Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Miscarriage

The miscarriage should be noted [1]. --Boycool † (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

It was indirectly attributable, but if/until the district attorney charges the suspect with this, it probably should remain outside of the article. Don't be surprised if that happens fairly quickly though, so this case should be monitored by interested editors.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• This news story states that the miscarriage was caused by trauma.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That statement was made by the family, not an independent source. In the same article, a law expert has stated that homicide charges in Colorado only apply to those "who had been born and alive." WWGB (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but there is a federal law (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act) that could apply here, depends if the DA escalates/notifies a federal prosecuter. Wait-and-see at this point.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It remains very unclear whether the eight-week-old fetus was " injured or killed during the commission". WWGB (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a valid reference to the 13th victim, then. Out of respect for the mother who has tragically lost both of her children, do not discredit the murder of an innocent child. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180505/Dark-Knight-Colorado-Batman-massacre-claims-13th-victim-Heartbreak-pregnant-survivor-year-old-killed-shooting-suffers-tragic-miscarriage.html hykos (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be noted, but we shouldn't call it a murder or list this unborn fetus as a "victim". I get that it's a touchy moral issue, but murder is a legal concept. Accidental miscarriages aren't manslaughter, for the same reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Silly society where we have two names for the same thing, depending on whether it is wanted or not. The isn't a fetus, Hulk, it is a baby. This baby was a victim of the shooter. Even if it weren't wanted, it would still be a victim. I suppose you could just call it property damage if you wanted to call it a fetus, but for a mother preparing to welcome a new person into her family, it isn't just a bit of tissue or property. And I understand what you're trying to say when you say murder is a 'legal concept', but for the people who lost their lives in that theater and those people who cared about them, this isn't just a legal issue. -- Avanu (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing we should say it isn't a murder or a person. Just to say what happened in neutral terms (she was shot and miscarried) and let readers draw their own conclusions about what that means. And for the record, I didn't mean it has anything to do with being wanted or not. It's about born or not (to me). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

NOT A FORUM! Please stick to the discussion of Reliable Sources for the betterment of the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The betterment of the article is a misnomer. This topic couldn't be worse. I do recall at one time some state laws allowing murders of slaves to go unpunishable, too. That doesn't mean the murder didn't happen or wasn't notable just because the state refused to recognize it. That the law can't even make the distinction between a murder and any other abortion means that there might not be one, apparently. Still, this is about the worst crime that could ever be committed, and considering the mother did not consent to the fetal termination, then we should all make the case for murder of some degree, even if not first degree to protect the legal abortionist agenda. Since the abortion agenda is so concerned with the health for the mother which accounts for 3% of all abortions, then why can't they identify for one case that this murder DID occur and therefore was detrimental to the mother AND her family? hykos (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been mentioned earlier, I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:SOAP - this article is not concerned with moral issues regarding the status of pre-birth. As he has been charged with twelve murders I imagine that is what the article will reflect, and using language such as calling it "the worst crime that could ever be committed" is not going to help your case for inclusion because it makes it sound like you have an agenda, even if this is not your intention. BulbaThor (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what the preponderance of valid sources say: 12 vs. 13. In any event, if they fry the guy, whether it's for 12 or 13 won't much matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell that to the childless mother. it didn't matter that he killed your baby. it was nonviable per the state of colorado, that doesn't mean it was right for us to consider this murder by death as any which way non notable by the neutral media. look, not trying to change other people's black and white definition on abortion. but this was an actual murder, whether or not you or the state condones murders of babies in utero "for the health of the mother" which affects approximately 3% of abortions, this was not the case. in areas where such infanticide is not protected, the headlines are calling this the 13th victim. some american sources are calling the baby "it" and "13th" as if what the murder was was of no grave consequence. for what, just to make abortion feel legal and/or morally sound? hykos (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOAP. WWGB (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As WWGB says above, whatever the determination made using Colorado law is, is what we should use here when referencing this. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

JayJasper, please wait to update the death toll IF/UNTIL a federal authority charges Holmes with the crime - nothing in Colorado law allows this - so no Reliable Source exists at this time, despite the various op-eds.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted.--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing wrong with annotating the fact that a fetus was miscarried as a result of the stress the mother received due to being shot. That's what this article says.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is! I would be a BLP violation, just for starters. There has been no formal charge on this from a federal-level authority. If/until they decide that it merits it, Wiki has to basically stay silent on it. Your source is not valid on this point. I agree personally that there is very little doubt that the baby died as a result of trauma from surgery due to the attack, but we've got to leave it to the prosecuting authorities to determine if they have a legal standing to proceed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't need charges to state what the reliable sources are saying. If there is a problem with libel, it's on the part of the reliable sources and not Wikipedia. If sources say that the fetus was miscarried because of the stress of the shooting, then it's covered under WP:V and matters little what we personally think.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be time for Admins to contact "Wiki legal" and find their stance on this. I'd definitely wait until the attending physicians make a formal statement, at least. "It was confirmed" doesn't say by who. The MAJOR news outlets will be all over this if there is a hospital statement or even a lawsuit over this, so the article can afford to wait for that to happen. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If the source says it, then it passes WP:V.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He will not face additional charges for the 13th victim [2]. --Boycool † (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

24 counts of first degree murder

There are 24 counts of first degree murder for the 12 victims. One notable detail missing is why there are two counts per victim. 67.101.5.196 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am no expert but it may be that it was one for the shooting and one for the killing but that's just my guess. United States Man (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a possibility. According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19049873, "For each person killed he faces a count of murder with deliberation and one of murder with extreme indifference"; that explains what the two counts are but it is still not clear what's going on. 67.101.5.196 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That issue was addressed in the following article: James Holmes Charges: Aurora Shooting Suspect Faces 24 Counts Of First-Degree Murder The article states: For each of the 12 fatally shot moviegoers, Holmes faces one count of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree murder with "extreme indifference." Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a Canadian source that really clarifies what's going on:

http://www.globaltoronto.com/the+charges+against+colorado+shooting+suspect/6442688730/story.html

67.101.5.196 (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed-page didn't generate all the way, my questions were answered. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's standard to charge the same crime with multiple counts because if the jury decides not to convict on the "worse" charge then they may convict on the lesser charge. For example consider the numerous capital murder cases where the jury declines to convict on murder in the first degree but does convict on murder in the second or manslaughter; if those charges weren't in the charging documents then the jury would not have had the option. causa sui (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo RV

Regarding the Obama photo in the Aurora article - I am not sure if an editor is simply missing the point of the discussion or not. In any event, please review archive 3 here [[3]]. The objections to inclusion of a photo are regarding the nature of the original picture, which was initially a generic publicity photo of the president talking on the phone. The initial reversion of the photo was justified by User:Ianmacm by saying "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." Such a photo was introduced by User:Chaser and supported by User:JamesAM, User:Ryan Vesey, User:331dot, me here, neutral from User:Ianmacm though it does seem to coincide with his/her comments above, and negative only from User:Causa sui. That's 5 in favor, 1 neutral, and 1 opposed. The reversions of the picture in question - not the original generic picture - thus appear to be a substitution of individual judgment over what in most Wiki articles is certainly a clear enough consensus for inclusion. Sensei48 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. There appears to be consensus for inclusion, so I will add it back. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the points on policy and guidelines brought up before were: It was a photo taken on the scene and relevent to the section it was in, Obama was president when it happened "on his watch", other BLPs were there as well and images should be included from the 'top down' so if the pope had shown up his image should be included as well. If consensus allows and we have an image of the other BLPs that were there we may insert another one as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Link farm

Do we really need all those external links? Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Some were trimmed, with 108 citations, the article is not short of things to read off-wiki.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will mark as resolved.

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer

...Has written a soundtrack titled "Aurora" with the proceeds from downloads to go to the victims [4]. --Boycool † (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I strongy oppose any attempt to put this sort of garbage in the article. Speciate (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Slime? Garbage? A very notable person has created a song related to this incident and he is donating the proceeds from the song to the victims of the shooting. I'm a little lost why there appears to be such hostility in this section. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are conflating two seperate comments, with very different reasonings. Canoe's comment was that we need to estabilish criteria for inclusion and consnensus on that, or many inappropriate entries may be created for promotional reasons. I am in 100% agreement with his thoughts, but certainly think that this entry would pass any needed criteria, as Zimmer is directly related to the Dark Knight, however, criteria and consensus should still be formally established to avoid future problems. I do not percieve any hostility in Canoe's comment, the "slime" comment was directed at other unspecified persons who may attempt to be promotional, not you or zimmer. Speciate's comment is less helpful, but a valid "oppose" !vote in terms of if the information should be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Support inclusion, can't see the notability problem here.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

New York city employee . . .

Per the half-credible source itself he has been released with no charges. He is not a public figure, unlike Holmes, and has far stronger protection under defamation laws. WP:BLP applies in double; we cannot show mentioning his arrest is relevant enough in the context of an article on the mass shootings to override his privacy concerns. And, yes, talk pages are also subject to WP:BLP, so we need to be careful with the discussion here as well. 130.65.109.101 (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Give the reference where he has been released. The searches I've found have shown he was taken into custody for some psych-eval, but no charges have come about. This has been reported in the news (such as NBC News Channel 4 - which is most certainly a Reliable Source.) I don't see where BLP has been violated. His arrest was directly related to his statements about Holmes, the photos, etc. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

HammerFilmFan, you're constantly saying we can't include relevant content about gun laws that are reported by dozens of reliable sources about this topic, yet you're actually arguing that we should include information about a A New York City Department of Education worker who wasn't charged in another incident? Are you serious? Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on-point. The consensus section about the level of inclusion about gun control of the TP is above, and is not related to this. Thanks.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it is directly related and on-point. I've shown that your position on relevance isn't consistent nor is it supported by the policies and guidelines. Per WP:NPF, your addition is questionable and discouraged. Per WP:NPOV, we need to represent the significant facts and views on gun issues related to this case. Therefore, there is less of a need to add content about minor living persons who haven't been charged with a crime than there is to represent a significant viewpoint. For example, the Virginia Tech massacre article has more than 11 paragraphs on gun laws and gun control. Yet, you would have us honestly believe the topic isn't relevant to this article, but mentioning an unknown guy who wasn't charged in another incident is more relevant? Are you serious? Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BLPCRIME: "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." There was no crime committed and no charges. Why was this added? Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

1. The article clearly states he was not charged. 2. I didn't add it originally, just restored it, because it has been in the article for a while w/o objection, has an RS-cite, and the person is notable for being the first arrested for having been influenced in a strong way by Holmes' notoriety, enough to cause his co-workers significant disquiet, anyway - is my supposition what the original editor's intent was. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Let us not speculate on others' intent. Are you claiming this guy has been taken into custody and not charged for a week? Causing co-workers significant disquiet is not reason enough. As to be being the first arrested for having been influenced by Holmes's notoriety, do you have references for that? It isn't even clear if he was arrested as opposed to taken into some kind of protective custody (at least in one source, the cops said they hadn't arrested him). 68.126.185.129 (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Think tank wikilink

I removed a link to a lame article about a company and replaced to with think tank a few minutes ago. Another editor feels I was in the wrong. I invite others to seek consensus and decide which link to include. Pew Research Center is the link I removed. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd keep the name in, for accuracy's sake. Never hurts to specify, and it may give some context to readers. You could say "a think tank, Pew Research Center" and Wikilink both, I guess. And unless the poll has somehow changed its mind, "suggests" is better than "suggested". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the article. It seems like a telemarketer/phone poll company. 120 employees, primary sources, advert, COI, merge, delete, etc, etc. It just seemed 'spammish' to me to leave it in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Pew Research Center is a prestigious, nonpartisan non-advocacy academic research organization with a yearly budget of several million dollars provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts, an organization with 5 billion in assets. Their research is used by virtually every major media organization and is highly respected. Anyone who would call Pew a "telemarketer/phone poll company" that seems "spammish" isn't quite up to speed. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are issues for that article's talk page, I think. No rules against avoiding links to poor articles when they're relevant. After thinking about it, though, the whole fact about the survey seems a bit pointless. It basically says "nothing happened". It would be a different story if it suggested one side had a significant increase. But if this shooting didn't affect opinions, where's the relevance? We can't list everything the shooting didn't affect. I support erasing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Pew research is cited by the most reliable sources we have and is highly relevant to this topic. In fact, it would be hard to find a more reliable survey organization to use as a source. Pew is widely used on Wikipedia, and is highly respected for their sound analysis. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't a reputable or reliable source. Just that stating the fact that nothing changed seems pointless. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking it because it only has 120 employees, its article is 4 sources, 3 to itself, and the 4th to an obit on the chairman. It was also started by a Times media corp. so they may still be connected to mucho media. It has wikilinks all over to stats but none I saw had those 'reliabilty' % listed. They could just phone 100 people then and call it a stat.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Canoe, you're a smart guy, so why are you carrying on like this? Pew is one of the most respected research/polling organizations out there. The difference is that they are more academic and work very closely with the media. In fact, I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that every major media org cites their data. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

They may have different rules down there than here. All of our stats usually have a 'reliability' figure listed. I am going to read Polls and see what it says. The media may use them because of their connection on founding by a Times corp. The source here even goes to a Times paper so that may be considered primary source by some.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that they haven't been part of the Times since 1995. Have you looked at their extensive website? It will answer all of your questions. They are not funded by the Times. They are funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a charity. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Canoe, you're a smart guy, so why are you carrying on like this?" I would suggest that this comment added nothing to the discussion. causa sui (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find their sampling numbers anywhere on the PEW site. Gallup_poll#Gallup_Poll has some right in their article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

These are the figures we get with our polls up here: "From February 2 to February 3, 2012, Angus Reid Public Opinion conducted an online survey among 1,002 randomly selected Canadian adults who are Angus Reid Forum panellists. The margin of error—which measures sampling variability—is +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current education, age, gender and region Census data to ensure a sample representative of the entire adult population of Canada. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding." I haven't seen any on theirs. They may be common just because they are the cheapest. I think Gallup is a good one down there. Can we get stats from them?--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

PEW does it this way: http://www.people-press.org/methodology/sampling/ --Canoe1967 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

OR on polling

I did some OR on polling. It seems there are various types. This company may do the quick type for media stories. Other types are for where to build malls and election ones on where to campaign harder in elections. That may be why they are smaller but still notable. Since they are in the media a lot that may be why they are in so many wp sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

COLORADO MASSACRE LINKED TO HISTORIC BANK FRAUD ?

Don't know but it seems a very interesting different analys about the shooting...

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/war/terrorism_war/news.php?q=1343231885

Obrigado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.37.195.233 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Purely a conspiracy theory promotion site, from what I can tell. Unreliable by any sense of the word. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's putting it mildly!HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Trim suspect section?

There seems to be a lot in it that is repeated in the suspect article and some may not match. Do we need the whole apartment section? Material not relating such as the gun club, less detail in court appearance, prior purchases, digital foot prints, etc, etc? Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we remove duplicate information on the suspect in this article, and leave just basic info (first two sentences of the Suspect section) there?

• Support Easier to manage WP:BLP if info in one place. Can't see a logic behind duplicating it.
• Support Less is more. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Casua Sui's comment below notwithstanding, the information should only be in one place. If a stand along BLP is going to survive, then we should only have a brief summary here. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

First, see WP:POLLS. Second, the merge should be going the other way. causa sui (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:James_Eagan_Holmes#Merge. We can't reopen that discussion in good faith. 68.126.178.118 (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for the time being It may just be a formallity, but lets wait to see if anything gets released that might need more indepth detail. Then we'll have room to fit it. FiveSidedFistagon (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

the point is that any thing indepth belongs in the BLP as long as that article exists. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A Message to The editors of this Article

I started a Discussion on Talk:Jessica Ghawi Please consider to have a look Thanks Fox2k11 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Glock .40 cals.

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

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

I saw a news photo of several weapons that were gathered to show viewers what was used; they had a S&W M&P15, a Remington 870, and two Glock 22s. Keep in mind, these weren't the ACTUAL weapons used in the shooting, but were shown for reference. I'd think that's better than nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.231.176 (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, until we have an actual list of the weapons, it's better to have nothing. Saying "we don't know" is better than posting incorrect information. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Found something, looks reliable. We'll go off it unless new info comes out debunking the source. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

READ THIS FIRST

This talk page must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. This policy also applies to the recently deceased out of concern for any living relatives and other persons closely connected to them. Contentious or questionable material should be removed from both the article and its talk page.

I quoted some of this from the hat note buried in the top of the page and entered this post at the top of the TOC. Editors should read the policies and guidelines and possibly think about edits before posting. Wikipedia has strict policies and guidelines about what comments can be posted on this page. I have done this boldly and in good faith in the hopes to keep this page under control. If another editor wishes to move/delete/edit this post, please feel free to do so. In other words treat it like an article section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Included as an editnotice. matt (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tables appropriate?

I don't like the tables listing "victims" by age, sex etc. To me they show no regard for the privacy of the people who were caught up in this event. I propose to remove them. --John (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Articles for Fort Hood shooting, Virginia Tech massacre, and Columbine High School massacre all list the names of the deceased. Each entry in this article was properly sourced. --Cheesemeister (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I cut the injured and support John having cut the rest. This is highly inappropriate. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it inappropriate? We are not here to place our own judgements about things. Wikipedia is not censored. It is not up to us, as neutral editors of articles which display information, to decide - based on privacy concerns - what we should or should not add. Relevant? Yes. Sourced? Yes. Adds depth to article? Yes. There is no reason as to why not to include it. EryZ (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree. It's not like people are digging into people's personal information; the information is in published sources. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Dont include victim names, we dont normally list victims unless they are notable (normally indicated by having an article). If people are that interested they can follow the links to reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The above listed pages would seem to disagree with you, as they have victims listed. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I did say it was normal practice but we do have some articles where editors ignore WP:MEMORIAL, for some reason prevalent on American mass-murder articles. I would suggest they are few exceptions to the general trend not to include non-notable victims. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"American mass-murder" article violate the rules by a listing of victims? How about the Brits in Cumbria gunned down by Derrick Bird? How about Dunblane school massacre? How about the Hungerford massacre? Your complaint is rather ill-founded. Edison (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force to see if we can centrally reconfirm the validity of NOMEMORIAL in a case like this. Without getting hung up on whether other similar articles currently do this, what would be the encyclopedic benefit of including this information?--John (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the information should be added wikipedia is not censored and the victims in names and brief info only are covered in many reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Victims' (those who were killed) names need to be included as they are for dozens (hundreds?) of articles of this nature.Rail88 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The victims names should be added. Coverage on wikipedia should be as comprehensive and as unbiased and reliable as any other major media outlet. All major media outlets are releasing the victims' names, one by one. However, the victims are NOT notable enough for their own pages or even for any biographical info. (That includes the sports reporter. Just because she had a large twitter following doesn't mean her life was more important than any of the other victims'. The media is just using her youth and beauty to fluff up its pieces just as they did with Rachel Scott during Columbine.) Writerchic99 (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not a media outlet. Wikinews is that-a-way. --John (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We might not be a media outlet, but I don't see how it is helpful to leave out a huge piece of information like the identities of those who died. It would be like the article on Abraham Lincoln's assassination leaving out who killed him or who was with him at the time; it's basic information. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You argument is self-defeating, as the two examples you give are both notable enough to have their own articles. Unless you are arguing that the people killed in Aurora are also notable, your argument does not make sense. --John (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I support keeping the names, so long as they are properly sourced and stated in reliable sources. Using NOTMEMORIAL here is inappropriate, because that is referring to creating separate articles on non-notable victims. It is saying nothing about including a list of victims in the article about the shooting. Silverseren^C 10:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My point was not that the victims should have their own articles, they should not; my point was that this information is just as important to include in this article. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? --John (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is just as important to know who died as it is to know who the perpetrator is, where it took place, his background, etc. It's a major part of the story. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was actually asking Silver seren, but any cogent reason would do from any proponent of ignoring our usual policy on this article. So far I have not heard one. Think about what you have said, 331dot. Would it be ok for our article on the Holocaust not to include all 6 million names? At present it does not. What about our article on the September 11 attacks? Should we list all 3000 names there? At present we do not. The victims are important, but they are not individually notable. Being killed by a serial killer does not make one notable. I do understand the urge some people are having for us to ignore our own guidance here, but Wikipedia is not the place to create a memorial to the victims. There are undoubtedly other places on the Internet that will fill this role but I do not believe we should, and existing policy supports me. --John (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is for SUBJECTS of article. (and clearly, the focus in this article isn't about the victims...) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, you can include a list of victims with ONLY sex and gender, nothing else. That should balance the privacy vs not censored issue.- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Listing who was killed is not a memorial; it's documentation. We list the Passengers of the RMS Titanic. If we had a list of the six million Holocaust casualties, I don't see why it couldn't be linked to or be on Wikipedia, but that's another discussion. In this case, we don't need anything about their lives or background. I don't think anything other than a name and age should be listed, as the above person says. 331dot (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that listing is not an invasion of privacy. Many of the families have talked to the media about their loved-ones and want them remembered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdi2811 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Where does anybody apply WP:NOTMEMORIAL to this? That is about not creating obituaries for those who have died (or articles on them solely because they have died). This information is documentation on the deaths in this incident and I am unaware of any policies prohibiting this. Absent that, I find the information to be relevant and important to include. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is it "important to include"? To satisfy curiosity? Because I'm not seeing a relevant purpose to it. Just gawking. We don't document everything about a subject, and we do not have victim's lists on Oklahoma City bombing, 2005 London bombing, etc. We do have one on the World Trade Center bombing, because a memorial plaque with the names had been placed on-site.
    • I live in Aurora, about 5 miles from the theater. There is a memorial with a cross for each of the 12 who died, each with one name listed. Same thing with the Columbine memorial. As someone else said, the victim's families are talking and it is common knowledge here in Aurora who the victims are. Not only their name, gender, and age, but more stuff like where they sat in the theater, why they were in that theater, their backgrounds of things like how long they lived in Colorado (or were just visiting), what they were doing when the shooting started, and who they were trying to protect when they died (3 of the guys were shielding girlfriends). I'm not saying all that info should be in the article, but rather that listing their names in the article is a fitting tribute that I think the families appriciate that we remember their loved one's name. In fact, most of the families are telling the media to focus on the victims and not the shooter. They WANT the dead's names out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.185.69 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Further, these people's families are already grieving. Having some respect by not throwing their names up for the whole world makes more sense. (The Wikipedia entry is the top result in a Google search.) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Then if that's true, all media outlets should be censoring the names of the victims that died. Why can the media list them, but not us? Why can we list the victims of the Titanic in their entirety, but we can't just mention names here? Not mentioning who died is just as bad as not mentioning Holmes' name. 331dot (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not a media outlet, but an encyclopedia. Remember? Wikinews can use material like this, but not us. --John (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor content, which is how you characterized it by saying we should do so to protect the families. As I've said, noting the names of the dead is just as important as knowing who committed these acts and where they took place. That's not "gawking"; we note the names of victims of the Unabomber, as well as Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, and other notorious killers. We note the victims of the Columbine High School massacre (also in Colorado). Why not here? 331dot (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Without referring to other articles, why is it important to you personally to include this information? --John (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP overrides NOTCENSOR. And articles have been edited out of respect for surviving family members here. All the topics you listed are long past, and families have had a chance to grieve. You've still not explained why noting the names is important. Asserting they are doesn't make you right. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is noting the name of the killer important? Why is noting the location of this incident important? They're important because that's the story. That's the reason the article is here. Leaving out who was killed is leaving out a chunk of the story. It's like reading a novel with three chapters missing in the middle; it's not complete.

If you're saying that it would be better to wait awhile to add the names, since the other precedent here deals in past incidents, okay- but why wait when it can be done now(and has been done)?. I would appreciate it as a relative newbie if you could explain why BLP "overrides" NOTCENSOR, as we're not dealing with living people.

I'm not entirely sure what has been removed out of respect for the families(though I take your word that it has happened), but rewording passages to be more sensitive or withholding graphic descriptions of the crime scene is very different than leaving out chunks of information. Withholding something as simple as names and ages is just censorship.

OTHERSTUFF is not a policy saying I can't cite precedent so I don't really see why you are rejecting precedent of other articles being as complete as this one. I think it is relevant that articles about similar subjects have similar information. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I'm also wondering who determines how long a time is "appropriate" to withhold the names. Now, it's been a week or so, is that long enough? A year? Five years? Since it's there now, I see little reason to remove it only to restore it at some unspecified future time that hasn't been determined. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The media have been chasing them, some wanted to talk and others had no reason to refuse to do so. The role of Wikipedia is of not listing them. A mass killing is a very collective threat. The role of the encyclopedia is to be compatible with the needs of the sociologist: in a case like the Aurora killing there is no link between the individual victim and the intention of the killer other than the place they were seated, their figure, and their personal behavior. This cannot be covered by the encyclopedia without listing each single shot that has been fired, and even so names would be not relevant except when covering action. --Askedonty (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I didn't say it was; I was only saying there should be a broader audience than a small group of scientists. That policy's mention of needing "to explain the subject fully" would also seem relevant here. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, as we don't put every last bit of known information into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No one is proposing doing that; names and ages are not "every last bit of known information". It's not their life stories or graphic details about the crimes committed, neither of which are appropriate and should be censored. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm done debating this. Adding the names is not appropriate, and I'm not going to bang my head against the wall trying to get that through to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I will not have much more to say either, since it seems that, in other words, you just don't like having these facts in the article at this moment, since you have said that "Maybe in the future names will be appropriate". If they're appropriate at an indeterminate time in the future, then they are appropriate now, especially a week or so afterwards, since factual content is not censored, even if every detail is not included. 331dot (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Okay, you get one more comment out of me, since you see fit to twist my words.

No, that does NOT mean it is appropriate now. And I cannot fathom the logic you used to arrive at that conclusion. For fuck's sake, just be a decent human being and let the families grieve, instead of splashing the victims names up here, the first Google hit on the topic. We don't need to advertise it for every sick fuck online to torment the families. They could find that another way, but we don't need to be complicit in it. Let it be, revisit it in a few weeks when things aren't as volatile. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You really don't need to swear at me; I am not doing so towards you. That makes two of us with the logic; as I can't fathom the logic in removing facts only to restore them later. Do you really think that the first thing on the families' minds would be to come to Wikipedia to read about this, or even to go on the Internet at all and read about it? I wouldn't if I were them. I'm not asking that the names be put on billboards with flashing lights nationwide, or that vans with megaphones drive everywhere to announce them, or that the names take up half the Main Page, I'm only saying that things stay the way they are now, listing the deaths. We cannot control what (as you put it) "sick fuck"s do; they will find a way to do what they want to do. Do not respond if you don't wish to- but your post warranted a response. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think there is a clear consensus here that including the names violates NOTNEWS and also potentially the privacy of the relatives. It would be great if those wishing to ad the names could discuss here instead of edit-warring. --John (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • What would be great is this discussion having some semblance to a request for discussion. Lurking under a heading "Tables appropriate?" does not convey any sense that this is a discussion about removing the names of the dead. Before there is any decision to remove those names, I would expect that there be reasonable advice to interested editors that this discussion is underway. WWGB (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I will start a new section below. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no consensus to censor the well referenced names of the victims, either temporarily or permanently. No guideline or policy mentioned here requires it. It is encyclopedic to include it, and it is consistent with the other articles about mass shootings. It boils down to "IDONTLIKEIT." This does not trump WP:NOTCENSORED. Edison (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ghawi information

• Support Quote by Richard-of-Earth: "More then the name can be mentioned, if any of those who died become more notable, because they get a book written about them, etc"

I have something to mention don't know if it is notable enough but here it is anyway! The Metro State University (School of Jessica Ghawi) is awarding (Posthumously) Jessica Ghawi an honorary Bachelor's degree this December! Source(s): https://twitter.com/JRGFoundation/status/232589690644094977 https://twitter.com/Choose_Metro/statuses/232822816150532096 Plus the Jessica Redfield Ghawi Foundation & the Jessica Redfield Sports Journalism Scholarship Fund have been founded by her family and will fund scholarships to support upcoming young sports talent to study journalism. Source(s): https://www.facebook.com/JessicaRedfieldFoundation http://www.jessicaredfieldfoundation.org Fox2k11 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but not enough to warrant inclusion about the actual event. Perhaps on the Metropolitan State University page? Also Twitter and Facebook may not be considered "reliable sources". — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I call The Official Twitter page of that University Pretty Reliable however I did not found it on the Homepage of the University So i guess we have to wait about that! it may also be notable that she escaped Narrowly The Shooting in the eaton center in Toronto, Canada (and not just near the center) she twittered her receipt which states 6:20 pm (3 minutes before the shooting) she was in the same spot where 3 minutes later the one Victim died! she also wrote about that on her blog Source: http://jessicaredfield.wordpress.com Fox2k11 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This subject is an example of exceeding privacy rights as discussed elsewhere on this page- it is a bit soon to start posting the victims' life stories and posthumous actions in their name. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Family Decided it to do so she had a Very Public life her Brother said and so the Family is! so I don't see a problem here it's nothing private here in first place! the foundation is Intended to be public the The university Posted it to the public about the Degree and the Happenings in Toronto have been spread by herself! Fox2k11 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

One thing at a time, Fox2k11. Firstly, if the family wishes to become famous off their daughter's name by releasing every tidbit about her, that's their right. Secondly, if you wish to create a Jessica Redfield Ghawi page and list all of her homages and her Toronto narrow escape there, then do so. Neither merits mention in an article about a shooting where 69 other people were victims. You don't see anything about the other "non-notable" victims on the 2011 Tucson shooting, after the fact. And the "Reaction" section doesn't count. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well about the page I started already an Article about her but it was Reverted due to WP:BLP1E (See Talk:Jessica_Ghawi) I did not expect that someone jumps out of the blue and Migrates the Information in My intention was to mention it and if notable enough to be added when the Time is right so any editor wo want to migrate it the information comes handy already =) Fox2k11 (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, she is only notable for one or two events and therefore NOT article worthy and, subsequently, NOT worth expanding here. I would also suggest punctuation in any further additions to Wikipedia. — WylieCoyote (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The time is never going to be right. That info just doesn't belong here. Even if she goes on to become the most famous dead person in history (somehow), it will still only be relevant to her article. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And Speaking of Fraudulent Conspiracy Theories...RV of Non-RS Material

Appending the "Undue" and "By whom?" tags to the recently added conspiracy theory tail to the "Sale of guns and gun control debate" section was a gesture that invited discussion, and as much as I applaud the well-meaning gesture, that addition must be reverted for the following reasons:

• It is OT to this particular section, which has been worked on and debated by well-intended editors of contrasting viewpoints regarding its relevance and wording. The conspiracy theory has nothing whatsoever to do with either gun sales or the control debate.
• It is poorly sourced to sites that do not rise to the level of a Wikipedia RS. While The Huffington Post-UK may of itself be generally considered a RS, the entire article is a report/summary of inference, speculation, and rumor that appear on this site www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html and this one [6]. Both of these are essentially blogs that are pushing their respective POVs without the necessity of peer review and scrutiny. If this summary were added to the Wikipedia article using those two sites as sources, it would be rv'd immediately for lack of RS. The fact that two unreliable sites are referenced in the HP does not then make them reliable. I can find reports in usually RS that quote moon landing deniers, Elvis sightings, and knowledge of the grassy knoll shooter - but appearance in an RS does not confer reliability on fringe theories and theorists.
• The edit itself is a poorly-rendered presentation of the HP article. Author Ted Thornhill is implicitly scoffing at the ideas and is employing irony in his own non-summary comments like "It’s traditional for conspiracy theories to flood the internet after a major crime – and sure enough, there are a few bouncing around following the mass shooting..." and "And why would the FBI do such a thing? Government control, of course, via the UN treaty." Yet the edit uses phrases like "circumstantial evidence" that appear nowhere in the HP article and implies that it is the HP article and not the fringe sites that is the source for the conspiracy theory.
• The last line of the edit reads "There is no solid evidence in support of the theory." QED. It thus has no place anywhere in this article, much less in this section.

I see that some well-meaning soul has removed the section as I type this. Should t reappear, I will rv it and cite the Talk page here.Sensei48 (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I reworded the section for clarity and conciseness. I think I stayed pretty faithful to the source, though not verbatim. I'm slightly in support of leaving the info in, but don't really care. Just keeping it tidy. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Which you did, IMHO - a good edit of a bad addition. The jury seems to be in about excluding it. That having been said - were it ever to become a real story with acual sources, it might be added back in a separate section, I suppose. But then - they never got the guy from the grassy knoll.... regards, Sensei48 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists are so unoriginal. They put forward the same idea after the Port Arthur massacre. What matters for this article is that the Huffington Post, blogs etc do not establish notability for WP:REDFLAG material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists are not "they". That's what "they" want you to think! But yeah, you're otherwise right. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Huffington Post can be considered RS. Just check www.huffingtonpost.com right now. The news is sensational, perhaps even literally true, still unreliable because the implications are incorrect. 68.126.185.129 (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree folks - I was erring on the side of caution, however. Some straight news and well-researched analysis does occasionally appear in HP, but on the whole is not necessarily RS.Sensei48 (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There are several evidences that support the conspiracy theories surrounding Aurora Shooting, there are discrepancies in Holmes pictures, whether recent pictures or older pictures, also Holmes carried or deployed equipment far beyond the reach of ordinary citizens, and how an unemployed neuro-science student could afford a $30,000.00 gear? There are many plot holes, why he bobtrapped his own house? SWAT was called right off and when it arrived they stated they weren't able to handle the bomb diffusion, it was far near their experience level and that they needed FBI. How a neuro-science student would deploy bomb and traps on his own house if he was alllegedly failling on his university and the level required to disarm it was on experienced personal such as featured in FBI. There is also discrepancy regarding his entrance on the building, he entered the building through a door which was exit only and left his mask in a tactical position in which would lure the policesmen to actually caught him. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because some folks can see conspiracies around every corner, that doesn't mean they are true or reasonably appropriate for inclusion here. Until a given theory gains widespread coverage and is not simple speculation, it has no place in the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Every article I saw on the shooting said he had a ticket and opened the emergency exit and defeated the automatic lock to re-enter the building with his weapons. The "$30,000" in equipment is incorrect as well, as for what *IS* listed as his arms and equipment is under $10000 and having plenty of change for making IED's. Sorry, but there is zero for conspiracy theory or otherwise currently. To say otherwise is like saying the Curiosity didn't REALLY land on Mars, Martians sent the data to NASA. No evidence that disproves what is current knowledge at all and nothing to hint at the Martians or conspiracy. Add to that the FACT that the NO SWAT team in this nation carries an EOD expert on the team, they WOULD call for the bomb squad or federal help, as IED's are NOT typical explosive devices handled by police. Also, for general information, it isn't diffusion, but DEFUSE for disarming an explosive device. There also isn't any such thing as leaving a protective mask in a "tactical position". Sorry, but everything you listed was fanciful and incorrect. Indeed, I personally own a kevlar helmet, LBV and protective gear, as well as a protective mask. The first items were acquired during military service at my own expense, hence I KNOW their prices. The latter was bought when I was spraying, rather than get choked by toxic fumes exterminating bugs that my neighbors gave me, with current N95 chemical filters that were given (they expired) by my NBC NCO. The ONLY thing that is REALLY expensive is a kevlar vest, which he did NOT have, according to all current reports. Let's stick with FACTS and valid citations, not conspiracy lunacy. Wikipedia already suffers in reputation from some who fail to adhere to the Wikipedia standards!Wzrd1 (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The title of this article is misleading

"2012 Aurora shooting" is misleading. There were TWO Aurora shootings in 2012, one at a church on April 22, 2012 and this movie theater shooting on July 20, 2012.

The first one could have been as bad or worse than the latter one, but because a gun-toting off-duty policeman was present, only two people died, one church member and the shooter. Without the presence of the officer, a dozen or more members could have died, just like the movie theater shooting.

I contend that one of two things should happen. Either change the title to "2012 Aurora shootings" {plural} and discuss both shootings. Or, change the title to some NEUTRAL title that refers ONLY to the movie theater shooting instead of this obviously biased title which implies that this is the only Aurora, Colorado shooting this year.

Mmerlinn (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

How about "2012 Aurora movie theater shooting"? HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Something along those lines probably would be best.

None of the other movie theater shootings have occurred in 2012 or in a place called "Aurora", so either "2012 movie theater shooting" or "Aurora movie theater shooting" would work. —David Levy 21:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The title is fine, that other minor shooting is not notable enough for its own article, two people shot or a single murder is local news, not eneyclopedic, disambiguation is only necessary when there are multiple articles. Lastly I am sure a bunch of idiots and assholes and innocents were shot and killed before on or around the Columbine massacre, Penn State massacre, or Virginia Tech massacre but that doesn't we need to edit the common name referenced titles for them as well. Titles need not be punctilious.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the title needn't be changed for disambiguation purposes, but replacing either the year or the city's name with "movie theater" would improve its descriptiveness. —David Levy 02:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't think this is necessary since there is no article about the church shooting. That said if a change is made I don't think we should be worried about a theater vs theatre war since this was a shooting in an American theater by an American gunman and most if not all of the victims were American. I can't think any legeitmate argument against using the American spelling in this case.--135.19.87.7 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Lucifer's right. As long as there's no other article, no need to overspecify. People aren't going to be confused. Besides, we'd just be inviting a "theater vs theatre" war. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm an Australian and I would never personally use the theater spelling (my spellchecker has even just underlined it!), but I suggested it here because it's obviously an American article, so I don't think the spelling would be an issue. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It was an issue in Archive 3, Section 4 of this talk page. Both sides had ground to stand on. But who knows, maybe we're past that. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Strongly support move to '2012 Aurora movie theater shooting" EryZ (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationally speaking, the church shooting was BRIEFLY mentioned on the east coast. So, I'll agree. Move to '2012 Aurora movie theater shooting'. It's accurate in titled description and factually accurate. It'll also avoid a conflict if, heaven forbid, there is a second Aurora incident of significance.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with part of "gun" section

Regarding the sentence "The shooting has reignited the national debate on gun control, with one issue being the "easy access" Holmes had to "assault weapons and high-capacity magazines", which were banned federally from 1994 to 2004" had two pretty good articles as sources but it bears little or no relationship to what was in the articles. The main theme were people getting guns and taking courses to help protect themselves against such a thing. I suppose that the material of the sentence was in one of the articles somewhere but I sure couldn't find it and it's off the topic of the articles. Particularly the farreaching statement "has reignited the national debate on gun control". More accurately would be that some persons are trying to use this incident to try to re-ignite. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than going off on a tangent of trying to fix an attempted characterization of the national status on the topic, and added the core of what was really in those articles cited as sources) I think we should eliminate this sentence. To avoid going off on a gigantic tangent, and putting up a giant coatrack, I think we would be best off to, in contentious areas, limit what is in this article to things that are unarguably about the topic of the article. Not just related to but directly about the topic of the article. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As plan "A" I'm going to take that sentence out. Plan "B" would be to cover the actual main stuff in those sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, no, and no. That material is widely supported by dozens of sources and many editors. You can't have a discussion with yourself, agree with yourself, and then unilaterally decide to remove material we've spent a great deal of time discussing. Sorry, but you have not shown anything wrong with the material. I'm reverting your sneaky, unjustified removal of sourced, significant content. Viriditas (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, having it up for comment a few days here with no objection is, while not a full discussion, more than than what was done for inserting or reinserting the material. And the problems were noted above. The plan B fix is to accurately summarize what was in those articles. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I made a few changes. Pretty straightforward, but if there's any confusion, let me know. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It made "debate", which is more posturing and "shouting" back to the forefront. Especially after a few other incidents. So, I'd go for keeping the section as is. It's germane, it's accurate. It's concise. I may disagree with BOTH sides as a legal and responsible firearms owner, but Wikipedia IS AND SHOULD be a special place, where FACTS are presented, not biased opinions. To be EQUAL to "current" reference sources. If Wikipedia won't follow and be respected as a valid source of information, but instead be randomly rife with OP or other posturing, the ENTIRE project should shut down, as democratic documentation would be proved as invalid.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Including names of the dead

The article currently contains a list of the names of those who died. It has been proposed that they be censored on privacy grounds and "not a news outlet" grounds, among other reasons(which can be discussed below) Aside from the fact that we don't censor information, removing the names of the dead (not their life stories or history, which has no place here) is removing a chunk of the story and would be no different than removing the name of the alleged perpetrator, or the location of the incident, or any other integral detail. Would you want to read a novel with three chapters missing? We list victims of the Columbine high school massacre, the Virginia Tech massacre, the Fort Hood shooting, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; we list the victims of notable killers such as the Unabomber; we even list the Passengers of the RMS Titanic. While I haven't looked at every one, many of the pages in the Spree shootings in the United States category list the victims. Why leave this one out?

It has been suggested that the names be added later- if it is appropriate at an indeterminate time in the future to add them, why not now, especially when they are there already? Any privacy concerns would be unchanged. I don't think the families of the victims are going to come here to read about this; and I also don't think that "sick" people looking to harass the families will be stopped by us censoring this information; they will find a way to do what they want to do. It has also been suggested that the families might even want people to know the names of the dead, in order to remember them properly. 331dot (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The list of the deceased satisfies all requirements at WP:Source list. There is no "right to privacy" for the deceased, or for uninvolved relatives. WWGB (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is highly relevant information, and has no reasonable negative effect on privacy. Nothing that isn't public and easily accessible already. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BLP are all relevant here. --John (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS states "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event" (emphasis added), WP:NOTMEMORIAL refers to "Subjects of encyclopedia articles", not mentions in other articles and WP:BLP refers to "Contentious or questionable material that affects living persons or recently deceased persons" (again, emphasis added; a name is neither contentious nor questionable). WWGB (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't see the section above. It's contentious as there are living relatives of the victims, which BLP does take into account. And MEMORIAL still applies, don't wikilawyer. I've said my peace above, I won't contribute to this discussion again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't comment if you don't wish to, but I would like to respond; If living relatives are offended by mentioning victim's names now, they will be at the undetermined point in the future when you yourself have said you think they should be added. We are not "memorializing deceased friends", we are posting citable, factual information. It doesn't violate privacy any more than any news story about the incident did. If the names were not out there, yeah, you would have a point; but they are.

I'll also point out that the victims have been listed on the page about the recent Sikh temple incident, as they are with the majority of articles on similar incidents. There is no reason to censor them here and not elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support including the names and ages of the dead, consistent with other Wikipedia articles on mass killings of the 20th and 21st centuries. WP:NOTCENSORED does not support removing this referenced and encyclopedic information because a handful of editors do not like it. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant, since we are not creating memorial articles for the victoims. WP:NOTNEWS also does not justify the censorship. Saying "add it later" makes no sense, and is not called for by any guideline or policy I am aware of. Edison (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Does common decency mean anything to you? I can't put it any better than HandThatFeeds did. The BLP rights of the relatives should override some editors' trainspottery or memorialising wish to list every name. --John (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I know of no "common decency" that prohibits discussing a name of a dead person; and even if there was, it was already violated by the news media as the names of the dead are all public knowledge. Posting a name is not a memorial and is consistent with virtually all articles on mass killings. BLPNAME would also seem to allow for just names, and BDP would seem to as well, as the presence of names here does not have any further implications for the living relatives. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support inclusion also. It's public knowledge. Once the news hounds gained their names, they plastered their venues with them. This happens with every tragedy. It is also not disrespectful as it gives merit to the crime from the tragic viewpoint. By only listing the amount injured and killed, it makes the article more generic, rather than specific. What surprises me is that no one added the victims' pictures, which WOULD be disrespectful. Since the tragedy, most news agencies have made the decision to name the victims more rather than the murderer in order to reduce his "fifteen minutes of fame". This article should give balance to both, while being encyclopedic. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No strong opinion either way. I don't agree that there is anything that dictates excluding them. But I would lean towards leaving them out anyway. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of all names. All the policy on this has been hashed over, so I'll just mention what sways me to this conclusion. It is a question (for me) of notability. If one person was killed (and the incident was notable), we would mention the name of the deceased, of course. The person is notable for getting killed in a notable event. The article name might even contain the person's name (e.g., Shooting of Trayvon Martin‎). Even if it were a case of the person was in the wrong place at the wrong time, we might still mention the deceased by name. If thousands of people died, we wouldn't list them (e.g., September 11 attacks). It is not individually notable to die in an event where thousands die. Since only a dozen died and this event is so notable, I feel they are individually notable enough to warrent mention. More then the name can be mentioned, if any of those who died become more notable, because they get a book written about them, etc. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll split the difference. I've NOT recently viewed the 9/11 attack page. I've also lost a cousin on 9/11 in the WTC. If that page references or lists the casualties by name, it is equally valid to list this incident's victims by name as well. Otherwise, we keep to that standard, since the standards are not ALWAYS applied in some articles (OR we need to have ALL articles have the same policy, including major historic and front page mentioned as Good edited to remove names.)Wzrd1 (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Respecting the argument regarding the feelings of the people living in the area [7]. However this demonstrates the need of following more strictly a WP:NOTNEWS policy. --Askedonty (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom Teves, the father of victim Alexander Teves, made an interesting point about glorifying killers instead of only honoring the deceased. It gives good background detail on what the families of the victims think about the Aurora shooting. --Yaz7 (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed your addition because it seems to promote a cause, was given undue weight in the section, is more about a victim's relative than a victim, was poorly written and was backed up by a link to a mobile site loaded with parameters. If you have any questions, feel free. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Eastridge Mall incident

Under the "Related incidents" section, would it be okay for me to put in the incident at San Jose's Eastridge where a package was thrown into the mall's AMC Theater during a Dark Knight Rises screening, and the person that threw it said that it was a bomb, which then led to an evacuation? I'm just wondering, since I live in the area, and heard it on the local news, but I did provide 3 sources here. [8][9][10] ZappaOMati 22:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. There are reliable sources and it fits in with other incidents in that section. United States Man (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole "Related incidents" section is wandering off topic. There are WP:RECENTISM issues as well, and it might be better to drop this section unless there were proven direct links with the Aurora incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Any act (or attempted act, or threat or intentional illusion) of supervillainy committed in (or immediately surrounding) a Dark Knight screening shall be deemed a Related Incident for the purposes of this article. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You reckon? There are loony wannabe Holmes all over the USA just waiting for their 15 seconds of fame. Non-notable, pathetic copycat dross. Begone! WWGB (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So far there have been five. Out of 300 million (or more, since there are other countries with guns, nuts and Batman). Not exactly a fad. Besides, we're not naming anyone. Unless we're setting the fame bar extremely low, nobody is getting even 15 seconds here. And since none have fired a shot, it's hard to call them wannabes. This movie won't run in theatres forever, so the list isn't going to get huge. That Maine guy doesn't count, in my opinion. If you want to remove him, that'd be fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Just removed it. ZappaOMati 21:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the InedibleHulk; we're not establishing article-level notability, just sufficient to go in a subsection here. There are insufficiently few incidents as to not flood the section with "pathetic copycat dross" so far, to warrant the "non-notable" part. siafu (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the incidents in this section have insufficient long term notability to be described in detail. I support WWGB's decision to trim back the section in this edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't be too detailed. We're already leaving out the Who, When and Why. If we take out the What, we're left with just a completely uninformative list of Where. If a reader wants to know the basic info, they have to follow the links, where these named people are given the sensationalistic "15 seconds of fame" WWGB seemed to want to avoid. These events are not notable in their own right, but they illustrate effects the Aurora shooting had on society, the press and law enforcement. Quite relevant to this article. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

On the "List of Rampage Killers"?

I noticed that there's a "see also" heading and a List of rampage killers link. Holmes is also actually listed on that page. It lists him as a "perpetrator" but also says "Suspect arrested, trial pending." Since he hasn't been convicted, though, doesn't some of this violate Wikipedia policy? Psalm84 (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a WP:BLPCRIME issue here, but the table does make clear that he is only the suspect. This is more on topic at Talk:List of rampage killers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Image of Holmes

File:James Holmes, cropped.jpg has previously been deleted (deletion discussion here) and "unique historic image" is not the correct fair use tag, which should be Template:Ir-Mugshot. This image may get removed again per WP:NFCC, unless there is permission from the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department to use it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

While Holmes may have appeared dazed at his court appearance, it is not evident to me that he looks "dazed" in the mug shot. In fact, his face appears quite emotionless in that image. WWGB (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It is enough for the infobox image text to say that this is an image taken after his arrest. The "dazed" part is a subjective assessment, sourcing or otherwise. The image has been nominated for deletion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to press pictures captured with or appearing along the description Holmes Dazed and here are a selection of news items from the 23rd describing Holmes as dazed, including CBS News, ABC News, The Washington Post, The Daily Mail, CNN, Reuters Africa, The Irish Times, etc.

Note that objecting that the description is "subjective" is invalid, since facial expressions are scientifically describable; no one would describe him as happy, angry, or focused; and there would be no fair use rationale for art commentary if judgment as such were inadmissible. What matters for Wikipedia is only how the sources describe Holmes, which is as dazed and with speculation he was medicated, and not the WP:OR opinion of an editor who may disagree with the published description. Holmes' dyed hair and dazed aspect are unique and significant aspects of the case and illustrating them is a perfect example of fair use.

Editors who wish to participate in the vote whether to keep or delete the image should comment here with their reasons.

μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Saying that Holmes appears "dazed" has been reverted on several occasions and is becoming a hobbyhorse of one particular editor who keeps restoring it. With most mugshot captions, a straightforward description of when and where it was taken is enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Said editor also uses cites from the court appearance, three days after the mugshot, to justify the claimed dazed appearance three days before the court reporters noted it. WWGB (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Media reports agreed that Holmes looked dazed at his first court appearance.[11] This is nothing to do with the mugshot taken by Arapahoe County Sheriffs' Office.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just note that despite nominating the image for deletion, I changed my !vote to keep because his hair color has changed. Ryan Vesey 13:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a different Picture of The suspect Released by the UC Denver http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Documents/PDF/JamesHolmes.pdf Fox2k11 (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been just posted via Twitter it's a new Booking picture of holmes https://twitter.com/DenverChannel/status/248907613536919553 Fox2k11 (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

New mugshot published

Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office has released a new mugshot of Holmes, now minus the red/orange hair.[12]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2012

I uploaded a clearer, more recent picture of Aurora Cinema 16 here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aurora_Cinema_16.jpg Seems like it would fit better than the current image. Mattshockl (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done, at least for the infobox image. The current version was taken a day after the shooting and has a "Police line do not cross" tape visible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

pulled scheduled programing

should some mention be made of the event effecting certain scheduled programs by being pulled from the line up of television channels/services?

I know Batman Unmasked - The Psychology of the Dark Knight was pulled from the history channel's line up. Also I believe Batman Tech was also pulled from the history channel's schedule.

Direct TV also had many of the previous film available for on demand/pay-per-view/renting, which were no longer available following the incident. 74.139.37.174 (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but we'd need clear sources explicitly saying these shows were pulled as a result of the shooting, not just that they were pulled. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)