Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

James Eagan Holmes article

I feel that there are more than enough reliable sources t ohave this person pass the WP:GNG guidelines, I propose an article be made o nthe suspect, a mugshot is also around on the news. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To have an article about the suspect before he is formally convicted of a crime violates the Biographies of Living Persons policy, specifically WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. That article SHOULD NOT exist. Period. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To expand on that, can an administrator speed up the deletion on James Holmes (Aurora Shooting)? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesnt make sense to me. Lets look forward a year. hes not convicted yet, and we still dont have an article? My understanding of blp is we simply cannot make an unsourced statement about a living person, either in an article on the person, or an article which references them, as this does. We can have an article about a suspect in a crime, as long as the article doesnt give the impression that WE KNOW something about them thats not known outside these pages (this would include categorizing the person as a killer, etc). the relevant policy is notability, per Knowledgekid. I think we know perfectly well that we will have an article about him eventually. I would be inclined to wait until we know a bit more.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Too bad. The rules of BLP, firstly, say that no one is notable for one event. Period. Secondly, no one is notable for a crime they have not been proven guilty of in the court of law. Read the links I gave above. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:BLP1E (BLP 1 Event) and WP:BIO1E (Notability 1 Event) which clearly layout situations where a person may indeed be notable for one event. Secondly, one can be notable for a crime they did not commit, and many have been. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Holmes has not been convicted, therefore he has not committed a well-known crime so, for now, he is not notable. There is no mugshot doing the rounds yet. The Aurora police chief stated explicitly at midday today that the booking photograph would not be released today. The picture of Holmes in the media shows no Joker-red hair and the suspect is not shown wearing a booking number around his neck. — O'Dea (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

These discussions are sprouting every time there is a major mass shooting, and so far it has always ended in a defeat of those arguing in favour of WP:BLP1E and against an article about the shooter. There should be examples at the talk-pages of Jared Lee Loughner, Nidal Malik Hasan, Anders Behring Breivik, and Robert Bales, or the respective talk-pages of the articles about their crimes. I think it's about time that folks here on Wikipedia reach a definite decision on how to handle cases like this, because it's getting really annoying to have the same discussion over and over again. (Lord Gøn (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

Then they're against policy. Quite frankly, WP:BLP1E isn't my problem with this, WP:BLPCRIME is. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Those articles that have the individuals are better termed as content forks than simply separate articles. These articles tend to get pretty long and eventually there is just too much information for one article. -- Avanu (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If they are against policy, then it was the community that has voted numerous times against it. There have been many discussions about this and in all of those cases the community has reached the decision that neither WP:BLP1E, nor WP:BLPCRIME actually bites here. I think policy should reflect community consensus, and so far consesus has always been that high profile mass murderers, convicted or not, should get their own articles eventually, because in the end there will be simply too much information about them to include it all in the article about the crime. Consensus is what policies should be based on, so it's the policy that is in severe need of a revision, and not the other way round. (Lord Gøn (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

Having read through this, I agree that WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME are irrelevant—1E states specifically that it applies "when each of three conditions is met", the third of which reads "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." Holmes is already a suspect, and given the statements made by the police to the effect of "we're convinced this guy worked alone and he was the only one involved in this", it is unlikely that anyone else will suddenly pop up and diminish Holmes's rôle here. Those criteria listed in the policy are, then, rather certainly the case, so the third of the three conditions does not exist (and the second one is somewhat debatable here, too). BLPCRIME doesn't even read like a notability guideline, stressing only that editors must be careful not to include any material suggesting that someone who has not been convicted of a crime is guilty of that crime. As long as we don't do that, I don't see why it's even an issue.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 05:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I broght this up because sooner or later the question is going to be "To make or not to make" although not convicted this person is getting alot of media attention and more is being uncovered about him. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that WP:BLP1E should apply, at least until his history is disconnected from the incident (e.g., detailed charges and/or a trial.) He easily meets the first two criteria. As I understand the third criterion, we really can't say whether or not this event is significant, first of all...so that alone may meet the case. Even if it is "significant," it seems to me that the individual's role in it may not be substantial enough to warrant a separate article. I guess, he's intrinsically tied to the event. He's not notable unless he's part of the event history, unless there's further media coverage when a trial starts or whatnot. Furthermore, I think WP:BLPCRIME may apply in that any article would be based on the premise that he is in fact the killer, not that he is a suspect (even if the only one) in an ongoing investigation. I'm not sure that's what the previous person who brought up BLPCRIME meant, but it could certainly be construed as a reason NOT to make an article: because it violates BLPCRIME to use him as more than "the suspect" to create an article, and that alone may be enough reason for him NOT to be notable enough for a separate article...since upholding it would require a BLP violation, even if the article itself does not violate BLP/BLPCRIME. (In other words, if that made no sense, the new article would have to use the fact that he's "a killer" and not "a suspect in a killing" as the reason for existing, and thus the rationale for the article itself would be a BLP violation.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll concede that if the article were created, it would be tempting (at the very least, and most likely a reality) to write the article with it in everyone's heads that "this guy is obviously the killer" or whatever. Whether we intend to or not, it is all too easy to think about it that way. It may be easier to avoid presenting the opportunity for that to happen by waiting until there is at least a trial in progress or something, and just creating the article then—that seems like a reasonable compromise between making it right now and waiting however long until the guy is put in prison (or not, for all we know).  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can keep this discussion short, because all the relevant arguments have been exchanged in the not so distant past here, here, here and here.

A short note regarding WP:BLP1E: We should not forget that WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. At least in my eyes James Holmes ceased to be a low-profile individual when police arrested him as the lone suspect in the shooting of 70 people. (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

quote from blpcrime: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." this says nothing about whether an article should be created. anders brevik had an article (a very small stub) created the same day as the killing. I think WP has made up its mind: highly publicized crimes resulting in a media frenzy for info on the suspect, mean we can create an article on the suspect as soon as its more than a minimal stub.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on Jared Loughner. He hasn't been convicted or even tried yet (indicted yes). Ajoykt (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If you notice in the examples above almost every one of those articles were kept, I expect an article to be made by Monday when the suspect has his day in court and new info is released about him. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment:. Luka Magnotta had the opposite discussion, archived in the talk page if you want to view the points made there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I saw the archives and one of the discussions was archived without a proper close reguarding splitting off the article, makes a diffrence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

[Merging . . . ]

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)

Why are BLP1E/BLPCRIME not sufficient reasons? That they don't "cut it" isn't really any sort of point. I agree he will achieve more notoriety as this goes on, and more information will be available than can be added here. But his parents names are trivial, and everything we know about him is basically relevant to the incident. I imagine there will be a correct point at which to create an article, much as with other events. Perhaps after he's charged with something, and actually more notable than just being a suspect in the shooting. Creating an article essentially to include minor trivia is silly. I've already argued my BLP1E/BLPCRIME point further up in the merged thread, so I'm not going to get into that much further. But unless your article has significant details that aren't here, it seems redundant in any case. Edit: And in just a copied-and-edited form, it makes it impossible for editors like me to easily add/edit information about him...because it has to be done in both articles. Another reason why you need more than just some extra trivia. Basically, it shouldn't just be created as what could be a valid merge. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP1E is relevant and it says there should be articles for major figures involved in major events, even when that is a single-event notoriety. As for his parent's names, that is trivial for an article on the mass shooting. That isn't trivial for an article on him. Ajoykt (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's not trivial for an article on him, it's not a good reason to add an article that has little added past trivial information. As for BLP1E, again, he meets the first two criteria: he is covered only in the context of this event, and he is a low-profile individual. As for the third, I would say his role is not "well-documented" at this point. The facts are unfolding, we don't know much past initial reports which are changing, etc. My other point still stands: you're forcing editors to basically edit two copies of the same article. I realize you created the other article as a "stub" to be edited, but "stub" doesn't mean "duplicate another article word-for-word and hope people edit and improve both copies." – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to rush things. Most articles are in less-than-perfect shape at the beginning, but develop over time. If it remains that way it can be merged again in, say, a month or so. Until then, keep in mind that this happened less than three days ago and comprehensive articles don't come out of nowhere.

Regarding your concerns about WP:BLP1E I can only say again that it would be quite a stretch imho to say that Holmes is still a low-profile individual. And WP:BLPCRIME specifically says that it concerns people who are relatively unknown. With the media eagerly scrutinizing Holmes' life, reporting every half-way interesting piece of it, he shouldn't be considered "relatively unknown" anymore. Besides that, WP:BLPCRIME never says that we must not include anything that suggest a person was accused of committing a crime, but suggests to seriously consider not doing so. It also says that is true for "any article" so basically we should consider not to include such information here either, but it's hard to not do that, since he's the sole suspect, and police more or less says that they don't think anyboy else could be the perpetrator in this case, but Holmes. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

He is absolutely a low-profile individual, at least as described at Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual; that's not the same as the standard definition, but is what is used for BLP1E. "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event." Unless you can state that he committed the crime to seek media attention, he's a low-profile individual. Anyways, technicalities aside, I agree that doesn't mean he doesn't merit an article; I'd say his role is *becoming* well-documented (or he could just merit one irrelevant of BLP1E.) I'm actually not unhappy with the split article as it is now; my previous points have been more towards what was known a day or two ago. We do know more about him, and I did note that I expected more information to unfold to merit an article. My only suggestion to the editor who created the article: create the base in a sandbox and do the needed reference and context edits and other copyediting, then replace the redirect. That will cause much less strife; part of my frustration was that this was done as active edits on a high-traffic topic, that resulted in the suspect's article being poor-quality while it was worked on. In any case, the article is created, and I'm fine with that; I expected there to be a separate article at some point...mainly, I was trying to keep it from being forked too soon. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Absolutely a low-profile individual" is incorrect, when you put the word "absolutely" there. He's NOT a low-profile person AS FAR AS THIS SPECIFIC CASE. He's a very HIGH profile individual in this specific high-profile incident. That's what's pertinent. NOT whether he was a "high profile" person in general. Not sure why this point is so hard to understand or appreciate. You can't say he is "absolutely" low profile in this matter. You can say that about one of the cops on the scene maybe. But not Holmes of course. He was not only a high profile character in this specific high profile matter and case, but also THE high profile character and alleged perpetrator. Look at Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual#Behavior pattern and activity level. The description of a low-profile individual refers to those who are "notable only for a minor role in one major event, or for a recurring major role in a series of minor events". In this case, Holmes is notable for a major role in a major event, which would make him a high-profile individual. This causes him to be excluded from BLP1E in the same manner as McVeigh and Loughner. And those are the standards and criteria Wikipedia goes by. Holmes is high-profile. As it relates to this high profile case. Which is all that counts. Accept it and deal with it. Jots and graphs (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the article has been made please try and not place it up for AfD as it will most likely not be deleted but kept or merged back here. A merger discussion would be better if you are opposed to the new article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in section

 Comment:. Would all agree that we create a tiny tiny stub at the re-direct. Just a sentence that he was arrested following.... type thing?--Canoe1967za (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a sentence would probably be redirected by someone in the future. The info in the article now should be enough. No need for a separate page. United States Man (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This happens far too often in Wikipedia. The Canadian [BLP comment removed - Canoe1967] has a bio article. Generally, consensus is such that people like Holmes do not get a separate article. A general consensus should be made and uniformly applied, not debated every time it happens. Auchansa (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This should be brought up and discussed in another forum like the BLP board. Should we close it here and bring it up there?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

From what ive seen its been the opposite with the AfD history of the type of articles involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This merge/redirect is idiotic. James Holmes is one of the most infamous spree shooters of all time, he deserves his own page, one that can contain a WHOLE LOT of biographical information that would be out of place on a page about a shooting. To the people saying he isn't yet convicted, this too is stupid. When he gets convicted (and he will, duh), you will make an article for him, but if he wins and appeal and gets sent back to the trial court, you'll delete the article?--75.79.150.83 (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective, there are two important criterea for a wiki article: Is someone going to search for it? Is there citable sources about the subject? The answer to both currently, is yes. I am an example of that.

To avoid this article ending up protected like a BLP, I would reccommend the 'suspected shooter' maintain his own article. This article should be about the event, while another should be about this James Eagan Holmes fellow, to be filled in as facts(or future proven fallacies represented as facts, as long as it's sourced).

Of course, I'm of the opinion that if you walk into a place and shoot up 5 or more people, you're noteworthy enough to get an article, for two reasons. 1) Information about the person's life should be in an article that can be tagged as a BLP. While the event itself is not a biography, but if there isn't a biography page about the suspect/perpatrator, then the BLP tag will likely be applied to the shooting page.

Of course, I've seen this discussion before, and can see the validity of both points.

In this case however: I believe that a man who dyes his hair and walks into a batman premier to shoot it up and later tells the police he's the Joker, is NOTEWORTHY as a person. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

7th US mass shooting this year

Aurora is the seventh mass shooting in the US this year, so far: [1] Lisa Pascoe, a criminologist at the University of Denver, has said that it was the fifth mass shooting in Colorado in six years, and was due in part to there being no public drive to revise gun law in the state. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Relevant to a gun-control article, perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 15:51, July 21, 2012

Yes, HammerFilmFan, although I think "fifth mass shooting in Colorado in six years" could also belong here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely relevant to this article and should be included. Also, a section about gun control will be added. I count 20 reliable sources on the subject of Aurora, gun control, and assault weapon bans in just in the last 24 hours. The usual NRA reps. will no doubt respond with the expected replies. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be on the verge of going down some sort of soapbox path here (predicting 'usual NRA reps') - please don't use this article as any sort of agenda pro/con. Again, I think the reactions or op-eds along the lines of gun control should be put in those type of articles, not here. The various criminal laws (such as those involving MURDER) made no difference to this individual. HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And, you sir, seem to be assuming bad faith or have failed to understand basic English. There's absolutely no "soapbox path" here; I'm simply observing that the NRA is on this like flies on shit, and we can expect the usual suspects to pull the usual deny, distract, and delay tactic, as I've already witnessed in the above thread. I have neither discussed a reaction nor op/ed's of any kind. Gun control issues are 100% relevant to this topic as the reliable sources demonstrate. To recap, that this is the seventh mass shooting in the U.S. for 2012, and the fifth mass shooting in Colorado in six years is an encyclopedic observation that is completely relevant and on topic. That your POV is interfering with your judgment is understandable, but it is you, sir, who needs to get off the soapbox. The sources are clear on this subject: gun control issues are germane, and an entire section will be added to discuss them. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

OR and SYNTH. Le sigh.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing OR or synth about it. It's a statement of verifiable fact supported by dozens of reliable sources. Clearly, you don't know what OR or synth is, but keep pushing that POV, won't you. Gun control is one of the most important subtopics related to this article and it will be discussed. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this article, the qualifier "fifth mass shooting in Colorado in six years" ironically explains that it's actually less significant than it might otherwise be. A mass killing such as this would be far more unusual in other countries or even in other US states. This is quite regardless of any concerns or discussion about gun control. Nevertheless, the criminologist quoted had no doubts that lax gun control was a main contributory factor to this tragic event. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Relevant, topical, and important. It will be added. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If sources prominently discuss gun control in the context of this shooting, then it's part of the media coverage and public discourse and, as with any other aspect, we will do our best to accurately reflect the sum total of quality sources. NRA fanbois should consider that we have a section for reactions, which is of neglible import when taking the long view (as an encyclopedic project should). --213.168.117.36 (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, so we're already to "anyone who disagrees == NRA fanboy." Every shooting spawns gun-control debates. At most, we should include a "see also" link in a relevant section, and describe notable arguments which are centered on this particular event. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps gun control should be, or is already, discussed in a separate thread here. The "number of times in so many years" details are simple statements of fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

True, it's a statement of fact. But not all statements of fact are relevant to the article. In this case, the fact that it's the seventh mass shooting in the US this year isn't actually relevant to this article. The one stating it's the fifth in Colorado in the last six years might work, since it's at least showing a local impact. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new section relating to aftermath and implications for theater security and emergency response

I believe there is a need for something like this. If you look at all of the other articles of similar events, there is such a section. It seems to also be a trending discussion, in the public at large, as well. I had originally suggested something similar to this, and it was welcome as long as there is good source material to support it, of course; so I was wondering if the community here has come across anything like this yet? Also, what is the community's general thoughts on such a new section? --chris.rider81 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I would like to revise the title of this suggested section... something like "Security response and efforts" (or similar). I can easily envision this section discussing the first-responder accounts, 9-1-1 calls, hospital efforts, etc. There is a wealth of information to be gleaned from the police radio records that are already available, alone. I also kind of think the "Shooting" section is getting a bit cluttered, going beyond the scope of the shooting events; and some parts could go in such a section, perhaps? Thoughts? --chris.rider81 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I support in principle and oppose for now. It's something that needs to happen, but I don't think enough has been done/said on that aspect to create such a section. So...not yet. In a week, sure. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jorgath; it's too soon right now. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand completely this logic about it being "too soon" to post something like this. There are already witness reports bringing to light the confusion over the emergency response, as well as multiple other reports and discussions about why there was no effective warning system or alarm. Would either of you please explain the rationale for this reasoning about it being too soon, then? I think I even saw a reader give feedback about wanting to see something about the emergency response implications, not to mention 1stResponderGuru's comment, below. --chris.rider81 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you will, I was giving my opinion that it's unlikely any sources have given this topic coherent treatment yet. I would not be surprised if they have by the end of the week, but in my experience, it's something the media tends to turn to as the initial frenzy starts to fade. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from, but there are already officials (police chiefs, security advisors, etc.) discussing this issue and making conclusions, en masse. I have a few leads, due to my involvement in related wiki projects... but it seems like the other editor in support (1stResponderGuru) may have some resources to help with this aspect of the event... let's hope! --chris.rider81 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Support - I can tell you, anecdotally, that this topic lately is of GREAT interest among fellow emergency services personnel. I'm not sure what could be written about here in this article, but I hope somebody can come up with something to contribute to this aspect of the incident sooner rather than later.--1stResponderGuru (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I will try my best to find source material with which to back this up!--1stResponderGuru (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you can find some good resources for this! Thanks! --chris.rider81 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

After asking and looking around, I did find some good reference material and other info - am trying to find actual online versions for easy reference, though. More to come later today? I like the idea of the updated section name, by the way.--1stResponderGuru (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I found most of the materials that I knew of, online so they were easy enough to reference to. I think it's enough for a section as you suggested, so I hope it's okay that I went ahead and made it.--1stResponderGuru (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WOW! Thanks! Your section reads very well, I think... though, I might go in and touch it up and provide links and such housekeeping if you haven't shortly. I didn't expect someone to actually go ahead and create it lol chris.rider81 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Jorgath. It does sound like a relevant (brief) topic, but right now all we have are the off-the-cuff reactions of these businesses, not a coherent security model. It'll be a while before those are implemented. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "businesses" you're referring to? --chris.rider81 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Movie theaters. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The one law suit (that I saw quoted) said they were filing against the theater (as well as other parties) because there were no alarms on the exit doors. Does anyone know if there is a local law that says they are required (possibly silent) and whether they were activated?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a valid point, but we need to be careful not to engage in synthesis here. If we can find a source stating that there were/were not alarms and they were/were not triggered, that would work. Checking out the local laws & drawing a conclusion on our own would be a problem. I'm sure this will wind up in the news as soon as they can get an answer to that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get access to some NFPA literature on what the code is, and I'd be surprised if Aurora didn't adopt NFPA into their building codes. I DO know that there are very specific exit requirements on any space that holds more than 50 people in assembly (one room), but am unsure about egress door alarms. I know a currently active incident commander locally, so I'll see what I can find out.--1stResponderGuru (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't reach my contact, but the local engine company's lieutenant told me that would be an issue of building code and that their budget doesn't allow access to NFPA because it's too expensive. He informed me, by the way, that this is a major discussion going on within the ranks, though, and thanks us for contributing!--1stResponderGuru (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. In Canada the only alarmed doors I have seen are for catching shoplifters type thing when they open an emergency exit. I can't see any law requiring them for any other purpose. I just thought it was strange that it was mentioned in the lawsuit quote that I read. I doubt you will find them a fire code. Most exits should have 'pull station' alarm beside them. They may save wire and switches to install them in the door. Those doors usually have big warning signs about the alarm as well. Some alarm systems have a delay system before they automatically phone so there is time to close the door. This will vary with local laws. I am going to look at the Fire exit article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a fire code I don't think. "..is also responsible because it had an unguarded emergency door that..." is a quote that I found. Are there local laws about having guarded doors? That would seem to be a lot of guards.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Guard and alarm lacking in the latest cite in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Accomplice

Why is there no mention of a possible accomplice. This witness claims: emergency door was opened by person in audience in response to a mobile phone call. http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/252995/396/Witness-Someone-let-gunman-inside-Colorado-movie-theater- Another witness claims smoke grenades came from two directions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoPqz4bQqJY The guy's costume and weapons would have raised alarm if he bought a ticket and entered with machine gun and smoke grenades! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that small amount of speculation is easily countered by the wide amount of information stating he acted alone. If you can prove that these ideas were widely reported, we might be able to remark on the speculation, otherwise it is a fringe theory. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The reason why is because all reliable sources except that WKYC article say the gunman acted alone. The Youtube video is not a RS. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WKYC doesn't necessarily say he didn't act alone either. They were just looking for a new story. All reliable sources except a random man being interviewed and someone on a YouTube video say he was acting alone. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Your second reference is not reliable. Regarding the first, more than one reliable source has stated that the gunman was the one who exited the theater, then returned dressed in his kit and with weapons. Most importantly, no reliable source has postulated an accomplice, whilst numerous have quoted law enforcement as saying that he had no accomplice. When sufficient WP:RS say differently, then the article can be changed accordingly. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure I appreciate the lack of ANY reliable sources. However I have yet another video - this time MSBC news broadcast which also states that the Gunman entered via emergency exit which was opened after a mobile phone call. This again raises the prospect of an accomplice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0hQei-WdE8& — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Speculation does not equal a reliable source. So far, all indications are that he propped the door open himself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Propped the door" - so who is the witness or RS for that? I have given three witnesses saying the opposite with video and somehow this is less reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. All these people are doing is assuming there was an accomplice. They are not "witnesses." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Witnesesses" - how are we defining witnesses!? - they claimed they were there and each reported the same event without contradiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the story in the article has changed yet the RS references have not. There is nothing to support the changes. Somehow this madman was able to leave the cinema, get his guns and get changed into body armor all within 10 minutes! This is not credible. The more likely scenario is as-reported by the witnesses that someone (knowingly or unknowingly) let the gunman in. Isn't there CCTV or the copyright monitoring cameras available to confirm what happened?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk • contribs) 06:44, July 25, 2012

Not credible? Seriously? It's not that difficult to go into the parking lot, put on the body protection and grab the guns. 10 minutes is plenty of time for that. Second, nothing says the police have to release any CCTV footage to the press. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"stretching credibility" maybe. Depends on where the car was located in the parking lot, I guess. It seems a very tight timetable. Also does not marry onto witness statements that I referenced. The wikipedia article has changed without change to RS which supports the new story. Surely the "best" story is that as reported by 3 witnesses I've referenced above. If you have a better source then include it. People look to wikipedia as "the truth" and currently there is an astounding amount of doubt on the gunman's entrance and the article should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardly an "astounding amount of doubt" on this. Outside random blogs & conspiracist sites, the reports are that one of the theater workers got a call and left through the exit. The shooter left through the same exit some time later. That's hardly "an accomplice." There's a ton of speculation, but the facts so far don't say this was an accomplice. Until we have more information, it's just speculation whether the shooter had help, "took advantage of this," or just did what he always planned to do. Those doors aren't secured on the inside, after all.

And 10 minutes is an estimate. I doubt anyone actually counted down on a clock how long he was gone. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bite "the hand that feeds" but when have wkyc and msnbc become conspiracy sites? Both witnesses on from these sites report a second person. Msnbc report could not be clearer that someone was being signaled into the theatre. I'm not really too sure why wikipedia would not go with the best information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.67.237 (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Should the article be semi-protected to prevent non-autoconfirmed accounts from editing?

There understandably is a lot of traffic on the article. There are numerous new accounts, some, but certainly not all, of which have repeatedly caused problems. Mfhiller (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

An edit request I put in was declined, frankly I think the trouble with the disruptive IP's has become too much. Since the traffic is so high, I believe any edit requests can be easily resolved so I would support semi-protection. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone see if they were warned on their talk pages and whether it had any effect? They may learn from warnings and become better editors. I think we should allow IP edits and just deal with the repeat offenders for this reason.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, they can learn editing Paris Hilton.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The users Jots and graphs and 178.37.236 have both been warned several times by at least two different editors about edit warring. Interestingly the warnings and discussions have been removed in both cases, at almost exactly the same time. Hmmm.... Mfhiller (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I don't think there's a connection based on other pages contributed to. (the IP was focusing on a fire in Spain as well) Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Should someone revert their talk pages, and keep doing so as a lesson?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no lesson there and someone doing that could be blocked. WP:TPO allows you to remove warnings from your talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just kidding. Has anyone applied for protection yet?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's something to consider, if this was semi-protected we might not have information on the lawsuit. Hopefully the editor would have used the edit request process. In any case, we have the declined request for semi-protection and Jorgath left a request for that to be reconsidered. No other news. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mfhiller is accusing others of what he is arguably guilty of. He has not been "edit warring" by constantly reverting? But in circular logic, because he thinks he's right, it can't be edit warring when he constantly reverts. I never violated 3RR on this or anything, yet he keeps belching that to me, writing nonsense on my talk page, as if it means anything.

And NO, regardless of his paranoia, I'm NOT that IP address. Nice assuming good faith though. And Canoe is obviously ridiculous. I have a right to remove nonsense from whiners on my page, that are not warranted.

I warned Mfhiller myself to please keep that unreasonable hypocritical inflammatory stuff out of my page, but to only address on this talk page, the stuff I said... He never did. I wrote copiously on this talk page regarding this Vicodin nonsense. Yet he said in an edit comment: "it doesn't matter what you wrote". Then he writes junk on my page saying to take it to the article talk. EVEN THOUGH I DID ALREADY. But he never addresses what I wrote here. There are too many of these types on Wikipedia unfortunately. And it gets stressful, after a while.

Mfhiller is guilty of edit-warring, yet he doesn't think so, simply because he thinks he's right on the issue. Circular reasoning. He has reverted constantly. And I have NOT done so as much on this as he has, yet he crows "you've been warned about 3RR", even though I never violated it. But has he? If that's the case. Projection much? Anyway, again, despite his nonsense and paranoia and rudeness and suspicions, I'm NOT that IP address. And I don't appreciate this type of neurotic accusation of me of that on this talk page, so recklessly. That itself is a violation, of Wiki Etiquette and policies. Which I'm sure he'll accuse me of now for being blunt about his nonsense. Anyway, I'm done.

I told him already that I'm NOT putting back that Vicodin reference anymore, as I don't care anymore. But other editors seem to be doing so, that are NOT me. So don't blame me, or think it's me. I'm not interested in that anymore. Not worth the stress. I have things to do. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuits

The first one just showed up. What will be the consensus/policy on handling these? Do they need to be as detailed as this first one, type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, the first one should be detailed, subsequent ones should probably only be mentioned if something new arises. Note that most of the lawsuits will be clear attention grabbing. I haven't worked with this issue much before, so my comment is only reflecting my opinion and I am willing to change that if policy or precedent is for something else. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, lawsuits are going to be a dime-a-dozen here. If any of them gain notable attraction, they could be mentioned, but that will probably be a while in the future. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted the section as a trivial aspect of the whole matter and per WP:NOTNEWS. Plus TMZ (website) looks like a source of questionable reliability. Can possibly be addressed in a sentence or so, especially if there are several lawsuits.  Sandstein  22:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If more are filed we could just state that x number have been filed and link to sources. It may change from x number to just 'several'. If we get too many someone will want to split them to their own article, but that may be years yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The suit above as been added. We probably don't need it in its own section yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Glock 22, not 23

The .40 caliber Glock was seen in a LEO photo, one was a Glock 22 3rd generation, the other a Glock 22 4th generation. This is based on the caliber, as they are full sized models, meaning they can only be the Glock 22, as the 23 is a compact handgun, and the 27 is a sub-compact backup gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.231.176 (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV?

Since this article is about a shooting, there will be the tendency to be critical about firearms. In order for this article to meet Wikipedia's NPOV standards, there has to be at least as many positive mentions of firearms and the Second Amendment. As it stands, it is grossly biased and ought to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.229.131 (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require equal reporting or anything along that line for NPOV. How would a positive mention of firearms be related to this article at all? In any case, I don't see anything negative about firearms in this article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

IP was blocked for this post, you won't get an answer.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP was blocked two days ago and is no longer blocked. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism it's a suggestion. You can't just block people you disagree with. Also go have a look at WP:OWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.229.131 (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You were not blocked because people disagreed with you; you were blocked because you made a series of ridiculous edits to this article and talk page. You just referred Ryan Vesey to a Wikipedia policy. I have a sneaking suspicion, by looking at your edit history, that there is a large number of policies that you have not read. By your original post to this thread (NPOV?), it is clear that you do not understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Perhaps you should go read it. hajatvrc @ 02:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit war on suspect section

Just kidding but we should avoid one. Main questions should be just a re-direct or just info relating to the shooting type thing. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Main questions should be just a re-direct or just info relating to the shooting type thing". Could you explain? hajatvrc @ 02:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone removed the whole section and just left it as a re-direct to the suspect article. It was reverted without discussion. If they want to discuss it then they should do so here and avoid edit wars.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody else did that on the what-you-call "suspect" article and managed to get the whole article locked. Guess others are trying to figure out whether administrators too have their biases. Ajoykt (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Biased admin? No such thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As an admin, I totally agree Canoe ;D — Huntster (t @ c) 05:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Also called...

I have noticed the term Movie Massacre being used by the media, is term being used widespread? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have also seen Batman Massacre used. We should use something less tabloid-ish than these. WWGB (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the use of the word "massacre" makes it tabloid-ish- I mean there's Columbine High School massacre. (unless, of course, it's not the use of massacre that you're referring to). Novalayne (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Headline writers come up with all sorts of names. Some catch on in other news media, some don't. It's all irrelevant here, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. 2012 Aurora Shooting is much more informative than most labels I've seen in the press. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I just mentioned the discussion link above because they may be more familiar with policy. I know Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation discuss both and are very wise so you may just want to link this discussion to there and they may come and help.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

They also know naming policies well. Just don't mention Hatzic, or they may get mad like they did with me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Notebook sent to psychiatrist before attack

This article was just released, detailing that the suspect sent a notebook detailing the crimes. I'd add it in myself, but I'm still learning the ropes of editing wikipedia and don't want to make a faux pas on such a important article. Novalayne (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If anywhere belongs on JH main article. Not here. Mfhiller (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true, that notebook was particularly relevant to the massacre. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've taken back my comment. Mfhiller (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is unattributed gossip. Unless confirmed, it doesn't belong in WP. It doesn't really belong on Fox News, but there's not so much we can do about that. Formerip (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This would be a very important development if correct, but it needs more than an off-the-record briefing to be a reliable source, Fox News or otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It is now receiving international coverage [2]. WWGB (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Vicodin

(moved from user talk page)

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

Regardless of who in the media has been hoodwinked by that claim, the fact remains that no such dose of Vicodin (hydrocodone/acetaminophen) exists.   — C M B J   14:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they are saying that - I read it as it is the amount he took, not the dosage of a pill - also, it is very possible this is an estimate - but it is Reliably Sourced, and Wiki is not about Truth but ... well, you know the routine. I would welcome the most accurate news story that you can find and cite on the issue to be added to the article. The Vicodin use has been reported by Fox, ABC, CNN ... etc.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no; the claim hasn't yet been independently reported by any agency other than KMGH-TV and even they concede in an updated article that the claim is of mixed veracity. Again, we have no business portraying a demonstrably false assertion as fact, so I'm moving this discussion over to the article's discussion page.   — C M B J   15:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw it talked about with Dianne Sawyer on ABCNEWS - the interview is online - and also CNN. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Significance of the Vicodin reference in article

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

If it is the case that the medication caused him to be calm, or not resist, or whatever, then that needs to be in the article. The fact that he had Vicodin in his system is no more notable than the presence of caffeine, or sugar or any other chemical, unless a particular consequence is established. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The vicodin, along with the body armor brings to mind the North_Hollywood_shootout where the assailants were armored, and used drugs to control their mood and possibly become more resistant to return fire. This shoting has echos from several previous incidents (north hollywood, norway shooting etc) where several elements seem copy-catted. The north hollywood connection was made by at least one RS http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/heart-without-compromise-children-and-children-wit/2012/jul/21/john-eagen-holmes-joins-roster-serial-killers-whil/ Gaijin42 (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To WWGB...I'm not sure why it isn't. That point arguably needs to be put in. Jots and graphs (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now added words to describe the significance of the Vicodin. WWGB (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

@Jots and graphs - just to be perfectly clear, my objection to inclusion of this detail has absolutely nothing to do with whether it explains Holmes' demeanor at the time of his arrest. There are, however, several serious concerns that brought me here:

(1) alleged use of the drug was reported by a layperson who equates Vicodin with hydrocodone (Vicodin is a hydrocodone/acetaminophen compound, not a single drug);

(2) if the claim indeed refers to a quantity of Vicodin totalling 100 mg of hydrocodone, which it presumably does, then it would also indicate possible acetaminophen overdose for which he was not reportedly evaluated;

(3) unless Holmes is discovered to have developed chronic tolerance to hydrocodone, a single dose of 100 mg at 2.5 hours would've presumably left him struggling to sit upright;

(4) every reputable media organization reporting this claim cites KMGH-TV as their source, who in turn cite an unnamed source, who cites an unnamed public servant, who cites Holmes. In other words, someone says someone said someone said someone said someone admitted to taking a controversial medication. That's way below our editorial standards around here, especially on a BLP.   — C M B J   05:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's why I said that it should be carefully worded as "it's been REPORTED that such and such with Vicodin". Why? Because it's simply a fact that it's been reported...in reliable sources...regardless of the trail. But omitting and leaving out, just because the source situation may not be 1000% perfect, and the connections not as best as we want in every nuance seems over-cautious and wiki-uptight. If we do that with everything, eventually, we'll have next to nothing to ever write in articles, after a while. Some things are more solid than other things, true, but the point is that it could be stated that it's been reported by some sources. NOT that it's necessarily absolute fact. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that quadruple-plus-hearsay based on a single unnamed source is appropriate for any biographical article on this project, unless said dissemination is itself the direct subject of critical commentary. However, even if we were to include the information in an appropriate fashion, it's still not likely to pan out very well unless we can reach strong consensus on wording. Otherwise, it's just going to continue morphing into sensationalistic nonsense again and again and again, or else someone's going to eventually get accused of edit warring for keeping a veracious version alive.   — C M B J   08:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, for verity and veracity etc, but my point is we can't go bananas with that and be too dogmatic and over-scrupulous much either. With so much wiki-lawyering and uptightness. Because if that goes on too much, then pertinent or insightful factoids and issues can go un-stated, leaving an article lacking and incomplete. Because again, my question is why would ABC News (both on the Net and on Television News) see fit to mention it, if it was so frivolous and "hearsay"? Last time I checked, ABC News is a "reliable source". And they brought that point out. Also, I'm not saying that for sure that that was the reason Holmes was so calm and docile and non-resistant with the police approached and arrested him...but ABC news seems to think so, as at least a possibility as to why, as reported. Why leave this thing out if it can help explain perhaps in part why Holmes offered no resistance, and was calm and subdued, when taken by police? Again, this was not just written in some blog or forum or message board or group chat, but reported by ABC News. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Alleged Vicodin use

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

I can see your point. I didn't read the sources, but how can they really know? We could say large, or larger than normal dose?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not just say that the suspect is alleged to have taken an unknown quantity of Vicodin before the shooting? Something like that seems fair enough, no? Mfhiller (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Heck, just say "the suspect is alleged to have taken Vicodin before the shooting," nothing about the quantity whatsoever. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Vicodin

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

I strongly oppose inclusion unless/until confirmed by official medical reports.   — C M B J   06:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Belongs on Holmes page. Also poorly supported. Mfhiller (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is already being discussed above. Let's not fragment this discussion any worse than it already is. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone move this section to above? Mfhiller (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mildly support inclusion, per my words above. It's sourced, albeit maybe not totally perfectly, but well arguably enough. And wording should be careful to say "it's been reported". ABC News (on the Net and on the TV news) has stated this, and ABC News is reliable and reputable. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Calmly oppose, unless we also blame the shoes he was wearing and a band he listened to. Maybe Grand Theft Auto. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: nowhere in the reporting or phrasing or anything is it "blaming" the Vicodin. Your argument is a STRAW-MAN, because that's NOT what was done at all there. So if that's your reason for your "calmly oppose", you should probably re-consider that, to a "calm support". Because the Vicodin thing was not (repeat NOT) "blaming" it for his actions. If anything, the reports were only that that's why Holmes was CALM AND DOCILE when being arrested. So please don't erect a straw-man or phantom argument, as your reason for opposing the inclusion of the Vicodin reference. Because that's not the reason for the matter of Vicodin being brought up. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing, just voting. If you find my opinion flawed, disregard it. But no, I won't change it to a support. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Done — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC) How is this so "done"? When this little section was barely put up minutes ago, and not enough time has been given for others to give their feedback? Isn't this proclamation of "done" a bit premature?? Uh, yeah, it kinda is. It's NOT quite "done" yet. It barely has been up. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Done refers to the section merge. I will add three below to help with policy/guidelines and avoid opinion posts. Policies/guidelines to include: [list here and remove this line] Policies/guidelines to exclude: [list here and remove this line] Policies/guidelines to 'trim': [list here and remove this line] --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

An appeal for genuine neutrality here and at James Eagan Holmes

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

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

The POV tag was not added by JoeSperrazza. It was added by me due to the above gun control thread and NPOV dispute filed on the noticeboard and I gave notification about this tag on the talk page.[3] Please do not remove the tag until the gun control dispute is resolved. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

potential copycats

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

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

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

Wait, why is this now unlocked?

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

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

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

Consensus between the James Eagan Holmes article and the shooting article

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

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

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

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

Schizophrenic

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

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

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

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

The shooter's motives in the attack

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

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

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

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

Number of rounds of ammunition bought?

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

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

Reverting vandals

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

Was Eagen a member of the Obama-led group "Five-sided Fistagon"?

There is a lot of evidence out there that this was a false flag attack carried out by the leftist group The Five-Sided Fistagon", which was established by secret governmental protocol signed by Obama in 2009. The purpose of the group and its actions are to circumvent US constitution by inciting the people through fear. In this case gun ownership has been targeted. The objective of this group, and its members -who are all Salafist converts, is to introduce Sharia. 24.228.229.131 (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Another lawsuit

The second lawsuit just showed up and was reverted. The first lawsuit is still in. Should we remove it and just state that at least two lawsuits have been filed?--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than start a list, as there are likely to be numerous lawsuits, it is probably best to say that some relatives have filed lawsuits and give citations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

They may all be similar so I left a bit of detail from the first one so readers know who is involved--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the addition, because there was no citation provided. But adding that information is not a "minor copy-edit", as you said in your edit summary, and you also included your signature for some reason. If you add it back, include a RS and describe the edit accurately. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I just read the source and the other suits haven't been filed anyway. They just hired lawyers. http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/30/colorado-shooting-lawsuit-james-holmes-movie-theater-rebecca-wingo/ --Canoe1967 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I just removed it again. Please seek consensus before it is put back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Court Case

I think there should a overview of the court case against Holmes. As of this writing, he was charged with a high number of counts, including 24 counts of first degree murder. To be a comprehensive article, the court case should definitely be described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.70.170 (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Anon IP, at this time, he hasn't even been formally arraigned. The first appearance was a Colorado procedure to just inform the defendant of what he has been charged with. Premature at this time for any details (beyond what he's been charged with). HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: Not Moved, no clear consensus on this one way or the other. Far too many counter-proposals to evaluate consensus for or against them. As this is a current event, allow sometime for a better commonname to evolve. Mike Cline (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

---

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

• Oppose That guideline is about articles about settlements, not events. The title is long enough already. --NYKevin 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The page has already been moved so i'm closing the discussion. United States Man (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be reopened, since the move was REVERTED. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please do something about this page? I was in the middle of replying and its ended up on a new talk page lol Talk:2012_Aurora,_Colorado_shooting BritishWatcher (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed: The page has been redirected here. --NYKevin 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - There is more than one Aurora in the U.S. so the state should be added to distinguish from other Auroras. United States Man (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Editing and move rights are tied together, it seems. If you lock an article down, so that it can't be moved by anyone but a sysops, you're also blocking the page from edits by anyone but a sysops. We'll have to rely on trusting others in this situation. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite possible to move protect a page. But there's no need unless everyone is going to fight over it. --NYKevin 17:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• support there are many aurora's, many of which are more famous/well known than this one. While they have not neccisarily had shootings in them it is unlikely that this event will become known as the "aurora shootings" like "columbine shootings" are. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - if the article title is to be changed it should be to something that references the incident, like 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, rather than simply adding the state. No other Aurora has had a shooting incident like this one worthy of an article BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose the move. "Aurora" is sufficient until the press can figure out a WP:COMMONNAME. The Colorado thing is in the lede. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Further comment: Find me another notable shooting in 2012 in another town named Aurora, and I will change my vote. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)

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

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

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

• Support More than one Aurora in the US. Lugnuts (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  If ambiguity is a problem, what about the ambiguity of the fact there have been previous shootings in Aurora too? There is no ambiguity problems with this notable event. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  like this one at a church [4] which is a shooting in 2012 in Aurora, Colorado too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  Unless an article about that shooting is created I don't see a problem.--24.138.41.146 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It is clear enough as it is. It just takes a glance at the article to find out what state the event took place in. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The story is too big to have any confusion. KISS. As was said earlier, show me another famous Aurora shooting in 2012, where there might be confusion, then we need to make a change. Trackinfo (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a Columbine in Alberta as well, but that doesn't mean it requires specification in the title. This article is the same. --Old Al (Talk) 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe the title is specific enough (compare 2011 Tucson shooting) as it is and should not be weighted down unnecessarily. Furthermore, WP:USPLACE seems to indicate that its prescriptions apply to articles solely about places, not articles that happen to contain names of places in them. DillonLarson (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support The title is ambiguous because it's too broad of a location (a relatively small theater within Colorado's third largest city)... not to mention that there are many Auroras. If any sort of place is attributed to the title, it should probably be the movie theater's name? Look at Virginia-Tech, for example. Otherwise, perhaps attribute the event, e.g. "The Dark Knight Rises massacre" or something? --chris.rider81 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support The title should have the city and state name in this case because the city is not instantly recognizable, such as New York City or Los Angeles, to a worldwide audience. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's good right now. --Stryn (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, though I support aliases of other possible names to point to this page, "2012 Dark Knight Rises shooting," or "2012 Aurora, CO shooting," etc. Rather than move the page, just make a pointer. --Petercorless (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As said before, the guideline refers to the place articles, not necessary other articles that refer to that place. Full name is bulky and unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose while there may be more than one Aurora in the US I don't think this should be moved unless there is another notable shooting in another city named Aurora this year.--24.138.41.146 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Existing title is perfectly adequate, and the location of Aurora in Colorado is clearly identified and Wikilinked within the article. — O'Dea (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should go by WP:COMMONNAME here, the average reader would see that this took place in Colorado as it's in the first sentence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, i thought of this first, too, but after checking Category:Mass murder in 2012, i see we dont include the state/country, just the city, in titles for such. I understand the nominators rationale, but thats so that the title indicates which aurora we are talking about. in this case, we only need to worry about which killing in a city named aurora we are talking about. theres only one. same reason we dont name this article "July 2012 Aurora shooting" as we dont anticipate more this year in this city. we can always go rename articles later if more events occur with similar names (also the reason no one named the Great War "world war 1" when it happened.)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think that the current title adheres to protocol, yes, yay, woot woot, but really just isn't descriptive enough. I'm not American and when I found my way here I was initially at a complete loss as to why the article was called '2012 Aurora shooting" because I had no idea what Aurora is. We aren't an American encyclopedia, and I don't see the detriment of including a tiny bit more detail to make the title more informative at first glance. Sure the info will be in the introduction, but the argument to leave necessary clarification out of a title is like saying books should have ambiguous covers (because it's protocol!?) and force the reader to read through the first few pages to understand what the book is about. I suggest something like "2012 Aurora movie theatre/theater shooting", which is the best option. Gives necessary clarification. "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting" is not so good but at least still better than the current one. EryZ (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  Further comment Actually, why do we have 2012 here? Why can't it just be "Aurora movie theatre shooting"? EryZ (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Somewhat support The city of Aurora is not that well known. The current title is not good. Some news sources have called it the Batman Movie Massacre or Shooting. This is preferred for now. Auchansa (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Somewhat support The city of Aurora, CO seems to be the biggest Aurora, but it is a popular city name (even in cities without auroras). I support 2012 Aurora Shooting -> 2012 Aurora, CO Shooting [main article]. Additionally, as pointed out by the previous support, a "2012 Shootings" (or events or whatever--but shooting(s) should link to it) should be created. It's tough to overdo indexing if you're not making an index entry too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, "Aurora" is too vague, adding "Colorado" or "theater" would be helpful. I've been following this story in the news, but if you'd asked me to say what town in Colorado it happened in, I'd have failed. Two years from now, it will be even harder. Abductive (reasoning) 19:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: With the year and the city, I believe it it sufficient for the time being. If the year stamp was removed, then I would argue for a more descriptive title that would include the state or the theater. NoCitations (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: As already mentioned, there is no other Aurora which has had a significant shooting in year 2012. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  It's not that there is no other Aurora which has a significant shooting, it's that the general audience don't actually know what Aurora IS. So, the title is, I guess, sort of clear in the sense that there is not much ambiguity, but NOT clear in that it doesn't fulfil its purpose of being a title that people can understand. I elaborate more on my comment above. EryZ (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  If they don't know what "Aurora" is, adding "CO" or "Colorado" after it is not going to help those people much. But, if they are typing in the name "2012 Aurora" in the search box, with WP autocompleting with ",Colorado shooting", they obviously already knew what "Aurora" was else they would not have typed it. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral There are no other major cities called "Aurora" but this one but if the current title redirects to the new one, I see no problem in doing so. Electric Catfish 11:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely unnecessary. Doesn't need disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As noted above, the guidelines for titles of articles about places aren't necessarily applicable to other articles whose titles happen to contain place names. In this instance, no further disambiguation is necessary unless and until another notable shooting occurs in a place called "Aurora" this year. —David Levy 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A rename might be necessary, but not to this. I could see 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, or something along that line, but I don't find Colorado necessary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose To date, there is only one article about a shooting in a town named Aurora in the year 2012, so no further disambiguation is needed. Title can always be changed in the future if this status changes. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per previous examples, also as this is not an article about the city WP:USPLACE does not apply, WP:NCE is the appropriate convention.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: If the title is changed as proposed, there needs to be a comma after, as well as before, the word Colorado. Deor (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and counter proposal I agree with Ryan Vesey - a rename would be better along the lines of 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, which would be clearer. Adding Colorado is not necessary, any more than adding US would be. Tvoz/talk 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be willing to compromise to "2012 Aurora movie theater shooting" or even "2012 Aurora theater shooting." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I think it should always be city/state for these types of incidents UNLESS it's a major city generally known by everyone around the world (Los Angeles, Chicago, Montreal, London, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, etc.). If it's Paris, Kentucky instead of Paris, France, then put the state, too. Otherwise, just put Paris. There are Auroras all over the country (and maybe the world?), but none of them are known worldwide. Everyone in the world knows NOW that the incident was in Aurora, Colorado. But how about five years from now? Or 20? or 50? Do you guys know about the 1958 Hollywood riots? Which Hollywood am I talking about? See what I'm saying? No, there really weren't any riots in any Hollywood in 1958, but I wanted to make my point. Just put the darn state and move on. ;) And the words "movie theater" in the title not only would sound very odd, but are completely unnecessary because how many 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings are there? If it was in a bakery, would you want to say 2012 Aurora bakery shootings? Or if it was a bar, would you want to say 2012 Aurora bar shootings? Let's keep it real, people. And if, incredibly, there happened to be another mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado this year, just add another distinguishing word to the title, such as the month (July 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings and October 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings). --76.189.114.243 (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who read the first sentence of the hypothetical Hollywood riot article would know what state it happened in so it seems to be to be a non-issue.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The incident is known widely as the Colorado movie theater shooting. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• I find myself in agreement with Ryan Vesey: I think a rename is needed (the "2012" bit in particular seems silly), but I can't support this specific proposed rename. I've gathered some suggested page titles in a subsection below. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCE. The title is not ambiguous and the article topic is not a place, so the qualifier isn't needed. See also Kirkwood City Council shooting vs. Kirkwood and WP:NCE's Hinton train collision vs. Hinton. (Per the guidelines, the year is also not needed, unless there are multiple events that need to be time-distinguished.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested article titles

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

1. 2012 Aurora shooting (current title)
2. 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting (proposed in this section specifically)
3. Aurora shooting
4. Colorado movie theater shooting
5. The Dark Knight Rises massacre
6. 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting
7. 2012 Dark Knight Rises shooting

---

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

1. "Colorado" alone is too broad, and "Aurora" alone is ambiguous.
2. "Massacre" is more specific than simply "shooting". A "shooting" could range from a massacre down to just someone shooting a gun, whereas "massacre" carries the idea that many people were criminally killed without including the less important idea of the weapons used.
3. The name of the movie that they were there to see doesn't define the event as well as what happened, where, and when. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your persistence in requesting that everyone agree with you (in the above message and the accompanying edit summary) dissuades me from bothering to type a substantive reply (which would be met with yet another such demand). When you're willing to respect opinions with which you disagree, I'll resume expressing mine. —David Levy 20:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone, after reading the above, give a substantive reason why this article should not be titled "...Massacre" as opposed to "...Shooting" that has not already been effectively dealt with just above? Please look it over, just above, this section of this thread and let us know. If not, please, agree that "massacre" is better than "shooting". I want to put in a Move Request soon. Chrisrus (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources seem to use "shooting" much more often than "massacre" to describe the subject. The title should reflect what reliable sources use, per WP:COMMONNAME. - SudoGhost 21:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well. As you say, if "shooting" is in fact what it's being called instead of "massacre", for better or for worse, we should definately go with that. You make good sense. Chrisrus (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Several substantive reasons have been cited above, but you've deemed them "effectively dealt with" and demanded that we provide rationales with which you agree.

Given the above message (and its edit summary), it's becoming difficult to assume good faith on your part. You seem to think that you can overcome objections by badgering others into submission. —David Levy 21:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This entire discussion is mind-boggling. Wikipedia should have clear guidelines about choosing article titles for incidents like this. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

We have one: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

POV dispute: Gun control debate section

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

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

On the contrary, I have never once discussed my opinion about gun control on Wikipedia, and your reading and understanding of "neutrality" is completely at odds with NPOV. We don't edit Wikipedia articles based on what editors believe but on what the sources say. Therefore, your entire argument is untenable. The material was properly added per NPOV and it will be added back. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Gun control is the elephant in the room. It cannot be ignored, but nor should it dominate the article. A balanced acknowledgement is appropriate, not arguments for and against. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. An acknowledgement that the debate has intensified in the U.S. in the aftermath is a good thing. A discussion of the finer points is not. Isn't there an article on the gun-control debate in the U.S. anyway? Shouldn't details be there? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The wikilinks in the sentence go to other articles. Gun control and gun laws.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is the deal about gun control? He had explosives in his flat, those where ilegal. So does anyone realy belive he wouldn't have gotten guns if they where ilegal? And what, anyway he had the explosives, so what if I hadn't got any guns he might have used the explosives. I would say, that would have been even more effective in the confined spaces of a cinema. Dream 84.169.213.43 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum to debate the merits of gun control. This is a forum to discuss how much coverage the Wikipedia article about the event will give to the debate about gun control. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

See the section below in this thread "Sources about gun control and this topic", which I will update as necessary. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

What sources can you offer to support your position? Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

It's not sufficient, it's an integral part of this topic supported by the reliable sources, and it's not unsourced as you falsely claimed.[5] Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is better that a few people get hurt from time to time, then to let the government rob the people of their right to own guns.24.228.229.131 (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, InedibleHulk was right; the source I added was removed by User:Canoe1967[6]. When I attempted to merge the content back in a later edit, it had a different source added by another editor.[7] I'm going to fix this. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Regardless of what you agree with, gun control is a part of this article, based on the number of sources devoted to discussing it. So regardless of the continuing shenanigans being used to keep removing it, it will be added back into the lead and the body per WP:NPOV. I will now be adding the NPOV tag as a result of the continued removal. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources about gun control and this topic

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

1. Baker, Mike. 2012. After Colorado massacre, fear prompts people to buy guns and puts moviegoers on edge. Associated Press. The Canadian Press (July 25).
2. Blitzer, Wolf. 2012. Movie Theater Massacre; Police Searched Suspect's Home;Politics On Hold After Colorado Shooting; Romney: "Our Hearts Break";Colorado Shootings And Gun Control Debate; Colorado Horror: 71 Shot,12 Dead. The Situation Room. CNN. (July 20).
3. Blitzer, Wolf. 2012. Campaigns Changing Tone In Colorado; Gun Control: A"Fool's Errand"; The Situation Room. CNN. (July 24).
4. Caldwell, Leigh Ann. 2012. Gun control debate back in spotlight after Colorado shooting. Political Hotsheet. CBS News. (July 22).
5. Clift, Eleanor. 2012. Gun Owners Say They Want More Controls, a GOP Pollster Says. The Daily Beast. (July 27).
6. Condon, Stephanie. 2012. Democrats: "We can't let the NRA stop us". Political Hotsheet. CBS News. (July 24).
7. Harris, Paul. 2012. Colorado shooting renews anti-gun mission for Columbine victim's father. guardian.co.uk. (July 22).
8. Hartman, Rachel Rose. 2012. Gun control surfaces in CT, VA Senate debates following Colorado shooting. ABC News. (July 23).
9. Honan, Edith. 2012. Colorado shooting draws attention to gun control. Reuters. Christian Science Monitor. (July 25).
10. Jervis, Rick and John McAuliff (July 24, 2012). "Colo. rampage adds fuel to gun-control debate". USA Today. Retrieved July 24, 2012.
11. Knickerbocker, Brad. 2012. Colorado shooting highlights barriers to tough gun control: Obama and Romney. Christian Science Monitor (July 21).
12. Martinez, Michael. 2012. Gun-control, gun-rights groups ready for renewed debate after Colorado shooting. CNN. (July 21).
13. Mayor challenges Obama on gun control. 2012. Sunday Telegraph. (July 22): 4.
14. McGreal, Chris. 2012. Colorado tragedy prompts calls for urgent action on gun control. guardian.co.uk. (July 20).
15. Montopoli, Brian. 2012. Gun control debate returns after Colorado shooting. CBS News. (July 20).
16. Sambolin, Zoraida. 2012. Politics of gun control. CNN Newsroom. (July 23).
17. Schwartz, John. 2012. In Columbine's Wake, Colorado Had Become Key Player in Gun Law Debate. The New York Times. (July 21): 13.
18. Simon, Richard. 2012. At U.S. Capitol, gun-control advocates are met with 'silence'. Los Angeles Times (July 24).
19. Simon, Richard. 2012. Colorado shooting. Police groups call for tougher gun laws. Los Angeles Times. (July 26).
20. Spurling, Kathryn. 2012. Another shooting horror, but firearm lobby still rules. Canberra Times (July 24): 8.
21. Sweetman, Terry. 2012. Armed Americans a danger to their own. Herald Sun (July 22).
22. Ward, Olivia. 2012. Colorado shooting: Politicians stay silent on gun control debate. Toronto Star. (July 23).

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

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

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

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

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

Hammer, please familiarize yourself with the WP:NPOV policy. All relevance/undue weight disputes are neutrality issues. For your elucidation: WP:UNDUE. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stating facts about federal and state laws concerning guns is not the same thing as stating opinions about those laws. We should rely on expert sources, not Ted Nugent. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, that makes no sense with flaws on several levels. What our are talking about injecting is not about the subject of the article. It's a different topic, a selected implied "what if" scenario and opinions, and I was pointing out that there is such conjecture in both directions and you want just one side. And there is not "expertise" on conjecture. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Asking that we rely on experts is not wanting "one side". This has nothing to do with conjecture of any kind but with explaining federal and state gun laws in terms of this incident, which every reliable source on the subject has done...except us. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor WP:SOAP here: Nugent is flat wrong. Civillians don't carry armor piercing rounds (not legally, anyway), so all they would have done is gotten themselves shot next. And possibly hit other bystanders if they missed the shooter.

Non-Soapboxing: We don't include every person's opinion on the matter in this article, even famous people. We still have to abide by WP:UNDUE and try to stick to sources that are both factual & notable. And, yes, there are experts on conjecture: people who are experts on combat, ballistics, etc. are considered more knowledgable on such matters, and their conjectures carry far more weight than a musician's. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously some mention belongs in the article, which I am doing right now, using USA Today as a source. I do so with embarrassment given its journalistic mediocrity, but it is an unobjectionable NPOV source. Sensei48 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a mention now, and links to the topic article(s).HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In the latest revision I edited there was no mention at all of this, nor even a Wikilink. The single sentence I have added is a simple NPOV statement of fact - a fact, BTW, also mentioned in the Sara Burnett article used as a source for the first sentence in the section about registration. 00:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone removed two links that have been in the article for many days on a gun control Wiki article and a link about the gun laws of Colorado. Argh. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I added them back. They may have been removed because they were linked in the body. The material in the body has been removed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Good - those links are appropriate and need to be kept.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had reached consensus on the sentence that was removed though. 'This incident has led to more debate on [gun control] and [gun laws].' This was in the body with the two wikilinks and RS. Should we open discussion on its inclusion again?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I think a bit more should be done with the registration/gun control subsection - scrupulously NPOV, of course - but it is adequate for the moment. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

...though my edit has just been debased by a really badly written substitute edit. Grammar? I think not.Sensei48 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding back gun material

I thought we had reached consensus on a sentence that was removed. This incident has led to more debate on [gun control] and [gun laws]. This was in the body with the two wikilinks and RS. Should we open discussion on its inclusion again?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer none of this be in there, but I added the story on the survey for balance. Shrugs.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it sux that there are extremes at each end. No material at all and coatrack the whole article. We should be able to reach consensus though. Readers may wish to know the 'fallout' reactions but I feel we should only include ones related to this subject and NPOV the ones we do include.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, if kept pretty brief. In fact, a good copyedit to rewrite all three lines into a single short line (with the references) would probably be a good idea.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Combined two into one. "Unrestricted availability" does this mean walk in off the street with cash and no ID?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rephrasing for clarity might be appropriate if deemed necessary. The magazines and "assault weapons" (using the source's phrasing) are widely available, and in some states at least at gun shows that is exactly what it means. Colorado gun laws may differ. Sensei48 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me. I just thought it was an extreme term. It appears that its use is justified though. I wouldn't doubt that it is the case in Colorado or someone would have objected to the use of the term.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another POV term is "assault weapons" because it is a term which has no definition (and so an infinite range of definitions so anybody can use it to mean anything) which implies that it is a term with a real definition (e.g. assault rifles) which the weapons used weren't. For example, the expired ban noted in the article defined the most common pistols carried by police as "assault weapons". North8000 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. For the sake of this article, the term "assault weapon" has a legal definition that some states use, and that the federal government used to use until 2004. How is it POV? Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we change the quoted phrase to: specific automatic rifles and large magazines type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably most accurate / less of a complex minefield to say "which banned some of the firearms and magazines which he used"

Folks, I added the sentence (not added back - the one before was different) that refers to "assault weapons." Please note the quotation marks. I took that phrase verbatim from the source I used, which is an article published in the Salt Lake City Tribune - not exactly a flamingly partisan publication. In addition, Gun laws in Colorado employs the term, as do most all of the "gun laws by state" articles, if for no other reason than a federal statute employed the term. Sensei48 (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Assault weapon hints it may be a POV term used more by one side. We don't have many guns in Canada. In the US it may be one of those terms that one side likes to hide under the carpet and the other side likes to use like a big stick. They may not have a neutral term. Were the glocks banned until '04 as well? If they were then 'assault weapons' may work, if not we may wish to go with 'assault rifles', 'specific automatic rifles' or other choices? I don't think we need the actual quote from the source as long as our terms match the terms used in the ban that it is referring to.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the quote marks around the term is a good way to handle it. When I said that the term is POV, I didn't mean it in the usual sense. It's a term designed to mislead people. Basically, to give the impression that they are talking about powerful military weapons but then in the fine print write a specific definition that includes everyday firearms. And choosing a term which has no objective definition allows folks to mislead in that way. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

North, may I invite you to visit my Talk page, where we have a parallel discussion going on? We can probably create an acceptable edit that leaves the quotation in but narrows the discussion a bit more. (BTW - you are far afield from the folk revival articles where our paths usually cross). regards, Sensei48 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)