Jump to content

Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Total killed

Okay, sources are repeatedly jumping between 12-14-15 killed. Perhaps a better wording, until the facts get straightened out, would be to reflect this range. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Almost all the sources ive seen say 14, i think we should stick with what the most sources say unless there is far more conflicting sources. I saw one fox article url or headline say 15, yet the article it self and fox news at the time were saying 14. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm BBC has just changed theirs to at leaast 12. [1] so maybe we should change to the range and say conflicting reports. BBC had been saying 14 for hours. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Now Fox on TV and the CNN article are both stating the figure has been revised down to 12. Guess it's still a wait-and-see thing. I'm wondering what set off the "14" figure. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Mass casualty triage often requires a first count of the people who appear to not be breathing, who only receive attention after more viable casualties are treated, at which point they may be found to be better than initially assessed or resuscitated. 69.140.116.44 (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. BBC declares it is 12 now --Coekon (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Media outlets likely reported 14 based on an initial scene assessment. Adhere to current reports, in which case the appropriate figure is 12. Mephtalk 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC).
The local news station (9news.com out of Colorado I think) just stated there were 12 confirmed deaths so I'd have to support the first guy suggesting that multiple counts be mentioned for now. 12:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.68.210 (talk)
I don't want to start some sort of pro-life debate, but does wiki recognize a pregnant women as 1 death or 2?Mantion (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no position about this (WP:NPOV). We report casualties as they are reported by reliable sources, i.e., the media and authorities.  Sandstein  12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Aside from Wikipedia policy, it may be appropriate to mention special attributes of the victims that help describe the incident's impact. So it may be appropriate to mention that a pregnant woman was among the victims, if that has been confirmed, or a child or infant, as has been mentioned in some stories. One would not count a pregnant woman however as two victims for numerous reasons, including that one may not necessarily know if she was carrying one or more fetuses (or children, which the media may choose to describe her as carrying).User:Ssc (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Fox News reporting a young girl, six yrs old iirc, succumbed to injuries, so waiting on written source saying count has ticked up. :( — Huntster (t @ c) 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible that the victim died earlier in the evening, and is included in the current counts? Most reports said 2 died in hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregV (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope you're talking about the shooting not the movie. Again, let's keep this talk page clear of movie spoilers! 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of Mitt Romney?

In all reality, why is Mitt Romney's opinion on the matter relevant? We could put the opinion of the Governor of Colorado, Hillary Clinton, the Pope, LeBron James, or any 'important' person. 192.91.173.42 (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source has provided another person's reponse, feel free to include that as well. GiantSnowman 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
In the interests of balance Romney should be quoted too and the media saw it notable enough to state his response. There should of course be other reaction too. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This sort of section is standard. As to LeBron James, no, but if the Colorado Rockies cancelled a game or held a ceremony, that would likely be relevant. Basically, the info is there for those interested, but can be skipped by those who aren't. If you aren't interested, skip reading it. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with 192. Obama is the elected representative of the country where this happened, Perlmutter represents the district, Warner Brothers represents their film. All relevant. Romney has nothing to do with the story. This isn't an election debate. There's no need for "balance". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Hulk, this isn't a political issue, and 5 or 10 years from now Romney may just be another guy that ran for President of the U.S., but didn't make it. Or he may make it. Who knows. But just running for President doesn't make your comments on unrelated matters "encyclopedia worthy." Now if he was the police chief, or the governor of Colorado, or something like that (relevant), I could see including it. But as far as I can tell, his only immediate connection to Colorado is to get their votes. And this isn't a political article, or shouldn't be at least. JeffreyW75 (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It's for history to show whether Mitt Romney's comments on the event are particularly notable in that context. In the current context however I think there's no doubt they are notable at present. As Romney's story develops the question of whether his role in this event and this event's role in the election and his campaign is encyclopedic can be reassessed, but for now I think his response is relevant to a great many people and should be included. Sumguysr (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Rockies wore black wristbands in their Friday game against San Diego. 75.94.63.254 (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Theyre still notable figures and not "just another guy."Lihaas (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
They (eg. Romney) may be notable people but they aren't relevant to the event the article is about. EryZ (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The Romney comments should be removed. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Something like this should not be politicized, but these things always do, just as this event has already been politicized. Many media outlets have already run articles and stories dedicated to Romney's response, as well as how it will affect the presidential race (even if Romney is some washed-up nobody 10 years from now), and how it will inevitably be brought up in the upcoming presidential debates. The weight of notability, from the media perspective, and the contention in the Talk here, seems to fall toward the side that Romney's comments and opinions on this topic are nearly as notable as Obama's (although, in reality, what significance does either of these persons' perspectives have on the actual event? none. but their perspectives connected to this event have an influence outside of this event). I'm not sure if the point of views against Romney inclusion is due to "across the pond" perspective or anti-Romney perspective, but it would seem that Romney's perspective is significant enough to have inclusion following that of Obama's. Just IMHO. :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
My objection isn't anything to do with anti-anywhere or anyone. Just a relevance thing. Obama's reaction is more important since he's the guy "at the wheel" of the country where this occured. Romney just wishes he was. I don't mean that condescendingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Romney is at present the de facto leader/representative of a very significant faction of Americans. Also, Romney wishing to be 'at the wheel' may prove to be very relevant historical context for this event. As the various stories progress we can reassess the issue of relevance, but right now I think the response from the head of one of America's 2 major political parties is relevant to a great many people. Sumguysr (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Romney represents nobody. He has nothing to do with this apart from trying to garner votes from it. Leave him out, please. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
He's the Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election (de facto) - please, be serious. Whatever one's political leanings, especially in an election year, his view and Obama's view are relevant (in small doses) to the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability of victims

Krford has repeatedly removed references to Jessica Redfield, a sportswriter that was tweeting from the theatre until the film started. It's relevant curiousity of our digital age, and for that reason, it seems relevant. Previously, she escapes Toronto Eaton Centre#2012 shooting, another shooting in a public area. Opinions? -- Zanimum (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source mentions one of the victims may be a person of (some) note, or that they were at least present, then so should we. Escaping another shooting is interesting but only trivia. GiantSnowman 13:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I really don't think she is notable enough to be on this article. United States Man (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Her tweets have been the subject of news coverage in Canada, the United States, and Britain. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
US Man - I have reverted you - we do not decide if she is notable enough, reliable sources do. GiantSnowman 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Does she have a wiki page? United States Man (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a subtle difference between 'notable enough for a standalone article' and 'notable enough to be mentioned'. GiantSnowman 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a far more important distinction between the notability of a person and the notability of a fact regarding that person's role in an event. When reliable sources devote articles to one persons activities prior to a major event I think that's a decent indicator that that fact is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumguysr (talk • contribs) 08:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so what's the concensus? It seems the concensus is that there doesn't have to be a Wikipedia article on someone to justify mentioning their actions in a notable situation, but is it agreed that her tweeting is relevant enough for the article, given the media coverage of it? There's hundreds of articles now about her, apparently she's also the first confirmed victim. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Her real name is Jessica Ghawi. Jessica Redfield was her pen name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.7.156 (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, do you have a source? (probably not) United States Man (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, USMan? Try Googling. There's 1750 references in Google News to her, currently. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Well then a source needs to be put on here. A google search is NOT a reliable source. United States Man (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the point of linking to sources, on the talk page? if there is a concensus to add this information, then the source would appear in the article itself. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm pretty sure that's not what Zanimum was implying. He was merely showing you that there are plenty of sources available since you doubted the existence of any. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Virginia Tech massacre includes a list of the slain, along with brief personal details for the purpose of identification (full name, age, hometown, and major or status at the school). I'd think that a similar list of confirmed dead including the first three pieces of information would be appropriate for this article, for similar reasons. Given that Ghawi was apparently fairly widely known by her pen name, it would probably be appropriate to include both names for her entry (i.e. Jessica Ghawi, AKA "Jessica Redfield") in the interest of clarity. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As the victims are identified, news sources will have profiles of them. We should refrain from creating stand-alone articles about previously non-notable individuals known only for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and becoming a shooting victim. Edison (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No one was suggesting this, while in the early stages of success, her career wouldn't qualify as notable. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Her notability is not at question, the notability of the fact that she tweeted from the theater prior to the event, the contents of her tweets, her casualty status, and if she was the first person shot is at question. I have not yet examined the contents of her tweets so I don't have an opinion about that. If reliable sources devote articles to the contents of the tweets I think that's a pretty good indicator that they're notable though. If reliable sources report she was the first shot I think that's definitely notable and relevant. As a slightly separate issue, I think it'd be a good idea to include a full list of all the victims when that information is published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumguysr (talk • contribs) 08:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It has already been established that at least one of the deceased was a member of the military; and possible others injured were aslo members of the military. Should this be listed in the article? How relevant would this be since this may add additional federal level charges. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/pentagon-aurora-shooting-batman-premiere_n_1689885.html and http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123310826 Teddyr (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Theater versus theatre

I disagree with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#English spelling comparison chart that theater is the US way of referring to the building. Both are used in my experience. In this specific case, I feel that we should change theater to theatre throughout because it took place in Century Theatres. Wouldn't a building operated by Century Theatres be a Theatre not a Theater? I feel that in a case where the regional spelling is not strict we should go with the way it is described by the company that owns it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A fair point well made. GiantSnowman 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) The actual name of the building is called a "theater" in American English. In my opinion, I think we should leave it as "theater" if it is describing the actual building. -- Luke (Talk) 16:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm about as 'merican as you can get, but I probably refer to the building as a theatre 9 times out of 10. At the same time, I did some searches and sources like Fox news were referring to it as a theater and theater 9. Perhaps the most appropriate change would be "Century 16 Movie Theater"→"Century 16 Movie Theatre"? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The actual name of the company name is "Century Theatres", however we should use language consistent with the location. I'm not too sure how much MOS:TIES goes into this, but I would think most people in the USA use "theater", according to Movie theater#Spelling and alternative terms. -- Luke (Talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Congratulate me, I scan both versions as correct. No idea how that happened; "colour" and "labour" still look wrong to me. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
A "theater" is a building. "Theatre" is what you see when you're there. 75.94.63.254 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
QUOTE 'A "theater" is a building. "Theatre" is what you see when you're there.' Quote sources! M-w.com??? As near as I can tell, in the US, "theatre" is solely pretension much like "olde" for "old", "ye" for "the" (should be "þe" for "the". With respect, Ryan, you're trying to make sense of English is which is a hopeless cause! Consider "ough": slough (sluff/rhymes with rough/tough), slough (sloo/rhymes with boo/true), slough (slou/rhymes with bough/cow)--slough your slough in a slough ("cast off your depression in a ditch"); bough, cough, dough, fought/bought/thought, ought/wrought, slough (sloo), tough--seven different pronunciations of "ough"! Why is English special? Because it comes from Latin, Greek, French, German, Angle, Saxon, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, etc., etc. etc...! it doesn't borrow words, it mugs foreign languages in dark alleys, and rifles vocabulary from them!
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. " --http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Nicoll
Occasionally? Habitually!
HOWEVER: "Century Theatres is now Cinemark Theatres": http://www.centurytheaters.com/
This (I think) is a valid reason to change to "theatre".
Laguna CA (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
However, the link is at centurytheaters.com not centurytheatres.com. I vote theater. The elephant (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Just because a business has named itself "Ghoti Toiz" doesn't mean we need to spell "toys" as "toiz", or "fish" as "ghoti" in the store's article. There are many reasons for a business to use spelling in its name different from the current local language uses. The accepted American spelling (the spelling applicable to the article) of the word in question is "theater" therefore that should be the spelling used. Using convoluted rationalizations to justify using one's own preferred spelling is not on the list of reasons, in the WP guidelines, to spell a word one way or another. I normally spell "color" as "colour" but when editing an article which his set to American usage, I use the word as "color" because that's the guideline. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
A theater is a movie building; a theatre is a building where live stageplays are presented; theatre generally means stageplays, you know like "a life in the theatre". Hope this helps clarify the issue. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:A90A:38CD:A92:DF34 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this would have any real relevence in any case but actually both http://www.centurytheaters.com and http;//www.centurytheatres.com work and neither redirect to the other. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Outside proper names (such as those of cinema chains aspiring to seem classy), it's unusual in American English to refer to a building in which motion pictures are exhibited as a "theatre". As noted above, that typically refers to a venue for live performances (or to the medium in general). —David Levy 15:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would add, Americans use "theater" for both live stage plays as well as screen plays. Although "cinema" is the more appropriate word for the screen plays, American habit at the dawn of cinema kept "theater" as the most often used word. As for the claim about "theater" for the building and "theatre" for the actual performance, a few people may make that distinction, but that is not accepted in any official way (such as by American dictionaries, linguists, etc), nor is it accepted by the overwhelming majority of the people. The fact is, early in American history, there was a large movement to de-Europeanize English, the number one things they attacked was the use of "our" (such as in "colour"»"color"), "oe" (such as "foetus"»"fetus"), "ae" ("encyclopædia"»"encyclopedia"), and "re" (as in "theatre"»"theater"). In each of these cases, the respelling became the officially accepted American spelling (they did not make an exception for "theatre" for any usage). Try any American English specific spell checker, they will most inevitably mark "theatre" as a misspelling. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo on flickr!!!

Free photo [2]? Should I upload it? – Lionel (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because it is on Flickr doesn't mean it is free (unencumbered by copyright concerns). -- Avanu (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. It is released under a compatible license, but I feel like it is copyvio there. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately no, because it bears all the hallmarks of Flickrwashing. It looks like it has been taken from a web news story somewhere. The text underneath the photo looks like a copyvio too.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You should be able to re-use the original photo from the university: [3] (there's a link to a PDF with a higher-res version...I don't feel like figure out how to mangle and upload that properly.) I don't know what the license on that is, but it's in a press release and certainly fair use in any case. It may just be public domain if the university's policies specify that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Unless otherwise noted, all materials contained on this website are copyright protected. Materials may be downloaded and/or reprinted for personal use only" Legal notices. Images of living people cannot be uploaded under fair use. There are very few exceptions, for example, if an image existed of Holmes with red hair dressed like the joker, that could be uploaded as fair use because there is no free equivalent. A generic image of Holmes can still be taken. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I've added a "to do" list which includes a photo of Holmes that does not require WP:NFCC. A police mugshot is a possibility, but it should comply with WP:MUG. Also, it would be helpful if someone could take a photo of the movie theater and upload it to Commons. The map in the infobox is clunky and uninformative.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, is a police mugshot covered by federal copyright law? I'm not entirely sure about this, but I feel like only mugshots taken by the federal government (or a state like florida) are PD. Am I wrong? It would be great if we could use it though, can anyone point me to something that states the copyright status of a mugshot? Actually, I just found {{Ir-Mugshot}} which I believe concerns my thoughts. Unless the mugshot is taken by the federal government, rather than the Aurora PD, it will probably still be copyrighted. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
We have had this argument before with articles like Jared Lee Loughner. Broadly speaking, US law enforcement mugshots are copyrighted and require the use of Template:Ir-Mugshot, but FBI mugshots are public domain.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The image at [4] (widely used in media coverage), does not appear to date from the time of his July 2012 arrest. Police have stated that Holmes has red hair, and this image does not have red hair. If an image of Holmes from a law enforcement agency in July 2012 could be found, it would be suitable for use in the article even if it required WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • webmaster@uchsc.edu is the email for the copyright and permission to use the image. They may allow a 'free license' for it if someone wants to send them an email?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please unlock this page.

Please unlock the page. If it becomes the subject of repeated vandalism, it can be locked again. There are enough people watching the page to ensure that any vandalism will quickly be reverted. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

When administrators semi-protect a page they have a good reason. I can guarantee that they know more about Wikipedia than you do :) Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 10:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
What a crass remark. You can guarantee no such thing, with wikilove and little pink baubles. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I somehow don't think the admins would agree to such a request when it's only from an IP address, and not from a user account. Wikkedit (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, only an ip address, so clearly of no consequence. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:IPs are human too. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I would actually request that this page be locked until we have more information. I have already read conflicting accounts in the media that disagree with what is here. Please keep it locked until we know more of what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.116.39 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. You're saying that the article as it stands has problems, and therefore we should limit further contributions to only those editors who brought it to its current state. Personally, I think the article is okay, but I don't see the need to keep it locked. 87.114.154.126 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the lock - if it is removed, the loons will vandalize the page very quickly. Anon IP 87... - why not register? Then, after a few edits that show you are a good citizen, you could edit semi-protected articles yourself. Admins have to watch out for banned persons trying to evade blocks via anonymous logins, so protected pages also serve a purpose in that regard.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The page should only be unlocked if we can guarantee that nobody will post movie spoilers on it. 98.112.230.87 (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Anon 87: I did not say that they know more about Wikipedia than you do because you are an IP, I said it because you made request that had no chance of being realized, a request that you ALREADY MADE just hours before on this very page. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 06:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You are absolutely right: even with semi-protection bad edits get through. Imagine how bad it would be if there were no semi-protection. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 06:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Just make some random account and repeatedly undo your own edits to get enough edits and leave it to become autoconfirmed after some time. Use it only for locked articles. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Speculation

The full-body armor suggests that he had possibly planned to have a standoff with police. The timed music blaring from his apartment (and the fact that he left the door unlocked) suggests that he had initially planned for someone to become curious about the music and attempt to enter his apartment, setting off the explosives. The fact that he gave up without a fight and admitted to having a booby-trapped apartment suggests that he changed his mind partway through... Just speculation, though.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.246.238 (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You may very well have a point there—however, this policy doesn't allow us to include mere speculation in Wikipedia, in most cases, and this one prevents us from adding things we've come up with independently, without having them first published somewhere, basically. While it's entirely possible that you're correct, we'll have to wait and see what information comes forward on this, if any, before we can discuss it in the article.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 02:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I know that. That's why I posted it here, on the talk page, while the thought was fresh in my mind instead of being an idiot and attempting to add it to the actual article. I just wanted to put the information out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.246.238 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't wearing body armor, just a load-bearing vest: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31290458/detail.html. The "Blackhawk urban assault vest" mentioned in that article lacks any armor whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.86.140 (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you research 'the joker' as per the last instalment 'Dark Knight", one of the things the 'Joker" does is have an escape plan, for example dressing himself in a manner that means he is not detected. Fox News reported that Police at the scene, found him more out of luck as he blended in with riot gear of our Police members at the scene, and that the two officers who detected him did so due to their close observation skills. Furthermore, with Police reporting that his detonation devices rigged to about the time of the shooting, it could be further supported that like 'The Joker", he planned on there being another crime scene to further take his detection away. Former FBI profiler Candice De Long has stated that this alleged offender wanted to live so that he could 'enjoy' the limelight that his crimes would bring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.213.45 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... But, from what I have heart, they did find him just sort of sitting on the curb outside the theater, next to his vehicle. Maybe he had second thoughts, but who knows? I'm watching footage from the court hearing right now, I'll see if I can gleam any information from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.246.238 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Obama on the Phone

Why is there a photo of Obama on the phone in this article? How does this add anything to the article. It is indistinguishable from any other photo of someone on the phone, heck he could be talking to anyone at the time. Worse yet, it looks like a publicity photo. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to use a picture of Obama, it might be better to upload this one. It shows him taking action and contains the FBI director. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The questions are "does it add anything?" and "Is this being used for political purposes?" I would say the first is no, it was reported that he talked on the phone, and the image adds no additional information or context. Given it is the political season, I think the second answer may be yes, or at least appears to be. Given the situation, I think it is a little insulting to the victims families to have any appearance that this article is/will be used for political purposes by anyone. Arzel (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, I removed the photo for the reasons above.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Insulting to the victims? I think that's a bit of an overreaction, but whatever.Rail88 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I added the photo as the article is currently rather under-illustrated, and it's relevant. I'm Australian BTW, so it sure wasn't anything political. I've got no problems with the photos removal per this discussion though. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Obama is the President; photographs of his actions responding to this incident are relevant and at least one should be included. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Sitting in a car on the phone is not an action. Pictures should be used to add more information, especially when difficult to adequately describe a situation with context. This picture adds no additional information, it is simply a press release for publicity purposes. Arzel (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
We could add the picture of Obama talking with FBI director Mueller, as suggested above. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think 331dot cuts to the heart of the matter. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He's responded to a national tragedy through public remarks, meeting federal and local officials, visiting victims, attending the vigil, etc. That's sufficient reason to use one of the photos. We use photos of President in articles about both highly contentious events and unifying events (e.g., mourning a national tragedy). Singling out this President for exclusion from photographic depictions in those so-called "mourner-in-chief" moments is bias. We depict it and the readers can decided whether they think it's genuine compassion or not. The simplest way to address this is precedent and consistency. George W. Bush is depicted in photos for Virginia Tech massacre, Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford, and Hurrican Katrina. The Virginia Tech case is particularly analogous - I think that article and this one should be treated similarly regarding a photo of the President. To me, the only particularly convincing counterargument would be one that demonstrates that some other article(s) without a Bush photo are better analogies to the Aurora article. I lend zero weight to the "political season" argument. We live in an era of perpetual campaigning. And I don't think we should be taking hardline ban on photos during a Presidential election year. We should analogize the situation (like an analysis of the practice in similar articles) and make a decision. --JamesAM (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I removed the photo had nothing to do with politics. The photo of George W Bush in Virginia Tech massacre is much more tightly focused, because it shows him after giving a speech on campus. A similar photo of Barack Obama visiting the victims of the Colorado shooting in hospital etc would also be ideal. The photo of him on the phone in the car was too generic and added no new information to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this one? The White House's photostream is a mixed bag. The photos are undoubtedly free, but they tend to be vaguely promotional.--Chaser (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It does look vaguely promotional. However, if it is free to use, it is a possibility. What do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It's better than the picture of him on the telephone. I support using it. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I strongly support using it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm against it as an issue of weight, not bias or doubts about his authenticity. We have visual illustrations of nothing in this article but Obama. That is not appropriate. causa sui (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Student says Holmes was not a 'loner' and had friends

"People are using the word 'loner' to describe him, and that's not a fair representation," said a fellow doctoral student at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus who knew Holmes and agreed to be interviewed on condition of anonymity.

"He has friends. He's quiet and keeps a low profile, but we're all like that. We're PhD students. There's not a lot of time to do other stuff," the student said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/22/us-usa-shooting-denver-holmes-idUSBRE86L01220120722

I thought this may be relevant to the Holmes Background section since a neighbor has been quoted about the Holmes family. Maybe an inclusion of the way the media has painted him: a loner, not a loner? Conflicting reports?

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

I've read some comments that we shouldn't include this info because it's not done by a mental health professional or whatever. I think that's a bit too restrictive. Reading on the article about Seung-Hui Cho, we've got great, illuminative statments from his family, his teachers, his peers. If it's sourced well, I don't see why we can't add similar information here. EryZ (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The statements I was rejecting were oblique first impressions from seminar teachers and fellow students who barely knew him. Lots of people keep to themselves in a professional setting like a medical school classroom. Well-sourced and encyclopedic statements from people who had intimate knowledge of the suspect may be worthwhile. causa sui (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for not adding perpetrator's photo

Just for common sense guys, i drove through the article fast just in case it was there but no. Seeing it would be largely uncomfortable. --99.55.104.165 (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be uncomfortable? United States Man (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. There is no reason for *not* showing the alleged perpetrator's face in the article other than the lack of a suitable image at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not it makes users uncomfortable is also not relevant; the goal is to to be encyclopedic. It would be worse if image HAD been held back for that kind of reason, diminishing the quality of the article. As ianmacm points out, we simply do not have an image we can freely use right now. As soon as one is obtained, I'm sure it will be added to the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a good reason for no photo and not much of an article on the creepo. Some unbalanced people go to great lengths just to get attention, if Wikipedia does not cater to that, maybe it will reduce the number of incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.214.66 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you have it all wrong. Wikipedia is not going to change the minds of people like that. There is not a good reason to not have info on the suspect. A good photo has just not been located. United States Man (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting Wikipedia contributes to things like mass shootings? I'm not sure if you're serious, but under that premise, we shouldn't have articles on any murders, bombings, rebellions, or any of the vast number of things that might be imitated. This is an encyclopedia, and we don't pass judgment on whether something is "good" or "evil" when writing about it, but rather present facts as best we can. Besides, attention-seekers get much more of it from the media and other sources than they do from Wikipedia articles. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a perennial debate actually, and not at all novel. There is some significant research into this area and a multitude of opinions from expert psychiatrists that glorifying mass murderers or presenting them as anti-heroes encourages copycats. The last time I saw this debate was on Anders Behring-Breivik. I'm not sure that Wikipedia should necessarily take preventing copycats as a higher goal than encyclopedic completeness (it's easy to be encyclopedic and complete, but hard to know if you're really preventing copycats), but I do think it's a legitimate concern and we should probably take steps to avoid glorifying or popularizing the alleged perpetrator. causa sui (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Image revisited

Would the image on this page be eligible for fair use? It specifically shows his orange hair which was used to create the "joker persona". It may be that there is no free equivalent to that image. At the same time, it might be necessary to ensure that the same look is not maintained tomorrow and throughout any trials. Ryan Vesey Review me!

To avoid the long running arguments over WP:NFCC#1 that occurred at Jared Lee Loughner, we will probably have to wait for a suitable free image. There is a presumption that a free image can usually be found of a living person.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Correct; however, I believe if subsequent images of him appeared without red hair, the red haired images would satisfy the criteria. This is because they would be the subject of descriptions of his appearance at the time. It is certainly too early now because we don't know his current hair color. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that rationale, I think, is that the picture is from AdultFriendFinder and not connected to the incident. It's a picture of him with red hair, and not necessarily indicative of how he looked at the time of the rampage, despite the similarity in reported hair color. So I don't think it's a valid image source in any case. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably under some sort of copyright anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncertain about claim that James Holmes used a "100-round drum magazine".

Thought the investigation did conclude that the 100-round drum magazine was found on the scene, it was never concluded with facts that it was used during the shooting. Linked is a picture of the crime scene and the AR-15 rifle. The magazine attached to the rifle is obviously not a 100-round drum but simply a "typical" 30 round magazine.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/20/article-2176377-14264342000005DC-51_306x423.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.68.248 (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Interviews with LEO's, experts, by Diane Sawyer said he used such clips in the attack on ABC News.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested addition to Reactions section

Talk show host Craig Ferguson pulled part of his prerecorded talk show on the Friday night, replacing his monologue with a serious discussion of the day's events. I feel that should be mentioned here because it's the first time a major US chat show host has done this since the network talk shows returned to the air after 9/11. I believe it is discussed in news media, but the opening itself has been posted to YouTube here for purposes of verification. The Wikipedia article for The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson already mentions the episode. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. There's nothing about Ferguson that renders him any sort of expert on crime, etc., and his monologues over the years show his political leanings quite clearly - this would violate NPOV for the article. Many such shows and news organizations have had 'round table' discussions on this incident and we're not quoting them, either. Btw, he's a comedian, and his show is not a "chat" show. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Also disagree. What one talk show host, or any talk show, does is not notable. Talking about things is what they do. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple observations

I don't know if the Adultfriendfinder information should be in the article or not, but I think its omission conflicts with the continuing statement that few "digital footprints" were found. Is there a reason it is excluded? Also, I suggest that the "Happy Editing" signature of one of the editors might be out of place in discussion of this article, at least while the story is hot? It might be a good idea to change it to something more professional for a while.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it appropriate for us to allow a tragedy to make the entire world gloomy. The best way to honor the dead is to live a happy life. We cannot just forget a tragedy occurred, very true. But it is not like I am cracking jokes or making fart noises. I am simply wishing other editors success in their editing. Most people edit Wikipedia because they are passionate about it, not because they want to make the place run like a law firm Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Broken reference

The reference titled "cbs 2012-07-22 swat armor" is broken. Could someone look into fixing it? Chris857 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The named, but otherwise empty, reference, was added in this edit. I've removed the reference, just to get rid of the glaring error in the ref list. If someone else feels that the rest of the added text needs to be removed for the lack of that reference, or is able to supply a reference, more power to them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

70 casualties

There's a little bit of back&forth via IPs over the number of casualties. 70 vs 12. And I think that the core of the issue is over the definition of the word "casualties" itself. A glance at the linked page shows that, while in strict military usage one does not need to die to be a casualty, in everyday civilian usage it generally means death. So both numbers are correct, depending on which usage of the word is implied. I think that the sentence wants to imply dead and wounded, but that conflicts a bit with the more common definition of the word. The best solution, IMHO, would be to replace "casualties" with different word that better covers the intended meaning of the sentence. But I'm not coming up with a good replacement word off the top of my head. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

While I wrote the above, one of the IPs rewrote the section, so the above may very well be moot. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fatality means death, casualties mean both. 58 injuries plus 12 deaths equals 70 casualties. United States Man (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Wiktionary says "Casualty: A person suffering from injuries or who has been killed due to an accident or through an act of violence." - so I agree that it's correct to say "casualty" when referring to injured people as well as the dead.
However, usage of language that is technically correct, but likely to be misunderstood by a significant fraction of our readership, should be avoided where we can easily do so. In this case, it's just easier to separate out the numbers of dead and wounded so it's all very explicit. I think we should avoid using the word "casualty" in this context. SteveBaker (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with SteveBaker. If we can avoid potential confusion over the wording, we should. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I also agree, I used to get fatalites and casualties mixed up myself. United States Man (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

merge template

I moved the merge template to 'Suspect' section. User:Br'er Rabbit reverted the change without explanation, as though it was vandalism. So I asked about this at User talk:Br'er Rabbit and was told that I 'moved the merge template to the wrong spot.' How is that the wrong spot? The template is meant to go either at the top of the page or the top of the relevant section when there is one. That's why it says 'It has been suggested that James Eagan Holmes be merged into this article or section.' I moved it to the section about James Eagan Holmes. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked the above in my reply at User talk:Br'er Rabbit. Br'er Rabbit hasn't responded, despite editing another page 10 minutes ago. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The template states that it may be merged into the article, not the section. United States Man (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copypasted from the template: It has been suggested that James Eagan Holmes be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since July 2012. I see "section" there too. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I was quoting what I thought it said. Didn't realize it said section also. Anyway, a merge or deletion template is always placed at the top. United States Man (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've seen this template at the tops of specific sections when they exist. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger
"add the appropriate merger template to the very top of the destination page"
Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Then why does the template say 'or section'? I've seen it used that way. It seems that the documentation doesn't fully reflect actual usage and needs to be revised.
And please, if you believe that someone made a mistake or messed something up, say that when undoing it. Don't treat people trying to improve the article as vandals unworthy of an explanation. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I just went to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Merge from and loaded the first page listed, Anatolia. The template appears at the top of a specific section. 166.195.240.77 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you would look at more articles from that page you would see that most of the templates are at the top of the page. You are fighting a losing battle, the template belongs at the top. There is not really much more to discuss. United States Man (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Rather than a losing battle, I think that it's the wrong battle. The correct one is probably on the template itself, to remove "section" from it. The root of this is probably that it used to be okay to put it in a section, but consensus has changed on that without the template wording having changed to meet it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've seen no evidence of a shift in consensus. It's the documentation that was wrong (because its authors, myself included, accidentally omitted a significant detail). —David Levy 19:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
On what do you base the claim that "the template belongs at the top"? Its longstanding wording and usage indicate otherwise.
In most cases, the tag is placed at the top of the article, as there often isn't a specific section into which the other article's content would be merged. In other cases (particularly those involving subtopics), there is a specific section, so the tag goes there.
Our informational pages are descriptive (not prescriptive), so if one doesn't accurately describe our actual practices, it gets changed. I've edited Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger (which I helped to write, while evidently overlooking a significant detail) accordingly. —David Levy 19:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Victim names

More back and forth over the course of the day. Do we include the names of the fatalities or not? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but it's not good to see the names coming and going. So let's start a discussion to try to get a consensus on the issue one way or the other. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion should continue at Talk:2012 Aurora shooting#Tables appropriate?. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Very well. I scanned the talk section headers, but missed that section because the header really does not reflect the discussion topic. Shrug. Oh well. Thanks. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

External Image

I'm concerned by {{external image}} in the article. The source cannot be identified and there is no way to make sure we are not linking to copyrighted information. If we can link to a new source, we could use this. Otherwise I believe it needs to be removed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is the Arapahoe County Sheriff via Reuters. Linking to copyright images is not forbidden, only uploading them to Wikicommons is. — O'Dea (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologize, I miswrote that. Linking to copyright violations is forbidden. The link must be changed to one in which it can be determined that it is not a copyright violation. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Cite policy on that, please. — O'Dea (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
See the documentation for the template. Which states "According to WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK, editors must never link to content that violates copyright or is otherwise illegal" (emphasis in the original). Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have fixed the link in the James Eagan Holmes article. I have removed it in this one as I feel it is not necessary. If someone else feels that the external picture box should be included, they can add {{externalimage|image1=[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57478190-504083/james-holmes-mug-shot-released/ James Holmes police photograph]}} to the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The policy allows fair use. — O'Dea (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no such thing as fair use when linking to a copyright violation. I have modified the link to one that is certainly not a copyright violation. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Post a link proving a copyright violation has occurred instead of assuming it. In the meantime, I have posted a link to the original article I found the image in. — O'Dea (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the external image link with the mugshot on Commons. Colorado "State agency authored documents are in the public domain" 75.166.200.250 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm challenging the validity of the link you are using. It is clearly not the most current website for Colorado. The current one clearly shows a copyright tag, which would imply that Colorado can copyright their works. I won't remove the picture again, another editor can do that if they agree. In any case, this image is up for deletion on commons. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Date of Obama picture

Since we have a huge case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I am starting discussion. WP:STRONGNAT clearly states that dates of articles written in American English should be in the US style, i.e. Month Day, Year. This article clearly has strong national ties. There is no "wikiformat" for dates. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You have mis-cited WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which says, "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it." No community consensus has been reached on our dispute because you have only just started this discussion. Yours is a manipualtive and self-serving claim. Please respect Wikipedia's policies and don't abuse them. — O'Dea (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
To expand on this, the US date format is clearly in the table of accepted styles. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not imply I said otherwise when I did not. — O'Dea (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
WPDATE allows a variety of style usages and I would appreciate it if you did not attempt to impose your style choice on me. Dates are written in various ways by people in the US, including me, and I do not appreciate being dictated to when the style manual allows a particular format of date. — O'Dea (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
See WP:DATERET. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially to keep consistent with the rest of the dates in the article, it should be MM D, YYY. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

O'Dea just reverted again (including the misplaced full stop that I noted in my edit summary), claiming that I "have violated 3R without getting consensus on this" (an odd claim, particularly given the fact that this was O'Dea's fourth reversion in less an hour).
X96lee15 reverted back. If O'Dea reverts again, it will be for the fifth time. —David Levy 23:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN3 report here: [5] JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Victims

From the main article body: "The victims ranged in age from three months to 51 years." Who on earth takes a 3 month baby to a midnight film screening? Lugnuts (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing article changes only- not aspects of the incident itself. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
What 331dot said... However, if you were questioning the source, and not the actual factoid, here is the source. We can confirm that a 3-month-old was involved. SwimFellow (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood Knew This Was Bound To Happen

Hollywood always has super tight security at the theatre for the Academy Awards, they knew a shooting or bombing was going to take place eventually at a movie theatre--why didn't they take precautions? Probably because the bean counters felt protective measures, like at airports, would be too expensive, and figured the loss of a bunch of lives was not too much to pay for a bloated multi-billion dollar industry. Hollywood is to blame, but I guess we'll see how the lawsuits pan out. Yeah, great homeland security we've got. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:A90A:38CD:A92:DF34 (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Most moviegoers are under 30 years of age

Since the vast bulk of moviegoers are under 30 years old, did he pick a movie theater specifically to target this age group, or did he pick it simply because there were a lot of people there? Was this his favorite movie theater? 2602:306:CEDF:1580:A90A:38CD:A92:DF34 (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the forum to question the particulars of the incident, or to question why things weren't done; this is to discuss article changes only. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Largest mass shooting in the USA?

The majority of news reports in print and television keep reporting, "one of," when referring to this event. Does anyone know for sure if it's truly the biggest mass shooting? Partyclams (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Inglorious Basterds

It occurred to me that Quentin Tarentino's film "Inglorious Basterds" may have been the inspiration for the Aurora movie theater shooting since in Tarentino's film a bunch of people are trapped in a movie theater and are killed. Anybody heard or read anything along these lines? Thanks. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:D469:7C40:B315:379 (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's probably a coincidence, and in both scenarios a movie theater was targeted because there are many people packed closely together. It may interest you to note, though, that the scene from Inglorious Basterds was referenced in this hoax image spread by 4chan just after the tragedy occurred. Technician Fry (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The context was completely different. In the film the person behind the killings was a Jew getting revenge on the NAZI's for there action against her people and to target Hilter. A bomb was also used. Other than the fact that they both took place in a movie theater and guns were used I see little in common. Personally I doubt that was the inspiration.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

so, Holmes is spitting at guards now ...

They are reporting on ABC that they had to put a mask on him when handling him. <shrugs>

http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-spitting-correction-officers-forcing-spit-guard/story?id=16844456#.UA8n80Sk3C8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to either article. He's being uncooperative. That's not exactly relevant to the shooting, nor is it "biographic" info for his article. It's trivia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Colorado wackiness quotient goes to 11

In normal parts of the world, people don't run out to buy guns after a madman shoots up their movie theatre and kills people, but apparently in Colorado that's what you do.[6] Obviously, the solution to one nut with a gun is more nuts with a gun, right? Has anyone bothered to think this through? In any case, we need a paragraph/section on this craziness. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The first line of that article explains the phenomenon quite clearly: gun sales sometimes spike dramatically if people expect stricter firearms laws in the near future. It's nothing extraordinary, and is certainly not extraordinary to this shooting. From later in the article:
Gun sales often fluctuate based on news events, especially whenever people think the passage of more restrictive gun laws is imminent. Sales spiked following the election of President Barack Obama, when weapons enthusiasts expressed fear that the Democrat might curtail gun rights. FBI figures also show background checks for handgun sales jumped in Arizona following the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in 2011.
Therefore, I doubt it's significant enough to be mentioned in the article. Technician Fry (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't think a significant rise in gun sales related to this shooting is significant? Clearly, the only reason it was covered by the news was because of its significance. Furthermore, it is beyond nuts that people would rush out and buy guns because of the election of a President or after a politician was shot. The normal reaction is to stay away from guns. Have you people gone off the deep end? When you pass a bad car accident, do you rev up the motor and speed away and drive like a bat out of a hell? NO, you slow the hell down and drive defensively. This impulse to buy guns after a shooting is sick and it's a sign of a sick society. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I suppose an extra line about the surge in gun sales would contribute to the "Reactions" section. It would be appropriate to mention both of the reasons that the article cites for a rapid increase in firearm purchases: a fear of future regulations and a heightened desire for self-defense. Thank you for finding the article. Technician Fry (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to take a break and have some WP:TEA, Viriditas. You're soapboxing right now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that the rush to run out and buy guns because of this shooting is notable due to its sheer nuttiness. Normal people don't rush out to buy guns after a mass killing spree. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe the idea that it is 'nuts' to buy a gun when a person feels there is a threat is simply a point of view not shared by all people. I agree that you are probably soapboxing, and the analogy about driving faster after witnessing a car wreck is not a good one. The idea that you might get a better (stronger, safer) car after seeing a car wreck is. One thing that would have clearly stopped the shooter from continuing would have been a bullet from a gun held by a movie patron. You assume it is sick because I guess you think guns are scary, and guess what? You're absolutely right if you think guns are scary. And that's the whole point. A rational person in today's society doesn't buy a gun in order to have a chance to use it. A rational person buys a gun because it serves as a deterrent for others to use theirs in an irresponsible way. In Old Yeller, the kid carries a gun around without a problem, and yes, I know it is a movie, but the point is we need people to grow up and be responsible. If children 100 years ago could be trusted to carry a gun, why is it so unfathomable that our supposedly much more tolerant, advanced and educated society, we can't trust adults to carry a gun? (By the way, I don't carry a gun, I didn't buy one when the president was elected, and in many ways I actually agree with you that knee-jerk behavior is silly, but I don't think people are 'sick' just because they have a gun, and I think you miss the whole point if you take the position that you're currently seeming to take.) -- Avanu (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I've taken no such position, nor have I said anything you've said I've said above. Every reputable gun expert will tell you that having armed people in a dark movie theater firing back at the assailant would have killed innocent people. Nobody with any expertise or brains is encouraging people to buy more guns because of this incident. That's like driving past a driver who's being arrested for drunk driving and killing another driver and saying, "Hey, let's go get a bottle of Jack and drive 120 down the highway!" That's not a normal reaction. A normal reaction would be, "People need to stop drinking and driving and should slow down and be more careful". What's going on here is a classic case of media spin. We're being told that the incident is leading to people buying more guns, but that's just a distraction from the news stories showing that people are calling for more gun control. Because it appears in the media, we're supposed to believe that the normal reaction to this kind of horrific event is more guns, but actually, it's not normal at all. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to remove this entire section per WP:NOTAFORUM; however, there is a small suggestion for things on the page. Any suggestion that we make a note on the "craziness" going on in Colorado is ridiculous and Viriditas, you know better. It might be appropriate to make a remark that gun sales have spiked. Do we have reliable sources linking gun sale spikes to fears of increased gun laws? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This article links increase in gun sales to several things, including fear of increased gun regulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novalayne (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Precisely my point. Normal people don't fear increased gun regulation after a madman kills innocent men, women, and children in a public area. They fear and worry about the guns. The people of Colorado are acting contrary to the way most normal people think and feel. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I don't think it's that crazy really- I could easily see the same thing happening else where in the US, and even in other countries. People being concerned about accessibility of guns doesn't mean they're not worried about the people who were killed. But I'm going to stop per WP:NOTAFORUM. No matter the implications, I still think it's important to mention the rise of gun sales. -Novalayne (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
But they aren't really worried about the accessibility of guns, they are worried about the accessibility of assault weapon-type guns, the type that have restrictions in states like California. So, what's going through their mind? "I better get an AR-15 military and police style rifle before the guvmint bans it"? You think that's a normal reaction to this shooting? It's not, and most people don't rush out to buy assault weapons when a mass shooting occurs. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Terrorist attack

Is this terrorist attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.154.204 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)‎

"FBI [... said no terrorism link had been established". GiantSnowman 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.154.204 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No idea, I'm sure more details will be forthcoming with time. GiantSnowman 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Describing things as a terroist attack is a gray area. The FBI is using it to mean that it is not associated with a known terror group, or being done for political motivation (as far as is known). However that means that "terrorism" is restricted to motive and not method, which is somewhat ambiguous/confusing. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

By definition, it most likely fits the description of "domestic terrorism". But it's unlikely that a major terrorist group such as Al Qaeda was involved. Though right now, it's all speculation. We need to let the police and FBI do their research. WTF? (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it certainly appears to match the definition of a terrorist attack, but that isn't for us to decide. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. The FBI response pretty much translates as "not an organized terrorist attack," I think. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

isn't it they call it a terrorist attack when they find a link to a grouping that either formerly claimed violent attacks , or they consider an organisation on the terrorist listing themselves? 62.163.248.13 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, see Lone wolf terrorismLihaas (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a shooting. Let it be called a shooting for now. That speaks more to the motive of the shooting, which at this point remains unknown. Theo10011 (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Our opinion shouldn't really matter, if the officials and experts don't classify it as a terrorist act then we should go with it. I personally don't think it is a terrorist attack. Although it has caused higher levels of fear we have no reason to believe the motive was to Create Fear. Although we don't know the motivation, it is likely he only acted for attention, its all speculative and debatable, so let the experts speculate and debate and we can include the relevant conclusions.Mantion (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Al-Qaeda also kills for attention and fame, so what? Its called terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.154.204 (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In the broad sense, all these things are terroristic. Columbine was in a broad sense a terrorist attack, as those two shooters also used (or tried to use) little bombs and things too. It was terroristic, but not technically officially "political terrorism" per se. Because then we'd have to call ALL the mass shootings and rampages over the years "terrorism" and the perps "terrorists". But they're not considered that in a LEGAL sense. Jots and graphs (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We all know that calling something "terroristic" is purely for political sake. But, it's the world we live in :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.155.207 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The terrorism title is reserved for when the perpetrator is brown or muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.167.136 (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the terrorism title is reserved for politically-motivated violence by non-state actors against civilians. Please do not accuse other Wikipedia editors of racism. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Really, we just roll a dice, and what ever we call it to begin with is never challenged. It's true because you know you wouldn't challenge it, and by "you" I mean anyone who would read this. If no one challenges what we call it, then it won't be challenged. So now, at this time, it is already too late to start calling this terrorism because the dice has been rolled, and if you challenge it, you are wasting your reputation on something totally not worth it. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
For something to be considered technically or legally "terrorism", there'd have to be a political or sociological rhyme or reason, not just because someone is lashing out at the world in some psychotic breakdown. Those 19 hi-jackers who murdered 3000 people in America, on 9/11/2001, or those IRA terrorists in the past, blowing up things in Britain etc (see, they don't have to all be olive Arabs or Muslims necessarily, to be considered "terrorists", though some Arabs are light-skinned too, but they could be white Europeans also) did NOT have Holmes' pathology and mental situation or motives. And it was just done differently. The IRA or Muslim Brotherhood blowing up or shooting at people is not done because of psychosis per se. And usually would be coordinated differently. They didn't have the mental problems or motive that James Holmes had. In the end though, murder and mayhem are murder and mayhem, regardless of the nuances. I understand that. But there are some differences...is the point. Jots and graphs (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there's a Baltimore Sun Op-Ed that says this should be considered a terrorist act; that it's about the act, not the ideology (or lack thereof). —Al E.(talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Time format in infobox

Here's my problem: 00:38 is absolutely not standard American usage, outside of science and the military. Most Americans are confused by 24-hour times in general, since we were generally all brought up with am/pm. I understand reverting it to not mess up the microformat in the CSS, but using start-date addresses that. I don't understand the MOS reversion, however. MOS:TIME says that context determines 12-hour vs 24-hour notation; so for context, WP:STRONGNAT reminds us to use the common date format of the country (which seems appropriate to extend to time.) Finally, MOS:TIES says to use the English of the nation in question, when there are strong ties. So that suggests to me that this should be "12:38 a.m." or whatever, not "00:38." The latter just isn't common American usage, as far as time goes for this type of event. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that many UK English readers would really prefer 00:38 to 12:38 a.m. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
UK English readers aren't the primary concern; it should be accessible to any English speaker, of course, but how the data is presented should be what's standard for US readers, as that's where the event occurred. I see the editor who had reverted it now expanded it and used the 12-hour format (I guess I just hadn't formatted it properly, which is what I was unclear on), so I think all's well now with that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
00:38 is not correct anyway. That means it would have occured at 6:38 pm MDT. Which is several hours before it actually occured. United States Man (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Uh, 00:38 = 12:38 am, and if you don't specify a time zone, it's likely to be local time. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 22:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It was specified as UTC-6 before as well, though it's trivial in any case...so it was correct, just not in a normal American English format. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
No, UTC-6 means that Coordinated Universal Time resets at 6:00 pm in this region. On standard time it is UTC-7, which means the reset is 5:00 pm. 00:38 = 6:38 pm in the UTC-6 offset. So, someone please explain to me why you think that 00:38 = 12:38 am. United States Man (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The time zone was given as the correct offset of UTC-6 for MDT. MST is UTC-7 as you note. (The term "reset" isn't quite accurate here either, even if the clock "resets" to the next day, since it just confuses the point.) The time was stated as 00:38 (UTC-6), or in other words, 12:38AM MDT. Nobody was suggesting that we state the UTC time anywhere; that would be silly. There are UTC "microformats" generated with certain time templates, but that UTC time isn't shown in a browser (and is correct anyways, so that would've shown 0638 UTC.) It was correct, just not worded in the commonly-used American notation. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The best place to discuss the formatting would be on the talk page of the template concerned, {{Start date}}, not in relation to a single article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


do we need a photo of Obama in this article?

I'm against a photo of any national politician in the article - especially that one, as it is clearly a photo-op issued via the White House - this is an election year, and let's all be grown-up and remember what these guys do. We have a short statement about both Obama and Romney in the article, and I think that is enough. Let's keep the article NPOV and as apolitical as possible.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I really dont see any issue with the picture, Obama made a reaction and was the one who visited the victims as shown in the picture. If this was no tan election year would you feel the same way? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I would - the mayor, the governor, etc., are appropriate, though.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Your arbitrary personal rules are not Wikipedia policy. — O'Dea (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
NPOV is hardly arbitrary.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The President is the senior public servant and his reponse is notable. Wikipedia cannot bend its picture inclusion policy every four years. The illustration is not electioneering and there are pictures throughout Wikipedia of presidents at disasters such as the attack of the World Trade Center by the Saudi Arabians, and after various serious domestic storms. — O'Dea (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a POV - to me, it is DEFINITELY electioneering!HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not electioneering. Presidents attend the aftermaths of many disasters and Obama would certainly have gone to Colorado in a non-election year, given the gravity of the event. — O'Dea (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. We have statements of what he did. Why the need to reinforce it with a photo? I'd much rather see victims with their caretakers than some politician. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
You cannot disagree with facts, only with opinion. Wikipedia does not prefer pictues of caretakers over senior political figures. — O'Dea (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Your statements are Wikipedia:I just don't like it, Obama is not promoting anything (He took a break from his campaign to fly to Colorado) in the picture its simple reaction to the event at hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No, trying to keep the article apolitical. And I hope you really don't think he's "stopped campaigning" - please. That was issued as a photo-op. The president hugging a victim/family member, with a huge smile. Sell bridges, do ya?  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Obamas hug everyone all the time, even in non-election years. You're being absurd. — O'Dea (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
We are not in the position to decide his purpose. We cannot say if it was for promotional or not. He went to Aurora and that is significant. The picture is used to illustrate that and it should stay. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, how about a pic of him entering the hospital, or leaving the plane, or some such? This photo is .... sentimental, perhaps that's a neutral way to put it? It's sending a message to the electorate. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sentimental? We don't have a picture of him leaving his plane and anyway it would be irrelevant. — O'Dea (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Badly phrased by me, arriving at the Denver airport, to visit the victims, was what I meant.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Same thing: irrelevant. — O'Dea (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a picture of Obama in the 2011 Joplin tornado article, and pictures of his predecessor Bush at September 11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and May 2007 tornado outbreak. There is even an entire category of 46 pictures of George Bush attanding disasters at Category:George W. Bush at scenes of disaster. Do you propose we remove all pictures of presidents from Wikipedia, or only once every four years? — O'Dea (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Would you object to a less body-contact, non-White House issued pic for his visit? I don't have one, but just asking. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you direct me to Wikipedia's no hugging policy? What other actions do you personally find offensive? — O'Dea (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Would you discuss the issue(s) at hand w/o personal comments, please? I didn't say that, and you know it, so please cut it out. My point is very clearly stated. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the inclusion of the photo and indeed the text which now excludes Mitt Romney's response whilst going out of its way to focus on Obamas involvement all demonstrates a bias. However that is not a flaw with this wikipedia article, it is more a flaw of presidential systems whereby there is a political head of state who has no equal opponent, for example in a parliamentary system there tends to be a Leader of the Opposition position which would mean both "political sides" could be mentioned in something like this, rather than the exclusion of even a single sentence of Romney responding. We have very limited potential images for this article, so despite concerns about the bias, id oppose the removal of that image which is notable, and importantly free to use. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The picture should remain; it illustrates the response of the President to this incident. It is not for us to judge the motives of the picture itself. 331dot (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to chime in, the usual interpretation of bad news is that it happens on somebody's "watch". In order words, one could argue that G. W. Bush should not be imaged in the Katrina article because people might blame Bush for the hurricane, or the poor response to it. Similarly, if Obama had made some sort of faux pas in Aurora would editors be allowed to remove the picture on the grounds that it is distracting or something? No. So the picture should stay, as a historical event. Speciate (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind changing the photo to one of him standing at that podium in the hospital lobby, if that's available. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He did give a public speech. If that image exists I believe it would be more encyclopedic. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. Does WP policy/guidelines state whether images like this should be as close to the article in question as possible? If that is the case we should include an 'on the scene' image of some sort.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE states that "articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text". The image showing the President visiting a victim is placed adjacent to a phrase within the main text body "President Obama met with victims", meeting that particular objective.--Melburnian (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think consistency is the key inquiry. In articles regarding national tragedies/disasters/mourning, when the President responds somehow, it is common to have a photograph of the President in the article. O'Dea enumerated several examples regarding Bush and Obama in this section. In a previous section, I also noted the photos of Bush in the articles for the Virginia Tech massacre (holding the hand of a mourner) and the Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford. There's also a Bush photo, looking solemn, in Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan. If we depict George W. Bush photographically in both contentious political debates and situations of national mourning/unity, but selectively eliminate depictions of Obama in the latter scenario, that would represent a distinct anti-Obama bias. Certainly, there should be a variety of photos. But the solution to that is to add those photos, not eliminate the Obama photo. Futhermore, opinions of what to exclude shouldn't be molded to whatever the photo with Obama happens to be. Why have a "no hugging" rule. Seems arbitrary. That like coming up with a no hand-holding rule that eliminates the Bush photo in the Virginia Tech article. --JamesAM (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Current Event template?

I'm pretty sure that's what they're called. There was one on this article yesterday, should it be put in again? I don't know what the rules for the use of them is, but this is still "current" as far as I'm concerned, and it's also still listed on the current event portal. Novalayne (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." It may have been removed because events have slowed down. Template:Current--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sailor Among Those Killed

Petty Officer 3rd Class John Larimer, 27, of Crystal Lake, Ill., died from injuries sustained in the incident. One other Sailor was treated for injuries and released at the scene. Includes photo. Brad (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He is already listed as a victim 2012 Aurora shooting#Victims. WWGB (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

can't even use the phrase "gun control" in reader feedback?

I tried to submit feedback on this article, to wit: "I was looking for information about gun control laws in Colorado and the United States and whether or not they were circumvented by the perpetrator" - the reader feedback would not accept it, and so i kept trying until I got to just the words "gun control" and THAT was the violation of user feedback. Nice thought control, wikipedia. 173.74.10.29 (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well this article is not about the gun control laws of Colorado - this is specifically about a shooting incident. You should query a gun control topic in Wikipedia. And nobody can control your thoughts. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the gun control laws are an important part of this article, and it's not a secret that any discussion of this important aspect gets shutdown immediately. Have you looked at the news indexes to see how many reliable sources discuss gun control and the Aurora shooting? Is it hundreds or thousands? And yet, not one word in this article. Where's the liberal bias we hear so much about? That's right, there is no liberal bias on Wikipedia, and never has been. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Because this article is about the SHOOTING - specifically - and not gun-control legislation. Bring those points up in those articles. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I happen to be a liberal, and I also happen to support 2nd amendment rights - the two are NOT mutually exclusive. This article IS about the shooting, and part of this article should mention whether the shooter violated or circumvented any Colorado or US gun laws beyond the obvious one that he brought firearms into a movie theater that is a posted no carry zone. For instance, here in TX, a concealed carry permit is required, but the state law is that the local law enforcement agency "shall issue" the permit, but that doesn't apply to a concealed weapon in your motor vehicle. In any event I see that the "Read Viewer Feedback" link has been removed, most likely to hide the fact that viewer feedback comments were so heavily censored, there was only one feedback post, and it said, in effect, "looks fine to me"173.74.10.29 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

However, if in the long term, gun laws are affected by this shooting, it should be included without question. -- Avanu (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But it is much too soon for any of that to have happened yet. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Could we include Gun laws in Colorado in the see also section?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I added it for now. Readers would probably expect some sort of link to it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

How is the fact that vicodin was found in Heath Ledger's body relevant at all? It is unsourced in this article and seems to be purely synthesis. If reliable sources are linking the two incidents we can mention it, otherwise we can't. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not relevant, it has been removed MULTIPLE times and people keep putting it back in. hajatvrc @ 15:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Batman-inspired voicemail message" a mis-quote?

The quote used in my local newspaper The Calgary Hearld and also here is "Looking back, and if I'd seen the movies, maybe I'd say it was like the Joker," which really doesn't mean a whole lot, because clearly the man has never seen the movies, and therefore would have no idea what a "batman inspired" message would entail. Maybe this should be removed? Novalayne (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"batman inspired" is OR, I will re-word id for now pending consensus of wording.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Do we know for sure that is was voicemail or an answering machine? Not all that important I would assume.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking around I found this this article, which includes this quote: “His answering machine message was incoherent, just bizarre … slurring words, but he didn’t sound drunk, just strange.” So saying answering machine may be more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novalayne (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If the source calls it strange, why can't we?.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we know if it is voicemail or a machine? I just put 'recording' for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
As I noted above (sorry, I forgot to sign the post), the caller called it a answering machine, so we might as well call it that as 'recording' is a little misleading I think.Novalayne (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Load bearing vest

The term load-bearing vest was changed to ballistic vest in this edit. No explanation was given and I have no reason to believe the information is true. I am restoring load bearing vest barring an explanation. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I came here to discuss that sentence, as the text currently says that the shooter was wearing a ballistic vest and body armor. The issue is, a ballistic vest IS a class of body armor. Meanwhile, I've read news stories that call it either a load bearing vest or "urban assault vest", the latter being a load bearing vest named urban assault for marketing purposes. I've been offline for a couple of weeks, so I have less than full information on this case.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the IP editors being reverted, it may be time to semi-protect this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It may be, and not just for the IP editors - there's some non-autoconfirmed ones causing some problems too. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
We could say it could have been both and use the proper term for the one. Do they have articles so we can use the actual article names with wikilinks? We may not want to semi-protect, just warn/block if it is just a few IPs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Load bearing vest is found at Individual Integrated Fighting System. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you be clear on what you mean by "we could say it could have been both"? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought there was confusion as to which he was wearing. Not the names of the two he actually was. Also, to save creating another section should we say he was 24 instead of the birthdate so readers won't have to do the math? He will always be 24 at the time of the shooting.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


Possible inclusion of "eyewitness" statements (on TV) that several people were involved

There are at least two different sources claiming that a person seated near one of the emergency exits received a cellphone call and left through the exit. In one case, at least, the so-called witness claims that the door was held open by someone's foot while, a bit later, someone else came in dressed in black etc., who started shooting. Like to hear what others think. Mfhiller (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

This has been discussed above at #Accomplice. Is it being widely reported and is any credence being given to it by the reporters? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
We'll have to wait and see. Might take years. There are more than a few people who don't believe the gunman "acted alone" story based on perceived facts. Mfhiller (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Would it be best to temporarily have this article Fully Protected?

I've noticed that is article is going under a huge amount of edits, re-edits, deletions, and so on. I'm wondering, should we have an administrator Fully Protect the page, if just for a day or two to let the craziness die down a bit? -- User:Haon 2.0 (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No. One of mine was reverted, but I am ok with that. The rest we can seek consensus on after one revert.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am appalled.

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

That anyone would attempt to "wrap up" this incident so soon after it happened. We don't even have a full list of the dead and wounded. We don't have (as of Friday 27 July a week later), I think, even a preliminary official report of the investigation of this incident. And yet persons are willing to write what happened as if it were fact. Well, that may be "history" for you, but it isn't for me. From top to bottom this incident reeks of intelligence community involvement. It absolutely reeks. So, I say, if you want to jump the gun on this, then list it right now in the article on False Flag Events. Because that's all it is at this point. Most of us don't have a clue what really happened there that night, and we may never know. The accomplice angle, as mentioned above, was covered up personally by none other than the President of the United States. (You can strike that if you want to, but I saw an article quoting him about what happened in the back of the theater that night.) This whole thing has been handled with a responsibility level that appalls me, and that includes this initial article on the incident. L e cox (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the WP:NOTAFORUM issue, that is the silliest thing I have heard today. Either this is trolling or tinfoil hat nonsense best left to the blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Aurora_theater_shooting/Archive_3&oldid=1206946482"