Wikipedia

Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting/Archive 7

< Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting
(Redirected from Talk:2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting/Archive 7)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Coolcaesar in topic Similar incidents
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Article Protection

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Use WP:UTRS to contest a block rather than evading it.

Considering the only vandal here is VQuakr, did this user himself protect the article? If so his privileges should be removed. A motive section has been under discussion for quite some time. James Eagan Holmes is still alive as well.. 209.140.44.56 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have been through all this before. The edits have problems with WP:DUE and WP:REDFLAG. There is no reliable evidence that more than one shooter was involved, and the MKUltra stuff is way off base unless it has received significant mainstream coverage. As for the motive, while Holmes undoubtedly had mental problems, a jury found that he was sane enough to understand what he was doing at the time. This is why he was found guilty of first degree murder; the jury did not accept that his judgement was impaired to the point of legal insanity.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Per Dred Scott v. Sandford & Shooting of Michael Brown, documenting all relevant discussion not necessarily agreeing with court cases is worthwhile. The mkultra conspiracy bit is, admittedly, a bit WP:Fringe, but WP:Due doesn't come into play at all for the rest as significant adherents are named to avoid WP:Redflag. Jeh4u (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC) @InedibleHulk:
How do I figure into this web of half-truths? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
We are writing about the case in 2016, not 2012. As far as a jury was concerned, Holmes was the sole shooter and was sane enough to understand his actions. Cobbling together sources which attempt to contradict this is wrong for a range of reasons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

One thing that stuck out to me in the article is this sentence "According to two federal officials, he had dyed his hair red and called himself "the Joker", although authorities later declined to confirm this.[29][30]" yet later in the article it states that police had found a Batman mask. This leads me to believe that he did call himself the joker but for some reason the authorities just didn't want to say this? Other articles don't even mention this about claim so randomly but it leads me to believe this was just a random piece of information thrown into the wiki? Even the placement is a bit random but seriously why even add the statement of his hair being false but then adding the fact they found the mask? it just feels a bit off since it leads me to believe he might have wanted himself to be seen as the joker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.248 (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"About 12 people were killed..."

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"About 12 people were killed and 70 others were injured..." Poor word choice here. People are either dead or alive, so there should be no "about" in regards to the number of people killed. Please review. Shan31 (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)st-112916

Agreed and fixed. The 12 dead is a firm figure, and the 70 injured is an approximate figure.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC at Smith & Wesson M&P15

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15# Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use. Should the 2012 Aurora shooting be mentioned in that article? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 Aurora shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

BBC News article - July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Quite a few photos and a lot of info in this BBC News feature. Could be used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 Aurora shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

most casualties up to then?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

IT is insane that everyone wants to ignore the 2009 Binghamton ACA shooting that killed 13 (one more than Holmes). Possibly because they were immigrants, so they don't count? Either way, the line about this being the shooting with the most casualties until Orlando and Las Vegas surpassed is wrong. Not to mention, it isn't even as if the Binghamton one was the most. So I don't know where this came from at all. 24.94.59.120 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Binghamton shootings says that Wong killed 14 and injured 4. The Aurora shooting is notable for the large number of non-fatal injuries; the deadliest was the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting which left 32 dead until Orlando and Las Vegas. There is a list here. The use of the word "casualty" has been discussed previously. It isn't intended to say that this was the deadliest mass shooting, because it wasn't. However, a large number of people were injured but not killed in the Aurora shooting. It's true that the Binghamton shootings have faded from the public memory, but they are not ignored on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

24 convictions of first-degree murder

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Holmes' guilt is well established in the article, in his trial and documented in extensive media coverage. What I don't quite get is how 12 murders equals 24 convictions for first-degree murder. (2 for each murder) As I (and many other editors, presumably) am not a lawyer, can someone please better explain this in Laymans terms in the article? Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It's explained here in the Denver Post: "For each of the 12 slain victims and the 70 wounded victims, Holmes was found guilty of two counts. One count alleged first-degree murder or attempted murder after deliberation. The other alleged first-degree murder or attempted murder with extreme indifference." It's baffling for a layman, but the prosecution seems to have been hedging its bets, possibly due to controversy over Holmes's mental state at the time of the killings.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago22 comments17 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shooting → 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting – To avoid confusion with Aurora, Illinois shooting and harmonize with 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 01:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Specifying the type of establishment in which each shooting took place - rather than the state or year - would be clear (providing that no other mass shooting takes place in a restaurant, cinema or factory in any Aurora). However, I'd say that it's more relevant that this month's shooting took place in Illinois than that it happened in a factory. Jim Michael (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All these Aurora shootings should use the following KISS format and disambiguate by year only: YEAR Aurora shooting. So this one at 2012 Aurora shooting is already fine. --В²C ☎ 01:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Shibbolethink, the format implied by the proposed title (year, city, state shooting) would fail in that very unlikely case too. Besides, we don’t choose conventions based on highly unlikely cases for which we have no actual examples in the domain in question. Generally, WP avoids unnecessary disambiguation such is proposed here. —В²C ☎ 06:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. It's clear that using the form "[Year] Aurora shooting" for shootings that occurred in two entirely different Auroras fails precision and recognizability. Adding the state is an easy and logical fix, and consistent with the pattern of our article titles for Aurora, Illinois and Aurora, Colorado. It should be applied to all three Aurora shooting articles. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move earlier 5 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn/snow by nom. Will follow up with the good suggestion of an altrernative way to fix the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


– These states offset by a comma without a matching comma after are against the advice of essentially all English grammar, style, and usage guides; so let's add the commas. Without prejudice against other name changes that some may still wish to revisit at some point. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose at least for Aurora, Illinois, shooting. The proposed title, three words separated by two commas, looks bizarre and reminds me of Rock, paper, scissors or Veni, vidi, vici. It's meant to be an article title, not a multiple choice test. Surely a case for WP:IAR. WWGB (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    I could agree if you suggested Aurora Illinois shooting, but it's imparsible with the one unbalanced comma. Dicklyon (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WWGB. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose—styleguides vary. Me, I really don't like the bumpety-bump. I'd rather have no commas. One comma, I suppose, is better than two. Tony (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and WP:SNOW. -- Netoholic @ 10:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to "2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado", etc., and just avoid the dispute, at no cost but a sliver of concision. Otherwise, use both commas. Or have a consensus discussion at WT:MOS to change MOS:COMMA to have a narrowly circumscribed exception (with some kind of actual rationale beyond "I [don't] like it"), or this will keep coming up. As I pointed out elsewhere, "Aurora, Illinois shooting" (one comma) is rather gibberish to anyone who hasn't memorized all the US states and remembered that they're states (or other regions) and not something else like cities or lakes or something. Why would someone from, say, Zimbabwe or Singapore have a US gazetteer in their heads? How many Americans know, without looking it up, wither Ayr is a town, a large area, or both, and whether it's in Scotland, England, Wales, or Ireland? Especially given the frequency with Aurora is a person's name, the one-comma version looks rather like an "Alita, Battle Angel", or "Bond, licensed to kill" sort of construction. No punctuation pattern is going to look lovely in every imaginable construction, but if all else fails we should stick with what makes the most sense semantically and what is most consistent with the rest of our comma usage, which is going to be "Aurora, Illinois, shooting" on both counts. Here, all else does not fail; WP:CONCISE is arguably the least important of the WP:CRITERIA and one that we sacrifice for clarity all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't get the grammar argument at all. In titles like these, most forms of grammar don't apply and it's entirely about convention. In this case, I either think it should remain as is or change to 2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 5 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago32 comments17 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. A broader discussion may be required, as this format is in use in many articles. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv🍁 05:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

– Agreeing with Tony in prev RM that too many commas makes it "bumpy", and following up SMcCandlish suggestion endorsed by several there, as a better way to avoid the ungrammatical mismatched-comma problem. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support- I think this is a much more palatable and easy to read title and should, imo, become standard for similar articles. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks much better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - firstly, we have many, many other articles about shootings in the current format, so I don't know why we're limiting this to only these three. That makes them not WP:CONSISTENT. Also, overall, I think we're straying from WP:COMMONNAME principles. If I look up "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting" or "2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado", what comes back is more often like "Aurora, Colorado theater shooting". The 1993 event comes back as "Aurora, Colorado Chuck E. Cheese shooting". "Aurora, Illinois shooting" is common for that one. I think we've had so many recent page moves around these three events that its somewhat getting burned out. I'd say take this to a discussion elsewhere, figure out if we want to move all shootings to the proposed format, or if we want to use more commonname styles. We need a standard that all these articles can follow, not just these 3. -- Netoholic @ 14:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Note that the majority of these articles do not appear to include a state name. It's that which makes the current construction look weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I think "look weird" thing was brought up in one of the other RMs, and it seems like that's a regional thing. U.S.-based or -focused editors don't see the titles as weird at all for the City, State construction. I have complaints, but that aspect isn't one. -- Netoholic @ 22:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        • What "looks weird" is the unbalanced comma. It looks like "Colorado shooting" is in apposition to "Aurora". There is no sense in which this title can be correctly parsed in English. Adding a second comma would fix it, but that has its own awkwardness. See my elaboration below. Dicklyon (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it seems to be a regional thing. For U.S.-based editors, the current titles would seem perfectly fine. Americans tend to think of the "XCity, YState" format as a full name, and not as a grammatical qualifier or explanation (contrary to MOS:GEOCOMMA). Not sure what to do. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The WP:CRITERIA are listed in priority order. WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY are at the bottom for a reason, and we regularly drop them when WP:PRECISION is enhanced by doing so. If doing it in this case improves precision, then it's a good bet that it will do so in other cases. That is, we should be examining more articles for moving to names like those proposed here. WP isn't bound by past precedent, remember. CONSISTENCY can thus (and often does) move in the direction of a new decision, not an old one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    Well, if we follow this line of thought, then WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:NATURALNESS are the top considerations. Avoiding the use of "theatre" or "Chuck E. Cheese" in the titles fails to add recognizability, and using the year is not the natural way people use to search for these events. -- Netoholic @ 22:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    Google's search algorithms don't care about which comes first, they care about the "context" words. To scrawling PageRank bots and Relevancy bots, these two titles we're suggesting are essentially equivalent.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    Also, the articles you just linked place an emphasis on "how a thing is described in English." So why don't we take a look at how other people have described the events in WP:RS? Here are a ton of prominent WP:RS examples of "BLANK Shooting in BLANK PLACE."--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    Um, "fails to add recognizability" isn't a concept we employ.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Netoholic. Dohn joe (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A look at Mass shootings in the United States shows that the standard form for shooting articles is <Place> shooting or <Year> <Place> shooting. We need to be consistent. WWGB (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
So why don't we become the change we want to see in the world? --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

So how can we fix this?

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

At the beginning of March, the article was moved to a title with a punctuation error: one-sided comma offset of a state name, contrary to all English grammar and style guides. Several attempts to fix it have gone down without consensus, though there's a least a clear majority in favor of fixing it. There was a claim that this format is common, but I don't find any other shootings with this problem (we already fixed a few by removing unneeded states, or reordering to avoid the need for a second comma, or adding the second comma). If there are others like this for things other than shootings, I wouldn't be surprised, but I haven't found them. Anyway, the current title is absurd, and though a majority supported my latest attempt at a fix, that was not considered enough. Any suggestions? Closer suggests a larger discussion; does anyone want to suggest a good place or scope for that? Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not find the current titles in error nor absurd. They just look better than the two-comma alternatives. I suspect many other editors agree with me, which is why consensus cannot be achieved. The one-comma model has worked perfectly well in other attack articles, including Sandy, Utah attack, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting, St. Cloud, Minnesota mall stabbing, Crandon, Wisconsin shooting and 2003 Abbeville, South Carolina right-of-way standoff.
A title like 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting is perfectly clear and unambiguous: a shooting took place in 2012, in Aurora, in the state of Colorado. Insistence on a second comma is just pedantic, and does not improve readability or understanding. Just IAR. WWGB (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I do understand that some editors find conforming to standard grammar rules "pedantic", and like the looks of the version with the comma error. That's why I suggested fixing it in a way that avoids the whole comma mismatch problem, which offends those other editors who don't think grammatical errors to make a title "look better" are a good idea. Can't we accept one of those alternatives, like the majority suggested in the latest RM discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I take it you like this unmatched comma pattern so much that you want to use it even when state disambiguators are not needed. Why will you not just let those be fixed? Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The one-comma examples I listed above have existed without confusion for a considerable time (more than a decade in some cases). You are only seeking to vary them now because I pointed them out to you. WWGB (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Nobody said anything about confusion. It's a simple grammar error, worth fixing or avoiding one way or another. Why would you prefer to keep the unnecessary disambiguators that invite the errors? Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Content added by 67.184.212.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵💸 02:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

Many mainstream sources are noted. Should not prioritize some sources and ignore others 172.58.230.156 (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, text along these lines has been added and removed quite a few times in the past. One of the problems is WP:DUE, because the court accepted in 2015 that Holmes was the only person responsible. Many of the conspiracy theories are based on media coverage from 2012 immediately after the shooting, and things have moved on since then.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Sources are well cited. DisuseKid was the primary proponent of deletion and he is an accused sockpuppeter. Many arguments were made on both sides but mkultra has become more common. A little ridiculous how Hardball with Chris Matthews' program's so dismissed by people who typically worship that sort of PC / MSNBC drivel 172.58.227.225 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
What worries me here is using sources that are all from 2012. Template:Current says "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information." This is common with mass shootings, as the first 48 hours after the incident often have all sorts of claims being made that are subsequently disproved. As things stand, Holmes was the only person found to be responsible for the incident in a court of law. Per WP:REDFLAG, there would need to be more up to date sourcing that there was some sort of conspiracy. I'm also worried that this looks like a resurrection of material that was previously rejected for addition.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm with Ianmacm here. Please don't re-add the material. At most a small paragraph is needed, using only high quality sources. I think the fact that police were originally looking for possible multiple shooters (as is common) is relevant, but that can be added under "police response" just before the statement from the police chief that he was (now) confident the shooter acted alone. Hydromania (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about the age of many of the sources and don't think that they're reliable after this much time has passed without further support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, Wikipedia's better today than when those adds were rejected. Secondly, has anyone here ever fought for something they truly believe in? The prevalence of mkultra lobbed at me literally dozens of times daily, and I'm really serious here, is alarming. Which do you consider "high quality" sources? 172.58.187.255 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC) @Hydromania:
I was going to give a thought-out, well-composed response. Then I realized you basically just said we're mind controlled by the government. OK. (if you meant something else with "mkultra" please enlighten me.) Hydromania (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Forget about my reality for a second - it's more bizarre than anything I could ever make up.. Holmes' whole defense was based on insanity. Either internally or externally, he was definitely not right in the head at the time of the shooting. Presented as a well sourced theory, I think an mkultra plausible explanation is reasonable. The guy was found sitting at his car less than 20 yards away from the site mumbling - the most likely explanation's that an external source made him go loco.. 172.58.227.184 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
You said two things above that don't connect. Mind control and plausible. Occam's Razor doesn't even allow that theory as a possibility as it's never been scientifically proven. The most likely explanation is that his insanity didn't allow him to plan for anything after enacting his murderous fantasy; possibly because the voices in his head that were telling him what to do had gone silent. (I do not know if he's been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic or not, but it seems possible.)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Leave it out. Don't care in the least about the IP's reality. I care about WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:WEASEL. "It has been suggested that Holmes committed the shootings under the influence of CIA mind control and was an unwitting participant in the MKUltra CIA mind-control experiments." Suggested by whom? When? The program ended decades ago. The next sentence has a source (now dead), but so what if he took a prescription drug? Meters (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, we don't need fringe/looney theories in Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
There was some disagreement among psychiatrists about Holmes' mental state. He was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder but the court ruled that he was sane enough to understand what he was doing, which would have required a considerable amount of forward planning. Anything involving Project MKUltra is well into WP:REDFLAG territory, and should not be mentioned simply because someone claimed/believed that it had happened.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to covering the medical issues, which I believe are adequately discussed in the article already. Meters (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Similar incidents

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Re this edit: I think this material was previously removed because it had problems like WP:TOPIC and WP:10YT. Most of these incidents are peripheral and not directly related to the shooting. This could be removed without any great loss.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Concur. That material is clearly a tangent and should be deleted. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Aurora_theater_shooting/Archive_7&oldid=1251166050"