneath him, it was Techno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.22.185 (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Peacetime" shooting

The lead had the following:

...the largest number of victims of any peacetime mass shooting in the United States.[1][2][3]

Just curious about using that wording. Technically, we are still in conflicts related to Operation Enduring Freedom, with troops deployed actively all over the world, including still in Iraq, and as a consequence, do we say that this is "peacetime" or simply something like "non-military" or "civilian" or something else? -- Avanu (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I used "mass murder" when trying to flesh the lead back out. That seems more correct, and also less ambiguous. It's also what the infobox describes the incident as. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


I think the reason "peacetime" was added was because of the possible "larger shootings" while we weren't in peacetime. I think the phrase should be added back, or at the very least, it should read "largest shooting in us history" because I can't find any non war incident (a battle) larger than this. Correct me if I'm wrong. --74.235.208.74 (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wartime shootings aren't "murder", as gruesome as that is, unless it's done by someone acting contrary to international rules of warfare or whatnot. So by correctly classifying it as a "mass murder", we avoid needing to use "peacetime" at all, because it's no longer relevant. I'm not aware of any war-related mass murders in recent US history (e.g., it would have to be American soldiers murdering a bunch of civilians on their own, or whatever. Those incidents have certainly happened, but not in recent history at the scale of this one. More like shooting one or two civilians or whatever.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There was a soldier in March who killed 16 Afghans. Not in a "collateral damage" way, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
100 to 140 civilians in a wagon train were shot and killed by Mormons in "peacetime" in Utah, then a US territory, in 1858 in the Mountain Meadows massacre. How is this a "larger mass murder" or a "larger shooting?" To clarify, any hyperbole about this incident being the "biggest shooting" or "biggest mass murder" would have to rule out actual wars and cases of multiple shooters, then be clear about "most killed" or "most victims shot." Edison (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Most victims by one gunman, anyway. Would it be synthesis to assume that's what is meant? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Amusingly enough, no. It would be synthesis to not just take the source at face value (since it's reliable) without pointing to sources about the counterexamples. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The corresponding sentence is now gone from the article lead. Arided (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Gun control

Dozens of sources about Aurora and the gun control debate, and not one word in this article. Thanks for proving Wikipedia does not have a liberal bias. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Like was said on the Piers Morgan show tonight, it's too early to discuss this issue. Let people grieve before going hard on gun control. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Please check the news indexes. There are dozens of articles about Aurora and the call for and against gun control. To summarize, people are asking, why is it so easy to acquire automatic weapons, and why do we have them in the streets? Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Sources are mentioning the gun control debate and rightly so. How anyone can think an incident with an alleged legal gun owner going on a rampage doesnt justify debate on "why" he was able to get hold of those guns i do not know. It is clearly relevant now that it has been made clear it was legal firearms, had it been illegal firearms then there would be less need to mention it. Either it should be included after the mention of the fact it was legal firearms, or it should be in the reaction section for now. Such a terrible tragedy which could have likely been prevented with proper legislation. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it should definitely be noted that he was using legal firearms. They can be wikilinked to what legal firearms are, in the US. Again (echoing my own message below), there's no need to bring up the gun control debate in the article, other than perhaps a brief bit on the reaction...because it's not relevant to the shooting, other than surmising on things like "what if he couldn't have bought guns?", and it's not our place to do that. I'm too tired to find the sources that note he had legal guns, so feel free to stick it in. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think it might be appropriate to comment on this in the "reactions" section in a general sense; e.g., just noting the general messages of both pro and anti-gun groups. The gun control issues you bring up mostly don't belong in the article, though. There are many articles on gun control. If this incident leads to some sort of gun control changes, then it's certainly relevant...but for now, it's just people discussing the incident. That's not really encyclopedic, past a brief mention. It appears he got his guns legally, but if that changes that would be appropriate to include as well, I imagine. I think it's actually nice that gun control hasn't really come up and dragged politics into the article, and it reads relatively neutrally. Politics simply don't belong in this article, as it hasn't had any real political impact (yet, but we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL), nor have any political motivations been ascribed to the attack. (Signed, a liberal who likes nice, neutral, non-partisan factual articles.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In most of the world gun control isn't a political issue. That it happens to be in America shouldn't prevent the issue being mentioned in the article. This is a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The question isn't whether or not it's a political issue in the US. It's whether or not it's relevant to the shooting incident. I don't see how it really is, other than that both pro and anti-gun folks have spoken out after the incident. Their comments can be noted in the reactions section as I suggested. If the shooting does end up with a political connection to gun control, then it's relevant. Otherwise, I don't think it's relevant to do much more than wikilink to what US gun laws are and things like that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Clearly legislation (or lack of) that allowed the guy to obtain legal firearms that then were used to commit a crime is relevant. But id accept a mention of legal firearms in the appropriate section and then simply a sentence or two about debate, including possibly criticism of lack of gun laws followed by statement by the NRA, or just its led to some debate in the media. But at present the article doesnt even say it was legal firearms last time i checked. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Like I said above...please do add in the bit about the firearms being legal; I agree that belongs in the article. I'm going to sleep now though, rather than finding sources. :) (Existing sources probably cover it, but I'm not sure.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas - There were no automatic weapons involved. Every weapon was semiautomatic. Automatic weapons are not easy to obtain. BritishWatcher - The weapons, although they may have been procured legally, were in the movie theater illegally. Public places such as that are designated "Gun free" zones by statue is most places, for the general wellbeing of all. My question is, what if it weren't a "gun free" zone. What if it were a place where people who legally can carry a concealed weapon could carry it. That person could have taken this man down well before he managed to kill half as many as he did. Two days before, in Florida, a 70-something year old man shot armed robbers as they attempted to rob the internet cafe he was at. Why is there no big news about that? Because it's someone using their constitutional right to defend themselves. In this case, one bad apple uses legally bought firearms, and everyone wants to take them away from the average citizen. Why? If anything, I say allow people to carry in MORE places. It might have made this guy think twice if he could have possibly been going up against armed people instead of helpless unarmed people. --Fbifriday (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I was referring to assault weapons but typed automatic by mistake. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Viriditas Assault weapons are automatic weapons. Specifically a weapon that is designed to fire more than 1 round of ammunition with a single actuation of the trigger. He used Semi-Automatic weapons, not Assault or Automatic weapons. Meaning he had to release the trigger after every shot to reset it and pull it again. Hence for every trigger pull he is culpable for attempted murder regardless of the number of people he actually shot. Please do not confuse the issue with a buzz word or jargon, use the correct nomenclature. Mark l anderson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not true. Assault weapons were legally defined in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and included semi-automatic weapons under this definition. In California, for example, the AR-15 assault rifle used in this shooting is still classified as an assault weapon.[4][5] Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The Federal Assault Weapons ban has expired and is no longer the law of the land. And since when does California Law take precedence in Colorado? Or Missouri? Or Arkansas? It doesn't. Just because one state attempts to identify something as what it is not, does not mean you can use a broad brush everywhere. In Texas a Vibrator or Dildo used to be banned as obscene, so should it's definition be used in California? Under the Laws of Colorado there is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon" Local cities, towns and municipalities have enacted their own ordinances, which have been modified by the courts, but the state Legislature has not enacted any laws restricting or identifying "Assault Weapons" There is a ban on magazines with higher than 20 round capacity, which the shooter had and used. Please do not pick and choose laws or terms that do not apply to the incident at hand. Mark l anderson (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Your response is so predictable, I could have written it myself and signed it with your own name. The point that you keep missing is that the it is the very status of the availability of guns classified as "assault weapons" that is under discussion in relation to the Aurora shooting. You've admitted that the AR-15 assault rifle that was used in the shooting has been and continues to be classified as an assault weapon. The question under discussion by the sources is 1) why is it available to purchase in Colorado and 2) is a new assault ban needed to prevent further shootings. I am not picking and choosing terms that don't apply, I'm directly quoting the sources. There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees the right to own assault weapons. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you. I will just ask this. "What is the actual legal definition of an 'Assault Weapon'?" And please cite your response. Mark l anderson (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think turning this into a debate on whether concealed (or even open) carry should be an easy thing or not is a good idea. Or turning it into a gun control debate in general. Arguing whether we should cover gun control in the article is fine...anything else is going to turn into a mess. This is a Wikipedia talk page, not a political forum... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The key point is not how they were produced or where they were taken, it is that they were obtained legally. that is absolutely notable for this article, and im afraid to say its the reason this incident was able to take place. The article must mention it was legal firearms, if that includes simply a few words like "leading to some debate in the media on gun control". or if there are a couple of sentences in the reaction section. Either way both things need mentioning. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It was able to take place because a crazy man was crazy. Even in nations where the laws would have prevented this, there are still acts of mass violence. You are correct in saying that we need to follow what the sources say, but as always, context matters for whether a source is "reliable" or not per Wikipedia policy. If we introduce the issue of gun control into the article, what sources does that make "more reliable" (aka more 'in context') for that subject? I guess the point is, for each topic you add into an article, you add potential sources for that topic that might be relevant in context. Major media tends to gloss over and sensationalize issues without truly digging into the details. Less well known media stays relevant to readers by being a better source of information. -- Avanu (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It was able to happen because that man had guns.. guns obtained legally. As for sources, look there are tons of articles that reference the gun debate, Wall Street Journal, CNN, San Francisco Chronicle , Huffington Post, MSNBC,CBS news LA Times BBC News... and a lot more. It is clear there is "gun control debate in the wake of this incident, and the article should reflect that. Im not saying the article should take sides or go into extensive debate. Simply a 1 line saying he owned the guns legally, and this has renewed debate in the media about gun control would be enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The Talk Pages are not a Forum nor for Soapboxing - please keep personal opinions off here and only discuss what the Reliable Sources say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 09:21, 21 July, 2012 (UTC)
We are, genius. Have you looked at the sources? Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I have, o non-civil one. The comment I was referring to was above mine and has been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 July, 2012 (UTC)
I added in a bit on him purchasing them legally, since there seems to be consensus that should be there...I don't think I've seen one person suggest it's not. Seems silly to keep arguing that point when most people appear to agree it should be in there! (And it is factually important whether he had the guns legally or not, irrespective of any gun control issues.) Article could still use a short blurb about gun control issues in reactions. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We have to be aware of one major thing

Well, two major things.

One, the eyes of the world are upon Aurora right now, and people will come here for updates. This is the worst spree shooting in the history of the US. Not the deadliest, but worst in terms of overall injured, with 70 greatly out-pacing other recent mass shootings, like Virginia Tech and Columbine. Only the Bath Schoolhouse Disaster has more casualties, but that was not a shooting.

Two, this is a unique circumstance in the history of US spree shooters in that the suspect is still living. Thus, the police are going to be very stingy with details due to the trial that is certain to come. The chief of the Aurora PD has made it very clear that even if he knew things people want to know, like motive, he wouldn't release them, due to the ongoing investigation. Therefore, we have to be aware that this page is going to remain very empty while the police do their investigation. This is fine. We shouldn't find the need to add more and more info into the article just so it doesn't feel so darn short and lacking important info. I see many people talking about adding frivolous information in just so it can have more substance. This is the wrong way to go about it, as it clouds the article. Let's just let the major facts come out in the case. Go to Aurora's official website and look at their Media Updates page, they've got all the information they've managed to confirm there. But we shouldn't be trying to add stuff just to add it. Don't get edit-happy with stuff. Just form consensus, let the facts come in as they will, and go from there. And from this, we can become the clearinghouse for any information regarding the tragedy. But we've gotta stick to facts. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This article will be handled like all current events Wiki articles, Fbifriday. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Three, NO MOVIE SPOILERS please. Surely we can all agree on that. 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless actually relevant (like if there's some aspect that's being copycatted), fine. Movie spoilers can go in the usual place - the article about the movie. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Auroragov.org material to add to article

I found a lot of good material on the city's official page for the shooting, which we don't have any refs or links to, so I'm not sure how thoroughly editors have looked at those updates. They're here: [6] There's a ton of good information that can be used to improve the article. E.g., they have more information on his court appearance, weapons, his apartment setup, etc, than we already have...I'm done editing for today, but other editors may want to take a look and update the article as appropriate. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Creating a page for James Holmes

The relevant section is WP:BIO1E The guy is a major player in a notable event; already high profile and likely to remain so. We should have a page on him. The specific guideline is "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Ajoykt (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, there is relatively little known about Holmes. It can be addressed within the incident article, with a redirect from his name page. As investigations continue, and issues such as motive and mental state start to emerge, then there may be a case for a separate article. For now, it would just be a subset of the incident article. WWGB (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Luka Magnotta had the opposite discussion, buried in archives now. Even a split did not reach consensus I don't think. As long as redirects get readers to all the info we have does it really matter?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
There is already a section reguarding this here: Talk:2012 Aurora shooting#James Eagan Holmes article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is we can't add info on the guy here because of a lack of relevance (even his parents' names were taken out here). With a separate article that isn't a problem. Articles do start out as stubs; that isn't unusual for WP. What is the case against a separate article? WP:BLP doesn't cut it. Ajoykt (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should avoid forking this and move discussion to the section above.

Unresolved

but moved above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why?

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why did he shoot all those people is the nagging question. Was he dumped by his girlfriend? Did he have a girlfriend? Was he gay? Was he manic depressive? Was he on medications? Was he taking methamphetamines to stay up late studying? Had he been seeing a counselor/psychiatrist? What was his homelife like? What were his economic circumstances? He certainly had thousands of dollars to buy guns and ammo. Why did his schoolwork suddenly take a nosedive? (You just don't become dumb overnight.) This is a rare instance of a shooter being captured alive and I think the WHY of it should be the most prominent feature of this article. We all want to know why guys go on shooting sprees. Is feminism a root cause? We have to examine the socio-political context within which the shooting occurred, and a nation that disenfranchises and denigrates males seems to be a prime ground for males to go on shooting sprees. These shooting massacres are happening quite regularly and they seem to be the exclusive province of males. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:907F:E8E4:23F7:2B4E (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Moreover, any information pertaining to motive will likely come though official sources; don't expect much during the ongoing investigation. --Cheesemeister (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all, it's ludicrous to refer to the United States as a "nation that disenfranchises and denigrates males"....in what way? Second of all, he wasn't gay; a number of articles have discussed the profile he put up on Adult FriendFinder, in which he clearly identifies himself as heterosexual (albeit interested in threesomes). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the sociological environment in which males find themselves in this country is important, after all, we're seeing an awful lot of these mass shootings, almost all perpetrated by males. So here's some data: 60% of all college students are female, females get more PhD's, M.A.'s and B.A.s than males; boys are six times more likely than girls to have learning difficulties; 3 times more likely to be drug addicts; 4 times more likely to be emotionally disturbed; boys are 12 times more likely to murder someone; boys are 4 to 7 times as likely to commit suicide; boys comprise 95% of those involved in juvenile court; from elementary school through high school boys get lower grades than girls; males comprise 93% of the national prison population, etc., etc. I'm reading a lot of this data from "Bringing Up Boys" by Dr. James Dobson. Dobson talks about male shooting sprees on pg. 34, mentioning that there will be more, considering the data. The boys, says Dobson, when asked why they go on shooting sprees, reply "I don't know". Dr. Michael Gurian in his book "The Wonder of Boys", says that masculine confusion and discontent are especially evident in education. 91% of grade school teachers are female and 75% of teachers K-12 are female. Over 50% of American women don't have husbands and 96% of the time in a divorce the kids go with the mother. Here in California 71% of the criminals come from single mother families. Males are not represented in our society but rather are alienated. --I hope the disenfranchisement and denigration of males in this country is thus suitably outlined for you. The problem of mass shootings is not going to go away until these matters are addressed. He did not shoot these people in a vacuum. There were causative factors in our society that compelled him to shoot others. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:A90A:38CD:A92:DF34 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, please see WP:NOTFORUM. There are places to discuss the shooting and what may have caused it; this isn't one of them. This talk page is solely for discussing the article. Robofish (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Motive section

I created one. Although his motive is not known at this point, it is something being written about by reliable sources.[7] I put in a filler sentence saying his motive is not knows, with a reference. That reference actually talks about his adult friend finder thing, but I think I read somewhere on this page that we are frowning on that info. In summary, lots of sources are discussing it, they don't know much about it, it's an inevitable section, and I created it. We can expand it as info comes out, while mentioning a lack of info if it exists. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The source--Wash. Post--does talk of his PhD comprehensive exam. That is a significant event. Of course, it is hard to see how somebody the UC Riverside chancellor himself called at the "top of the top" could have failed the UCD comp. So that is likely more a result than a cause of a downward spiral, but we do need to mention it since our sources mention it. Ajoykt (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing in the lead section

I don't do wiki much anymore, but believe that WP:LEAD says that the lead/lede section should summarize the whole article. I'm attempting to do that, although my writing could use some polish. I was reverted, and it's no big deal, but maybe we should discuss it here? I think the reversion was because they thought I was being redundant, which I was, but that's actually what we want in this case. Could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I take your point. But the article is about the shooting. The body of the article, of course, would have peripheral stuff such as details of the shooter. We don't need to summarize that part in the lede. We will be getting an article on Mr. Holmes soon anyway. Ajoykt (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The lead summarizes the article, and is not controlled by the title of the article. If it's in the article, then it's summarized in the lead. That's how the lead works. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
To quote from WP:LEAD : "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." It doesn't summarize the article, but just the most important points. The biography of the shooter isn't one of the important points in this article. Ajoykt (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
What is an important point? By definition, an encyclopedic article should only discuss important points. What we have here is a 'pedic article, so the LEAD should summarize it. Reliable sources should determine what we're saying, and I think we'er doing OK on that so far. So, the question is whether any user can decide "this half of the article is important, and should be in the lead, and the other half not so much". If the article is balanced, then a summary of the whole article should also give a balanced view. Not summarizing some part would then not be balanced. Whatev. I don't edit much anymore, so I don't have the time to fight about it to the point of "winning". Just take note as a lead very similar to the one I was trying to add, gets added by others, since it's just the way we do it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't. WP:LEAD, which you've repeatedly cited, clearly indicates that "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" (emphasis added). I don't know what's led you to believe otherwise. —David Levy 05:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Names of victims emerge in Aurora, Colo., theater rampage

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-21/colorado-shooting-victim-identities/56389076/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.156.52 (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

AdultFriendFinder profile

Should this be included? The media found Holmes's AdultFriendFinder profile and published articles on it.

The Washington Post: "FBI investigating ties between James Holmes and dating site profile"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/fbi-investigating-ties-between-james-holmes-and-dating-site-profile/2012/07/21/gJQA6S8w0W_story.html

It's been confirmed as his:

http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/21/james-holmes-colorado-shooting-sex-profile-website/

It's a bit seedy, but this made news outlets, and is reportedly part of the FBI investigation. I see that there's mention in the Holmes section about a variety of online activity found, but no specific mention of the AdultFriendFinder profile page. Again, it seems to be an important piece of the investigation now. Maybe it deserves to be specially pointed out by name?

Note, Wikipedia has a page on AdultFriendFinder.

Partyclams (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this was already in the article previously, and even included a screenshot of Holmes' profile page. It was removed per consensus. You can find the conversations above. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 06:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I skimmed this page, but it's just so long. I should have done a Find first in Google Chrome. Again, thanks for the reply! Partyclams (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone stuck this stuff back in the article! HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be notable by this point. It has been confirmed by AFF itself that it is in fact Holmes' profile (IP address and such). Since there are now large numbers of mainstream sources talking about it, I'm not going to remove it. Of course, it is open for discussion. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 13:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Glock 23

the ".40 caliber Glock" is listed as a Glock 23, with a reference cited showing an ad for a .40 S&W G23. It hasn't been confirmed yet which Glock was used in the shooting, and it could have been the Glock 22, 23, or 27. Please remove it until it is specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.231.176 (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you appear to be right. I will look for other sources on the subject. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 07:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I have generalized the sentence in the article until a better source can be presented. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 07:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I meant to sign the above edit but forgot! Oops! 98.228.231.176 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I read that his AR15 jammed. Apparently he didn't know too much about guns, the AR15 jams because the gas pressure is too strong ever since they changed the gunpowder in the Vietnam War and the extractor claw sheers through the lip of the shell, leaving it in the chamber. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:A90A:38CD:A92:DF34 (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
That's just one reason for jamming. That his jammed is not yet firmly established, let alone the reason for it doing so (e.g., use of a high-capacity 3rd-party magazine, initially described as having a capacity of 90 rounds but now described as having a 100 round capacity [8] rounds). JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Age of suspect in lead section

This was removed, with the edit summary "redundant mentioned in bio". Just because it is mentioned later on does not mean that it should not be mentioned in the lead section. Jared Lee Loughner's age at the time of the shooting (22) is given in the lead of 2011 Tucson shooting, and it would be useful to have it here as well.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that we are writing an enduring encyclopedia, it would have to be "then 24" or "24 at the time", or give his d.o.b.. But I agree that some type of age marker is helpful to reader's understanding. WWGB (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I was somewhat puzzled by your previous revert on this, as Holmes is and will always be 24 years old at the time of his arrest. This has never been an issue at 2011 Tucson shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

better re-protect the article

Already they've stuck the AFF stuff back in and other issues. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I don't see enough nonconstructive IP activity that would justify requesting a semi-protect. If it gets bad enough, we can request one later, but right now I don't think a semi-protect is at all needed. Safiel (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rampage killing

Independent of the earlier discussion of the WP:BLP issue, the use of the term "rampage killing" in the Victims section appears imprecise and perhaps inaccurate. If you click on rampage killing you'll see that it is a redirect to the"Spree killer" article, where it says "spree killing" is a legal term of art that 'U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics defines as "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders"'; that doesn't apply. The current version of the article notes—without citation—that "another term, rampage killer, has sometimes been used to describe spree killers, but it does not differentiate between mass murderers and spree killers." A rampage killing is not listed in the {{homicide}} template either. There's a psychiatric term of art—Running amok—which might be applicable.

Like any editor I enjoy contributing to lists, but the definition of rampage killing at List of rampage killers is unreferenced. For the time being, it should simply be called a mass murder. 67.100.127.233 (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Youngest victim

The youngest victim reported was a 6-year-old being treated at Children's Hospital Colorado...

Many credible reports describe a baby being shot and killed at point blank range.Mantion (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just reported by 9NEWS the youngest victim is 3 months old at Universal Medical Center 5:16. Information is on http://www.9news.com/news/article/278707/71/1-in-custody-14-dead-in-Aurora-theater-shooting "University Hospital confirmed to 9NEWS the youngest patient they have in their care is 3 months old. That baby's condition is unknown at this time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.128.164.55 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

YesY Done --wL<speak·check> 11:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Says 6 years old on that link now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.95.43 (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is the youngest death, not the youngest injured. WWGB (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUM but, What kind of idiot brings a 3 month old to a midnight showing of an R rated movie with craploads of violence and lound noises that will just make them cry and annoy everyone else? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate comment, I suggest you retract it. GiantSnowman 14:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
We can redact such comments from talk pages, but im inclined to leave it here. Its also possible, of course, that reliable sources, or the public, will express such sentiments, so watching for that and discussing adding it to the article is appropriate (though unlikely)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. Tragic either way, but what are the parents doing keeping their baby up at midnight to watch a loud, violent movie? Frankjohnson123 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Gaijin, the movie, despite the intense violence, was rated PG-13 by the MPAA, but still the above question is appropriate. — Glenn L (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Brian Williams asked almost that exact question ... substitute "parent" for "idiot."TjoeC (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"an R rated movie with craploads of violence and lound [sic] noises"? Thanks for the spoiler. NOT! Let's keep this talk page clear of movie spoilers, please. 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Colorado Movie Theater Shooting: 71 Victims the Largest Shooting in United Staes History". ABC News. Retrieved July, 20, 2012.
  2. ^ "Colorado Theater Shooting: New Updates About James Holmes". Travelers Today. Retrieved July 20, 2012.
  3. ^ "Obama Notably Silent on Gun Control After Mass Shootings". ABC News. Retrieved July 20, 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Aurora_theater_shooting/Archive_2&oldid=1206946478"