Jump to content

Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

"Most victims" claim

Although this claim is cited, the Wikipedia List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States shows a number of massacres with higher death tolls. This makes the Aurora claim very dubious. I propose to remove the claim. RJ4 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen, I am inclined to side with removing or qualifying the statement. Yes, it is cited to a source that should be reliable, but the source includes no indication of the process or the standards used to arrive at that conclusion (such as whether they took into account massacres of Native Americans). I do not think a statement should be considered unimpeachable because it's cited to a source when that source provides no information of how that fact was derived. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
An editor recently removed this, citing the Bloody Island Massacre to be higher. Notwithstanding the fact that we only have guesses for the casualty count, most of those victims were bayoneted, not shot. Also keep in mind that these massacres were not murders, per se, as Indians (as they were called) were considered more pest than human in the eyes of the law, and even today, there's a blurry line as to whether military killings are in the same boat as civilian killings. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, very few sources anywhere on Wikipedia go into much detail about their fact-checking process or methods of reaching a conclusion. I don't know of any policy that says this is something to consider when using a source here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Note that I specifically used the word "unimpeachable" in my comment. I'm not referring to guidelines about whether a source can be used; I'm referring to a situation (hypothetical or not) where information from a source that we would generally consider reliable has been questioned, in which case I think it can be perfectly valid to consider what we know or can infer about how that source derived its information, rather than dismissing questions about the information because "this news site said it, and that's good enough for us." To be more candid, I have no problem whatsoever, in this age of shoddy journalism, imagining a news source throwing a statement like that in without proper consideration, or, in fact, by just checking what Wikipedia happens to say at the time (have you seen that comic where the falsehood gets posted to Wikipedia, and then the news operation gets it from Wikipedia and reports it as fact, and then that story gets added to Wikipedia as a citation for the falsehood?). I have nothing further to say on the issue at hand; I just didn't like the edit summary I saw dismissing RJ4's concerns. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not comfortable with following the convention that Native American deaths don't count. Given that the suspect in this case is still alive, we should consider the WP:BLP principle that "Contentious or questionable material should be removed from both the article and its talk page".If you are not happy with removing it, how about a compromise solution :- mention that it is "Good Morning America" that made the claim, and add parenthetically that the claim is disputed, with a link to the list of massacres. Readers can then decide for themselves how much weight to give the claim. RJ4 (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Personally, I'm not racist and I wouldn't say their deaths don't count as tragic and despicable. Just that they don't count as "murder", by the law of the day. When writing about history, I think it's important to see things in the contemporary context, not the current. Perhaps one day soon we'll consider animal lives in the same light as human lives, and see the fast food industry as worse than the Holocaust. But even then (if Wikipedia's around), we shouldn't try to reshape history to fit the new view. Notwithstanding, I've looked into a few more of these Indian massacres, and bayonets seem to be the prevalent method. So it's hard to call them "mass shootings", even if they can be seen as "mass murder". But yeah, sounds reasonable. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind, though, that not just ABC calls it the largest mass shooting. So did CBS. And FOX. The Daily Mail. Probably others. So you shouldn't specify "Good Morning America alleges...", but rather "Mainstream news" or something similar. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy with "Mainstream news". Shall I go ahead with the change ? RJ4 (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I may tweak it, depending how you word it, but the gist is OK by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Is there any particular deadlier massacre(s) on that list, however, specifically said to be a mass shooting (as opposed to a mass hacking, stabbing, burning or bludgeoning)? If so, perhaps we should direct readers to that particular massacre(s), rather than the entire list, where they may reasonably be unsure of which article they're meant to see. If there are no mass shootings with higher casualty counts, it seems strange to call this a "disputed claim". I said I was cool with the edit, so I won't remove it. Just food for thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The Mystic massacre seems to be a particularly nasty example, with a minimum estimate of 400 deaths. If you're not comfortable with the "disputed claim" approach, I have had another idea. The "Daily Mail" article you pointed to uses the phrase "modern US history". I would be happy with that, as it avoids the issue of the Indian wars entirely. (And for that matter the Civil war and the war of Independence.) RJ4 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Nasty indeed, but here it seems the fire did most of the killing, and only those who climbed out were shot at. And not always hit, as the sentence about escaping to be killed by the Narrangassett (who I assume used melee weapons). I'm more comfortable with the way it is now than I'd be with "modern history", at least until I see a clear example of a bigger mass shooting in "the olden days". Not necessarilly where all of the victims were shot, but most of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll remove the "Disputed claim" part. RJ4 (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Nicole Ghawi

Editors may be interested in the newly-created article Jessica Nicole Ghawi. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

also consider to have a look at the WP:AFD Discussion and the articles talk page thanks =) --Fox2k11 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking like this one will be deleted. Editors are interested all right (in deleting it). United States Man (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
the San Antonio Rampage have honored Jessica "Redfield" Ghawi by renaming their Press box at the AT&T Center to "jessica redfield press box" maybe this should be considered to mention in the Article?! see this Link --Fox2k11 (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The article went to an AfD and was redirected to this page due to WP:N issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I meant this Article not the AfD Article --Fox2k11 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not really relevant to the topic of the article. The victim is relevant to the shooting and this press box is relevant to her, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Otherwise, where does it end? If we list this fact, should we also mention the AT&T Center is the home of the San Antonio Spurs? And then is it cool to say the Spurs' David Robinson was the 1990 Rookie of the Year? This is far more relevant to the AT&T Center article, if you'd like to add it there. (Already there.) InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
ok got that was just a question if or if not but yeah i thought that it fits to AT&T article too thanks =) --Fox2k11 (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source about the Honorary Degree I mentioned 4 months ago.. http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/12/16/theater-shooting-victim-awarded-posthumous-degree-from-metro-state/ --Fox2k11 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I accidentally hit enter too soon on my edit summary for removing this. But whether this is reliably sourced or not, it still isn't relevant to the shooting, only to Ghawi. This article is about the shooting, and Ghawi is relevant to that, but facts about her life (or post-life) are not appropriate here. It also violates WP:UNDUE to have a paragraph about one victim and none of the others. Perhaps you should find a free webhost and dedicate a page to her. You could add anything you want, without worrying about Wikipedia policy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ she got that degree only because she was killed in the shooting and I found this worth to mention i would mention anything similar to any of the other victims as well and removing it just because you disagree w/ that is not how wikipedia works! it's related to the shooting it's reliable sourced.. so what? Fox2k11 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
"So what" is that this article isn't about that person, this is about the event. 331dot (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Think of it this way: Aurora, Colorado is certainly related to the shooting. But would you expect to see a list of Aurora's ten biggest employers or information about its transportation system? Wikipedia works by following guidelines, such as An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. In this case, Ghawi's significance is as a victim of the shooting. So we list her name and age in the Victims section, with as much weight as we give other victims, not an extra paragraph. This would imply Wikipedia thinks she is more significant than the others, and would not be neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not wanted to give her extra weight I just thought it was worth to mention if it would be an other victim i would had mentioned it either way apparently i was wrong so I leave it to what you have said above... Fox2k11 (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

James Holmes, cropped.jpg

file:James Holmes, cropped.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Aurora Theater Shooting Victims Being Harassed By Conspiracy Theorists

Based on recent news about the victims being harassed by conspiracy theorists, should we discuss if there should be any changes to this article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Police spokesman Frank Fania said "police did not consider the calls to be harassment and the callers did not break any laws." It seems the huff post is just trying to stir the pot. We could wait until charges are laid or someone loses an eye, etc. No sense making a mole to mountain here. It could be mentioned in harrassment or conspiracy articles though?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
here is a more recent link about one Conspiracy Theorists that was arrested and plead guilty for harassing victims and their familiy's could be considered(discussed) to add to the article?! --Fox2k11 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

About the weapons...

I just compared this article to wiki articles on bombings and other shootings. Most make reference to how the bombs or weapons used in those events were constructed or otherwise obtained. In this article there is no "Prior to the event" section describing Holmes' preparations before carrying out the attack. I ask because I am interested. Where did Holmes acquire his weapons and gear? Did Holmes acquire his arsenal legally or illegally? I don't know if this section simply has no been written or has been removed, but it DOES feel like the article is missing important information.

162.157.6.92 (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Full casualty list

I think there should be a list of the names of all those killed and injured. If the killed can have their names listed, then the injured should have the same respect. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of respect. Fatalities are more notable simply because their injuries crossed a very clear line, drastically changing the entire story of the event. It's also the last thing they'll ever do.
Included among the injured are all sorts, from panic attacks to the permanently maimed. Far trickier to assign due weight to each of those, without a clear line like that between life and death. There's also BLP to consider for these. While not the same as implying minor players committed a crime, publicizing them as victims of one can have consequences, too. Nosy reporters, co-workers, Twitter folk asking them to relive tripping running from terrifying things, for one.
The dead don't mind the attention, and even from a decency standpoint, they're the ones to whom society generally expects we "pay our respects". You should't pay respects to people you visit in the hospital with dislocated shoulders or burning sinuses. It worries them. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to list everyone who was injured. The reader's understanding would not be lessened by excluding this information.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
If that is so, why mention the names of only a couple of the injured? Should those stay or not? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Those are a bit different, because of the deeper secondary coverage. Reporters published actual articles about them, rather than merely repeating their name and summary from a primary source (police) list. We need some indication that an injury has importance beyond simply injuring the injured.
For that reason, I don't see why we note the youngest victim. We don't even know what happened to him, let alone what effect it had. I think he's here purely to tug at heartstrings, in an agist way. I hope nobody minds me removing him. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME becomes involved here. While it is standard practice to list those who died, eg at Virginia Tech shooting, a comprehensive list of people who were injured has WP:NOTNEWSPAPER problems. The name of a living person should be added to an article only if it would significantly enhance a reader's understanding.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Shooters

I'm welcoming more information from users, particularly users that are not ip addresses only with a shady history of ads.. The facts indicate that there were almost certainly multiple shooters involved in this case & showing how facts diverge from Dan Oates' narrative (ie showing both sides) is critical..

Ferociouslettuce (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There was never yet an incident of this type where someone somewhere did not question the mainstream media version of events and put forward conspiracy theories instead. Policies such as WP:REDFLAG and WP:WEIGHT become involved here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
my sources are from mainstream media. mainstream media (nbc local, msnbc & an abc press coverage) all indicate there was two shooters. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
the conspiracy of more than one shooter is more factual than the current 2nd to last paragraph about copycat killers and an unsourced claim there was a spike in gun sales. Holmes was not caught on camera. I'm sourcing real interviews and articles with/about eyewitnesses. Without a mention of them in the opening paragraph, this article is not neutral: http://www.businessinsider.com/james-holmes-conspiracy-theories-2012-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4Gv3PGtsHg If you want to write it yourself then go for it. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The stuff about Project MKUltra is wildly speculative. Most mainstream media sources have accepted that Holmes was the only shooter. There is a problem with promoting the theory that more than one shooter was involved by selectively quoting sources which promote this theory. See also WP:BALASPS. I would welcome comments from other editors here, as this is pretty much the same as what happened with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where some people have refused to accept the official version of events.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There was some confusion in early media reports, leading to a belief that there might have been more than one gunman. The ballistic evidence was presented in court on May 14, 2015.[1] This did not include an assertion from the prosecution or defense that more than one gunman was involved. It is important not to give this impression, particularly in the WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
user:ianmacm stop violating the rules of wikipedia. Community involvement is needed before deleting a neutral POV tag. This intro presumes Holmes' guilt. Changing to suspected perp & confessed both make sense, especially as people do confess without being guilty (in order to avoid the death penalty,for example..) Keeping the "wildly speculative" (& I do agree with you there) about Project MKUltra while deleting the multiple shooter conspiracy because many in mainstream media are told not to cover it is very biased. Additionally, you deleted the only mention of FBI agent James Yacone, the man in charge of the investigation. It makes absolutely no sense to delete from an article about the 2012 Aurora Shooting, the man in charge of investigating the 2012 Aurora Shooting.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral POV Tag

user:ianmacm, stop continually violating wikipedia policy by deleting heavily sourced material & Neutral POV Tags without discussion. Most egregiously, you deleted the only mention of FBI Agent James Yacone, the man in charge of investigating the 2012 Aurora Shooting from the intro of the 2012 Aurora Shooting article, while not the first 2 paragraphs of the article that have no sources. Because the multiple shooters conspiracy theory is considerably more possible than speculative mkultra, I am also re-adding that section. Counter testimony by police in that section would be most welcome.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A person reading the article should not get the impression that there is significant support for the theory that multiple shooters were involved. The trial is focused on the theory that Holmes was the only shooter, and he has admitted to being the shooter. The article has to reflect what the sourcing says, in line with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASPS. The WP:LEAD is not the place for the multiple shooters theory, because this was rejected after Holmes was charged.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You are violating wikipedia policy by deleting the neutral pov tag before the discussion is resolved. You delete the only mention of FBI Agent James Yacone, who was in charge of the investigation. there is significantly more support for the theory that multiple shooters were involved than the mkultra gawker bullshit you refuse to delete. Stop reverting well sourced edits Ferociouslettuce (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
user:ianmacm, WP:LEAD indicates that unsourced material, such as the first two paragraphs, are not proper introductions. Further, both WP:WEIGHT & WP:BALASPS show that the conspiracy "gawker" source is considerably less notable than the conspiracy "business insider" source. the former has little notability, the latter has many agreeing with it. 74.88.37.67 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Cinemark Theatres

I see a brief paragraph buried under "Entertainment Industry Response" between quotes by batman executives & new york city sponsored paranoia by former mayor Michael Bloomberg.. WP:BALASPS could be in play here. There was no copycat attacks nor were any batman executives affiliated with the attacks.

I'm not saying that Cinemark ought be resonsible for the shooting.. legal weapons were snuck through the backdoor. But how is it that no cameras were in place to capture the event or any of the aftermath? Has no one from the theater explained why no cameras captured anything? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This risks getting into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. It is similar to the conspiracy theory article here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Nolan, Bale & the Batman movies, but what they have to say about a shooting in Colorado is irrelevant (see: WP:NOTAFORUM, particularly "discussion forums"). Rather than a long-winded section about "entertainment industry response", we should have a more concise "Cinemark Theatres Response" (remember, the shooting occured at a Cinemark Theatre), including a 1 sentence addition, "no represantives from cinemark theatres have addressed the lack of security camera footage of the shooting or aftermath" (or something similar). This would make the article less like a forum. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Unless secondary reliable sources have addressed the lack of CCTV footage it would be an attempt to introduce original research. I would advise again against introducing material which tries to question the theory that Holmes was the sole shooter unless it can be sourced reliably.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Murder?

An editor removed the categories related to murder, apparently confusing calling the event "murder" with calling the accused perp a "murderer" (which would be a violation of WP:BLP. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're following me, and want this to stick to help you hastily call another killing a murder. Other than that, I think Holmes is going with the insanity defense. If he's not responsible, it's not murder, just homicide. The whole point of a murder trial is determining this shit, and the point of the presumption of innocence is not determining this shit before the courts do. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The point of a trial is to determine if an individual is guilty of a crime. We can talk about the crime itself in reasonable terms without using "alleged" and without violating WP:BLP. You are the one who started removing the categories from another article to strengthen your case [2], so blaming others of the same is distinctly duplicitous. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Not strengthening my case. The Charleston hubbub just brought this to my attention. I've worked on this article for years, off and on, but I tend to not think about categories. Now that I have, these are wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That's, like, your opinion at the moment. DisuseKid (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The last bit, yeah. The first bit is absolutely true. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the ongoing trial, the use of a murder category is too hasty.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've brought this (and Charleston) up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, if anyone's interested. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Would err on the side of caution and leave out murder reference until BLP has had a chance to discuss. It isn't worth edit warring over. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Would suggest not to. Things are already disruptive as it is. DisuseKid (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP " Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." It does no harm to wait until there's input from the BLP noticeboard. There appear to be good reasons for caution, not the least of which an ongoing trial. It is reasonable to have content like this removed first and discussed afterwards. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
We're talking about removing the categories for not only this article, but also those of THOUSANDS of similar articles, then. It is completely unprecedented, not to mention too much work. DisuseKid (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty easy. Just straight deleting. No rewording or adding. Copy/paste the edit summary. Just a little hard to find the ones with untried defendants (won't be thousands, probably not even hundreds). And, of course, it's hard when someone's reverting. Once the consensus is clearer, I'd imagine that doesn't happen as much. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
But there are still many of them, though. And we can't possibly keep track of every single such article! DisuseKid (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
We have watchlists. And even if we can't save them all, that's no excuse to not save what we can. Categories are like cats that way. Spay and neuter those things! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Never heard of a watchlist. DisuseKid (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
They're very handy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. I wish to wait till a consensus is made before we take care of the editing process. DisuseKid (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Request for Comment: Does "murder" presume "murderer"? Or don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Just realized there was a guilty verdict yesterday. Consider this case closed, but still see above for the general question, if interested. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory Addition

I strongly believe that "Dan Oates & special agent James Yacone of the FBI arrested 1 suspect, James Eagan Holmes" should appear in the introduction. James Yacone is the FBI agent that was in charge of investigating the 2012 Aurora Shooting & his name does not appear once in the current article.

Additionally, I'd like to see something similar to the below replace the current "Conspiracy theories" section. I look forward to real discussion since Ianmacm (talk) & 98.207.226.90 (talk) were more interested in deleting all changes..

Note there are currently over 3000 characters used for the "entertainment industry response to the shooting", while the only conspiracy 'theory' mentioned has to do with mkultra despite a far more probable conspiracy in which James Eagan Holmes was not the mastermind, that the mastermind of this shooting is still at large..

Also, I'm not sure if "aftermath" is the best section to house this or if it should get its own section as well as a half sentence or 2 in the intro..

Lastly, http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/james-holmes-conspiracy/ is a very worthwhile external link with many views.

Ferociouslettuce (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning conspiracy theories in a conspiracy section is one thing, and generally fine, if reliably sourced. But changing the lead based on your blatantly apparent belief in these second gunman theories is where it turns sour. Your grammar and punctuation was also messy, but that's easier to fix. The whole thing was easier to revert. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It was inevitable that some people would question the official version of events. Police briefly considered the possibility that more than one shooter was involved after being called to the scene, but by the time that Holmes had been arrested and charged he was the only suspect. Articles should not give undue weight to theories that lack mainstream media support.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
you're talking yourself in circles.. Business Insider, Washington Post, NY Post, ABC, MSNBC are mainstream media. the official recording of the police scanner is also a quality primary source. yet you deleted the changes when they were made just to the consiracy theories section. Please address any issues with what is below as well as the highlighted sentence above. I would like to reach concensus before the article is changed. currently there is a lot of fluff & no mention of widely held belief that the mastermind of the operation is still at large Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
As of June 2015, no mainstream media source is promoting the theory that multiple shooters were involved. Neither the prosecution nor the defense at the trial has claimed this, and Holmes has admitted to being the shooter without saying that other people were involved. Time to put the tinfoil hat away.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

For James Holmes court proceedings see: James_Eagan_Holmes#Detention_and_pre-trial_court_appearances & James_Eagan_Holmes#Trial.

wow. 'tinfoil hat' is quite offensive (& inaccurate), especially considering you've made no changes or suggestions to either of my posts. I recommend using principles of Hanlon's razor when you're having disagreements. I certainly hope you don't believe I'm being malicious, because I am not. This is not a courtroom. Staten Island DA (now congressman) Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. found no evidence whatsoever in foul play against Eric Garner's killer, for example [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zOzkh2cKuM ]. More importantly, do you disagree with me when I say Dan Oates & FBI agent James Yacone's name should be mentioned in the introduction because they are the officers in charge of the 2012 Aurora shooting investigation? do you disagree with me when I would like to amend the weak existing "conspiracy theories" section with the one below? it would occupy a smaller portion of the article than generic comments made by DC Comics, Warner Bros, Chris Nolan, Christian Bale & Hans Zimmer. Thank you for discussion Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There are always people who question the official version of events. There is no outright ban on mentioning conspiracy theories in Wikipedia articles, but they should not be made out to be more notable and verifiable than they are. If you were to believe everything in the blogs and YouTube videos, every mass shooting would be the work of a conspiracy, false flag operation, government mind control etc. Is this really plausible? Aurora is only one instance where these old chestnuts have made their predictable appearance. Quote of the day from Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "All through my life I've had this strange unaccountable feeling that something was going on in the world, something big, even sinister, and no one would tell me what it was." "No," said the old man, "that's just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the Universe has that."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure. So is there any reason not to add Dan Oates & James Yacone of the fbi's names to the intro as they were in charge of the investigation? remember, this "conspiracy theory" section is already relegated as less significant than quotes by people affiliated with the batman movie about a shooting in Colorado Ferociouslettuce (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This is deep fringe territory stuff... mind control; really? Please present your case for inclusion in the context of WP:FRINGE. VQuakr (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

default to include verified diverging content

charleston shows "suspected perpetrator" and we should do the same. getting a mentally ill person, especially one on drugs, to confess to a crime does not presume that he is the sole perpetrator. this article is very biased. charleston guy is still just "suspected" and "alleged".. wiki should not bury the truth shown in Business Insider, The Washington Post & MSNBC . The New York Times & Bloomberg L.P. are less reliable in this instance.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

First part: absolutely yet, WP:BLPCRIME applies and this person is merely accused of a crime prior to a verdict. Second part: if you are starting another section about fringe stuff, why not continue the discussion above rather than combining two very different concerns? No, we are not going to include mind control theories in this article. If you think there is verifiable, reliably sourced, due content missing please present a proposed draft. Just listing publishers tells us nothing. VQuakr (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I've assumed you meant absolutely "yes", and changed "perp" to "susperp" in the infobox. Agree that much more is needed to start writing about "mind control", at least in the Manchurian Candidate sense. In the plain old human psychology sense, everyone's influenced by something, though. The trial should likely give us some of that for a Motive section. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup; thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm posting again below what I thought was agreed upon additions to the section - I could care less about how the section is titled or where in the article it is placed. mkultra section is somewhat relevant to the trial so I think the content added there falls in line with Holmes's insanity defense, but I agree it might be better presented in a "Motive" section. Also I think in the intro "admitted" should be "confessed" Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposed section

Multiple Shooters Theory

One witness told KUSA "From what we saw he wasn't alone ... because the second can of tear gas didn't come from his side".[1]

The Police Scanner also shows at 9:58, 11:43, 24:42, 31:15, 1:16:16, 1:16:55, 1:31:27 that police was searching for a second shooter.[2]

Beyond that, though Holmes was arrested with a gas mask,[3] another gas mask was found near the back of the theater.[4]

In an interview with Chris Matthews, witness Corbin Dates says:

Prior to the movie even starting, when I came and got my seat at the theater, a guy [with a goatee] walked in to the auditorium after me, sat in the very first right row & got a phone call. Took his phone call towards the emergency exit not the lobby & had his foot propped open by the door. It seemed like he was making gestures, trying to find somebody or trying to have somebody come to his location.

— Corbin Dates, Hardball with Chris Matthews[5]
  1. ^ Kelley, Michael (7 Aug 2012). "Police Audio Suggests There Were Multiple Shooters In The 'Dark Knight' Massacre". Business Insider. Retrieved 25 June 2015.
  2. ^ "Century 16 Movie Theater Shooting Incident Police Radio Transmissions (Full Version)". Youtube. Retrieved 25 June 2015.
  3. ^ MacIntosh, Jeane (20 July 2012). "12 people killed, 70 injured in shooting at 'Dark Knight Rises' screening in Colorado". NY Post. Retrieved 25 June 2015.
  4. ^ "Charges issued in Aurora, Colo. theater shooting". Washington Post. Retrieved 25 June 2015.
  5. ^ "Missing Hardball Video Proves Corbin Dates Did Not ID James Holmes". Retrieved 24 June 2015.

We can't include any part of that. See WP:FRINGE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:SYN, and WP:RS; this proposal is nowhere close. The only remotely appropriate source is Business Insider, but it doesn't perform any sort of analysis of the claims beyond documenting them; see WP:PRIMARY in addition to WP:EXCEPTIONAL. As an aside, it is not surprising that there was suspicion of a 2nd shooter during the initial police response; that is not evidence of a conspiracy or even noteworthy. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you even look at the Washington Post article? Their map of the crime scene is much more thorough than the New York Times map featured prominently in the article. It clearly shows that a 2nd gas mask found several hundred feet from Holmes' car. Do You believe that Holmes shot up the theater by himself, injuring 70 while on vicodin, ran 200ft away, tossed a gasmask on the ground and then ran back to his car, holding another gasmask while waiting to be arrested? There are also eyewitnesses saying there was someone else inside that theater. What isn't notable is Dan Oates and James Yacone statements that are not followed up by reliable sources questioning their statements' holes. I read WP:FRINGE, it doesn't apply because this is not original research and is well sourced. I read WP:EXCEPTIONAL, again the post has multiple mainstream sources. WP:SYN definitely does not apply either -- prevailing quotes from witnesses are not taken out of context. WP:RS is, quite frankly, way out of line to suggest was not met -- news corp & comcast literally comprise about 1/3 of all media in this country and are key sources in what I wrote.. Both Bloomberg and New York Times sources for this article are biased. Please talk specifics. Long lists of articles without specifics indicates you did not bother to read or look at all the proposed additions. I understand that wiki is not for slicing and dicing the lies of mainstream media, but James Yacone & Dan Oates' story has too many holes -- all of them properly noted by more reliable mainstream media sources than those currently mentioned. This is not a massive conspiracy, all it is <a BLP violation>. No wider than that. And very difficult to deny. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The Washington Post article does not discuss any conspiracy theories. Per WP:SYN, we are not going to analyze their map and use it to support conclusions not presented by the authors. What you or I "believe" is completely irrelevant with respect to this article. Yes, I read all the sources you presented. No part of this belongs in the article. This is definitely a fringe theory you are promoting. WP:BLP applies to talk pages. VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The Washington Post article very clearly showed that a 2nd gas mask was found 200ft from the car. In the context of this article, it merely points out this one fact. Why is WP:BLP never used to protect James Eagan Holmes? If the majority of people who look into this shooting believe what I wrote, it is not even fringe, it belongs in the intro. Conservatively, it belongs at the bottom of the article. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP indeed does apply to Holmes, which we covered in the first interchange of this section. (Mis)using that map to claim evidence of a conspiracy theory violates WP:SYN; that conclusion was not presented by the source. VQuakr (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a map. It shows a 2nd gas mask. The map is currently being misused because it is not being included in the article at all. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a three year old map. Is it outdated? I don't know. There could be several reasons why that source is not currently being used (if you are correct; I haven't checked). We are under no obligation to use any particular source. In your proposed edit you connected two sources that do not support a conspiracy theory with a comma splice and "though" to make a conclusion not brought by either source. That is exactly what is described by our policy prohibiting original synthesis. VQuakr (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm chastised for including the new york post source? What other conclusion could possibly be drawn from the washington post map? if the sentence was such that the new york post article was ommitted and simply "a gasmask was found 300 feet away from Holmes who was apprehended at his car" would that fly? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Not in a section titled "multiple shooters." If you think there is such an obvious connection, it should be easy to find a reliable source that makes it for us. What source says "300 feet away?" VQuakr (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This is getting near the WP:STICK stage. Reliable sources such as the Washington Post are not covering or promoting the theory that multiple shooters were involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The Washington Post is currently covering the trial, which involves Holmes' sanity as well as the bizarre trial. It has a lot of good information that should be included in wiki, but isn't currently in wiki (meanwhile nytimes is doing their biased shtick). At the time of the shooting, the Washington Post published this, which in addition to getting a Dan Oates quote about the possibility of a 2nd shooter, ended with "A neighbor of Holmes’s said she and other residents were woken by police at 2 a.m. and told to get dressed and evacuate immediately. The police did not explain the reason or mention the mass shooting, but asked whether residents of the small apartment building had heard any noises coming from apartment No. 10." This is a very good quote that should appear under police investigation. The map, which explicitly shows a 2nd gas mask found ~250ft away from the car accompanied by "gas mask" and "additional evidence and bloodstains" was published a couple weeks later. These were the only things Washington Post wrote about with regard to the 2012 Aurora Shooting. User:Ianmacm and I disagreed as to whether this should be included in the intro, but he and I agreed that the intro ought remained unchanged. He and I both disagreed with User:DisuseKid, who was reverting changes without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferociouslettuce (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a classic attempt at righting great wrongs. The entire trial is focused on the theory that Holmes was the sole shooter, and mainstream media sources are reflecting this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
A warning regarding edit warring is not the same thing as supporting any content. There is zero support for these proposed changes. Drop the stick and move on to another subject. VQuakr (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
User:VQuakr, actually User:Michaelmalak thanked me for the changes. MIA "I wish to wait till a consensus is made before we take care of the editing process" User:DisuseKid reverted them without discussion. You try to throw these changes under many possible umbrellas and are very concerned that these few paragraphs not enter this page, when they are on everybody's mind watching this. User:ianmacm makes a decent point with WP:RGW, but WP:FRINGE, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:SYN, WP:RS & WP:PRIMARY shows you just were looking for any excuse not to have this content, a small portion at the tail end of the overall article, added, despite the extensive sourcing. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
A "thank" is not support for a change. A 3RR warning is not support for a change. Continued flogging of this dead horse will result in you being topic-banned from contributing to this subject. VQuakr (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of narratives other than the predominant one, assuming a) there is evidence such narratives are held by a significant enough percentage of the population (like, say, 1%) and b) such narratives have some supporting evidence from mass media sources. I even contributed some such evidence to the now-deleted section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Aurora_shooting&type=revision&diff=669974447&oldid=669878478 I've been meaning to rewrite this now-deleted section in the frame of Wikipedia's encyclopedic purposes, but just haven't had time. I believe it would be productive if a draft could be worked on here on this talk page. The lack of other narratives on this article is a glaring hole, in my opinion, and representative of bias. Michaelmalak (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The first step would be to provide proposed sources. So far, exactly one secondary source that discusses a conspiracy theory has been presented; as discussed above that is insufficient to merit mention in the article. Gawker and Westword are linked in the diff you provided; neither one is particularly reliable and none of the sources list any prominent adherents that would indicate that this is a minority viewpoint (as opposed to fodder for the tin-foil hat crowd). In particular, the Gawker article is just providing commentary on random internet forum comments - hardly encyclopedic content. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You deleted the map from the washington post as an external link map in favor of the denverlocal map that embeds the google map already linked right above it. Why'd you do that? It has a diagram, so it was included in the maps section.. Embedding the map directly into the article as was done here would make more sense than deleting it.. Business Insider & preserved nbclocal / hardball sources are notable, especially in this context, and Westword is run more reliably than 2 sources, which are overused in this article. I don't think anyone's terribly attached to that Gawker article, which was the only source under "conspiracy theory" for several months. No one had a problem then. Now that the conspiracies have better sources, they should definitely be mentioned in order for the article to remain unbiased. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, what are the proposed sources? As I noted in my edit summary, I restored a map in the maps section because the info-graphic you replaced it with was not a map. Pretty simple. VQuakr (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right that the GMaps link is redundant with the Denver post map. I removed the former. Why do you think the WaPo infographic (not a map) is better? I think the NY Times map is better because it provides several levels of "zoom". It would be nice if we could find one more current, though - both are almost three years old. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what the map has to do with anything. In the section proposed above, the WaPo link is to support the statement "...another gas mask was found near the back of the theater." The WaPo link does not mention anything about a conspiracy or multiple shooters. If the idea here is that this is evidence of multiple shooters, then that needs to be stated by the source. Otherwise, you are stringing together sources to synthesize your own interpretation of the facts which is "original research". - Location (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Location:, the consensus appears to be to scale back the conspiracy theory section to just the Business Insider link because they specifically refer to the possibility of multiple shooters. Rather than type out the word "2nd gas mask found 300 feet away from the car", as is shown in the washingtonpost link, adding The Washington Post map directly between The New York Times and The Denver Post/Google should even things out here. Thoughts? User:VQuakr seems to think The New York Times map is so much better than The Washington Post map that the latter should not be included, but The Washington Post map more clearly shows the volume of victims and covers the entire parking lot. Also GMAP itself > Denver Post link to google. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
There definitely is not consensus to include any content whatsoever about conspiracy theories in this article. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The Business Insider link is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the author of the article was an intern who had only been with the website for six months. This does not make the material unreliable, but it does grant an inordinate amount of weight to a non-notable individual's writings. Secondly, the article was posted 17 days after the shooting. If conspiracy allegations have gained no traction in the three years since the shooting, then it is not a notable aspect of the topic (i.e. WP:WEIGHT applies). - Location (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Conspiracy allegations have gained so much traction that "No Notoriety" was started to combat them. Mentioning no notoriety without mentioning the conspiracy theories gives "no notoriety" no context. What's wrong with adding 2 paragraphs to the bottom of the article? Most people do not get their news from mainstream media anymore. In terms of content posted about this subject across the web, the majority of those posting disagree with the mainstream media narrative, which is controlled by CBS/Viacom, ABC, Fox, Time Warner & Comcast. Wikipedia is not controlled by CBS/Viacom, ABC, Fox, Time Warner & Comcast.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Until concrete evidence is found by official sources that Holmes wasn't alone and this was all part of a conspiracy, then the current article stays. In other words, no way this will ever be presented as encyclopedic information. DisuseKid (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, do you think there was enough concrete evidence for Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. to indict Daniel Pantaleo for the Death of Eric Garner? Opinions that deviate from mainstream narratives that have a lot of holes are very important to note in my opinion, especially when there are large contingents of people that believe them. In this instance, Youtube comments sections indicate many people believe this investigation was mishandled. It is improper not to note any dissenting opinions of what took place. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if I did think there was concrete evidence to indict Pantaleo, such an indictment never happened, so the article must report it that way. If it did happen, then of course the article would report on that. But it didn't. If articles keep bringing up what was missed in the Garner investigation for months and even years after the fact, then it's something noteworthy. But news sources never bring up whatever inconsistencies you claim there are in the Aurora investigation, at least not in recent memory, so unless a big exposé emerges and changes the general public's perspective of the official account, there's no way a majority of readers would want to read about stuff like proof of a second shooter or MKUltra mind-control experiments. If they really do want to read about it, they could just go to a specialized website that covers that information, because Wikipedia is not the kind of site that makes assumptions.
It's 2015. Conservatively, 63% of people get their news from Twitter and Facebook. Dorsey and Zuckerberg are more reliable than Dean Baquet and Michael Bloomberg.
But Twitter and Facebook are social media sites, first and foremost, not designated news sources. And..."Dorsey and Zuckerberg are more reliable than Dean Baquet and Michael Bloomberg"? What does that honestly have to do with anything? DisuseKid (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
And it doesn't matter if a large amount of people do not believe the official account of the events; consistent information provided by reliable mainstream narratives is the top priority in Wikipedia, above all else, ESPECIALLY personal opinions. If we do allow this conspiracy information to pass through into the article, then there would be a lot of questions from conspiracy theorists about other events. I've seen conspiracy theories on Paul Walker's death; people will ask about including those. Same with the existence of global warming. And so on and so forth. There's also the fact that personal opinions can turn out to be heavily biased, which is what Wikipedia wants to avoid.
If there was a conspiracy theory section at the bottom of an article on Paul Walker's death that made sense, it should be added. If there is significant scientific evidence to counter global warming, that should be included as well. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
But conspiracy theories and counter-evidence can only make sense as widely accepted, neutral information (which Wikipedia seeks to display) if it is supported by a majority of the general public. DisuseKid (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
And before you cite all of those reports that provided flurries of conflicting information on the shooting, I would like to mention that that always happens during a mass-casualty event such as this. News sources rush to get as much information they could get their hands on as fast as possible, and something would be bound to be lost in the translation somewhere. But as things calm down and the investigation turns up more information, then that's when the real facts come out. DisuseKid (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
"it doesn't matter if a large amount of people do not believe the official account of the events" Strongly Disagree. Without influential minorities challenging the majority view, there would be no new ideas or positive change in society. The number of reports of a 2nd shooter at Aurora is so large, it's embarrassing that wikipediens refuse to report it. Perhaps Genius is simply a better website than wikipedia today. Too bad. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, Wikipedia seeks to display widely accepted, neutral information. If you don't like how Wikipedia is treating news events, then don't even bother to come here. This is how it goes. "The number of reports of a 2nd shooter at Aurora is so large, it's embarrassing that wikipediens refuse to report it." The most recent such reports I've seen of such a topic are on conspiracy theory websites, not news sources. And Wikipedia editors are embarrassing, you say? DisuseKid (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Not relevant. See WP:FORUM. Youtube comments? Are you trolling us? VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, Youtube comments are more reliable than Dean Baquet and Michael Bloomberg. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It is important to bear in mind that this is 2015, not 2012. Most of the sources that Ferociouslettuce wants to include date back to 2012, and the period immediately after the shooting. Confusion and inconsistencies in media reports are normal during this initial reporting period. Now that Holmes has been found guilty of murder by a jury, it would take some very good and contemporary sourcing to question the verdict.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's questioning the verdict, just as no one was questioning the verdict in Staten Island -- they definitely happened. All I'm doing is adding a widely held 'minority' view to the bottom of the article that is so widely held, "no notoriety" was started to combat them Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Fun Fact: Anytime a married person dies suspiciously, the prime suspect is initially the spouse. Doesn't mean they always did it, but that's always what the police think. Until they don't anymore. Gotta start somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
YouTube comments are more reliable? Seriously? Most people there can barely control themselves, let alone put up a convincing, objective argument. DisuseKid (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
What do police think about the Cinemark Theaters lawsuit? They never released any photographic evidence whatsoever. Curious how that will play out. For now I'm just going to add this map to external linnks, unless @InedibleHulk: can convince me otherwise. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to see how you label it first. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems fair. But you didn't just add that, you added a Google Map, too. User-generated content isn't cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Uhh. you deleted the washington post link. I'm going to readd it... feel free to relabel the link. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
InedibleHulk is absolutely right 50.207.56.2 (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I replaced this: * Map of theater, suspect's apartment, and hospitals at The Denver Post
with this: * Map of theater, suspect's apartment and hospitals via Google
because all the denverpost did was link to the google thing anyways. Change it back if you want, but I think it's dumb to give denverpost access to more clicks considering all they did was link to google Ferociouslettuce (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Denverpost compiled the map, so it makes sense to link to the version that clearly gives them credit. Linking directly to the GMaps page also makes it look like user-generated content. I still do not see that the duplicate WaPo graphic adds any value to the other external links in that section; why are you so attached to that particular website? VQuakr (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Denverpost's coverage of this has been awful but that logic makes sense. Your obsession with deleting Business Insider, however, does not 50.207.56.2 (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Ferociouslettuce, please do not log out and post as an IP to make it appear that your position has more support than it actually does. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
that's not my ip. there is clearly a split as to whether the information belongs in the article. can i speak to your supervisor please? Ferociouslettuce (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Highest number of casualties"

Re this edit, the wording that the shooting "had the largest number of casualties of any shooting in U.S. history" is open to misinterpretation. "Casualties" here includes non-fatal injuries. There were 70 non-fatal injuries, including 58 from gunfire, which is unusually high for a mass shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess I have too much faith in English Wikipedia readers understanding English, but this works, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The Aurora shooting was not the deadliest, but it is notable for the large number of people who were shot but not killed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Casualty is unambiguous. Why use three words that mean the same thing as one? VQuakr (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
"Casualty" in Wikitionary does not support the point that you are making. It says in meaning #3 of the noun "A person suffering from injuries or who has been killed due to an accident or through an act of violence.". This is why I think that confusion could arise. It may, albeit unintentionally, give the impression that this was the deadliest shooting in U.S. history.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
since deadliest was covered in the first half of the sentence, the second should specifically say injured imo Ferociouslettuce (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The definition is clear. This incident had more people suffering from injuries or who had been killed due to an accident or through an act of violence than any other American event. I was OK with the wordy version when it seemed talk page peace was still on the table, but like they say, we can't afford to be neutral on a moving train. So count me in for "casualties". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And if I may fight a dirty war, Wiktionary isn't a "real dictionary", anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The definition in Wiktionary isn't a million miles different from the one given in the Oxford Dictionary.[3] The example given there: "the shelling caused thousands of civilian casualties" would be unclear about whether thousands of people died or were merely injured. The sourcing uses the phrase "largest mass shooting" and I am tempted to use this instead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
They were both. It's an inclusive word, but not ambiguous. And yeah, my brand says about the same. It's like a generally accepted definition or something. In hindsight, my attack on Wiktionary is regrettable. But these things happen in war. I'll concede if everyone else does, but I can't jump back on the fence now. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I suggest linking Wikipedia's casualty article in case anyone gets confused. That way, they have easy access to the definition we're aiming at, which is in the second lead paragraph of that article. Versus001 (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
No need to link common English words, per WP:OVERLINK. VQuakr (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"Unless they are particularly relevant to the context in the article". A link to Casualty (person) makes sense here, like links to movie theater and tear gas do. Linking spike or clothing is more what that guideline aims to prevent, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Linking the word casualty isn't ideal. I would prefer to say "largest mass shooting" which is what the sourcing says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we could use another source? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If someone finds the internal link useful, I guess I don't object. @Ianmacm: that's a move in the wrong direction. What does "largest" mean? It's ambiguous. We want concise, precise language, which we already have in the existing version. VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The PBS source is better, because it makes clear that one of the notable features of the case is the high number of people who were injured. The headline writers are only interested in the number of people who were killed, and although Aurora was a serious incident, it did not lead to as many deaths as Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Being wounded is often more serious than dying, at least for the victim. Dead people can forget about it. Wounded people have long, painful, expensive, anxious roads ahead. The seriously wounded, anyway. I wish newspapers wouldn't include the bruised, scraped and hyperventilating in the totals. Makes for a more impressive number, but waters the whole thing down, signficance-wise. Still, a record's a record. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
58 people received gunshot wounds at Aurora but survived, a highly unusual figure. By contrast, 17 people survived gunshot wounds in the Virginia Tech shooting and only two adults survived gunshots in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Sandy Hook is notable for the opposite reason, because all of the children who were shot died.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we're arguing or agreeing anymore. But yeah, that's true. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"Motive" section

These edits were removed, so let's start again. The trial did not establish a clear motive for the shooting. A "Motive" section should not be used to bring up theories about mind control, false flag operations etc which were not even discussed at the trial. This would have the usual problems with WP:WEIGHT and WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I get that people are leery of 'anonymous' additions only done by ip address, but User:VQuakr was VERY OUT OF LINE to delete ANY mention of a Motive section, again abusing WP:TW. User:Bongwarrior (or any other admin), can you please ban User:VQuakr as a result of WP:DENY for at least 24 hours due to deleting relevant commentary? I am not an expert on wikipedia protocols, which is why I mentioned these things in the talk page before adding them, and I was clearly ready to have a discussion (already underway with two other users), when the section was deleted. Obviously, I feel a discussion regarding Motive Section is a necessary addition to this article, though realistically, this is probably the last time I will risk saying so, since I reside in Aurora, Colorado and do not wish to draw extra attention to myself.. In Charleston, racism was the clear motive. Here, it's a bit more confusing, but Holmes' statements should certainly be taken into consideration since he is alive. Prescription drugs administered by James Holmes' psychiatrist, whom he was seeing without the knowledge of his parents, also definitely played a factor in the tragedy at Cinemark Theatres. Was the toxicology report ever released? I remember seeing somewhere on ABC that Vicodin was one of the drugs in his system. These were proposed sources speculating as to a possible motive: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/sources-shooter-took-prescription-drug-before-attack , http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/01/james_holmes_read_a_timeline_o.php , http://www.westword.com/news/james-holmes-inmates-strange-tale-of-confession-and-suicide-efforts-5861525 . Despite the fact that it is labeled "conspiracy theory", I believe Business Insider is also an important source http://www.businessinsider.com/james-holmes-conspiracy-theories-2012-8 , especially since all that can be done is speculate regarding a motive since James Eagan Holmes has primarily expressed confusion since the attack, and he certainly wasn't raised by parents who trained him to be a killer. Did investigators, FBI's James Yacone and Dan Oates, ever suggest a motive for the attack? (Sent using Internet Explorer from Aurora, Colorado) 50.207.56.2 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that wanting a "Motive" section is vandalism, but there is a need to be careful here. According to various sources such as [4], Holmes told officers soon after the incident that he had taken 100mg of the prescription painkiller Vicodin two and a half hours before the shooting. What the sources do not say is whether he had been legally prescribed this, or whether he had found some other way of getting hold of it for recreational use, which is commonplace. Nor do the sources offer the theory that the Vicodin was an explanation for why he carried out the shooting. The Vicodin angle did not play a major part at the trial, so there would be WP:WEIGHT issues in adding it to a section about motive. According to this CNN article which dates from the time of the trial, "Asked by a defense attorney whether he had ordered a blood test for Holmes, Appel said he had not. "There were no indications that he was under the influence of anything," he said." Holmes was found guilty of first-degree murder, which indicates that the jury had rejected theories about mental illness and impaired judgment due to substance abuse.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
According to this source "Police also found medications in his apartment, including ibuprofen, sedatives and the anti-anxiety drug clonazepam. They also found the antidepressant sertraline, the generic version of the antidepressant Zoloft." the same comments as above apply, as the sourcing does not theorize that they played a part in the motive for the shooting. The article does need to go into more detail about the notebook kept by Holmes, which was a key piece of evidence at the trial.[5] This shows that Holmes had been thinking about some form of killing for years, even since childhood.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Aye, whether it's a Motive section or a Speculation on motive section, the sources must tie the cause and effect together. No synthesis allowed. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Overall, I don't think that there should be a "Motive" section for the simple reason that there isn't one, at least one that would make sense to an average person. Holmes had mental problems but was not legally insane. The most important part of the motive is the notebook, which showed that Holmes had been thinking for years about carrying out a killing. In Holmes own words "The message is, there is no message... The causation being my state of mind for the past 15 years."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's like that Boomtown Rat said, he can see no reasons because there are no reasons. Criminology types still like to ask why, though. Might have some better answers yet, as he grows older and wiser in prison. Or he could just make new shit up every few years, like the Amityville guy. Either way, we'll have enough for some sort of section someday. No rush. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego) does not have a separate section for the motive, and most Wikipedia articles about mass shooting incidents do not, because they are usually the work of oddballs without a clear cut motive. A recurring feature is that they had shown signs that they might be capable of a mass shooting, and Holmes is a clear example. This is why more detail about the notebook should be added.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Once a person commits a mass shooting, everything they've said and done becomes one of those "signs". You can't spell "insignificant" without "sign", and you can't spell "cruel act" without "clear cut". According to these crossword clues, a cruel act is an atrocity. Googling "why do atrocities occur" finds the "best answer" at the top.
Long story short, the culprit gnawing at his roots was dehumanization. Since there's no humanization, the best we can do is personification. He made that easy: he's the Joker. "And what made the Joker, with his hideously deformed indelible sardonic smile the sick, depraved and demonic man he is? Was he simply born bad? Well, he himself answers that crucial question, not once but twice, in The Dark Knight." InedibleHulk (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Definitely have to discuss his psychologist & psychiatrist. obviously meds can only play a factor. But they definitely are a factor Ferociouslettuce (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
"they definitely are a factor " - no, the medications weren't a factor at the trial, and have not received significant discussion as a factor in the mainstream media. "Definitely have to discuss his psychologist & psychiatrist" - on 3 August the jury reaffirmed its view that Holmes had mental problems but was not legally insane.[6] The article can only mention what reliable sources have said. The blogs have come up with all sorts of weird and wonderful theories about the motive, but they fail WP:WEIGHT and WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
"The Blogs" >>>> when it comes to WP:WEIGHT because they're viewed by more people and taken more seriously.. as far as WP:REDFLAG, Business Insider continually provides Exceptional Verification for all of its claims, which it does acknowledge deviated from a verification of nonsensical aspects of mainstream/police accounts.[7] & [8] are better accounts of Holmes' upbringing and would better be able to suggest for shooters' mental state in his "saving the world" motivation for the attack. From nytimes, "Mr. Holmes’s mental illness, his lack of criminal record before the shooting and .. family and friends" & "was not hatred or a desire for notoriety that compelled Mr. Holmes to plot and carry out the massacre, but a deepening form of schizophrenia that infected his mind with powerful delusions that killing people somehow increased his 'human capital'" both support this. Also, doctors Were mentioned: "Nevertheless, the doctors said the shooting likely never would have happened were it not for Mr. Holmes’s mental illness." Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Blogs are pretty much banned as a source on Wikipedia, and the 2012 Business Insider source simply rehashes what they have said. There is some useful material in the NYT article which could be added here, but it stresses that the jury found that Holmes' mental problems, whatever they were, did not affect his ability to know what he was doing, or to understand that it would be seen as seriously wrong. This is why Holmes may face the death penalty.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"...easy access Holmes had two..."

This is starting to trip me out. I'm not sure if this is the ninth or tenth time I've seen this. Is one person playing a very long, very dry joke here, or is there genuinely something confusing about the way this sentence is written? This doesn't happen to other sentences, in this article or any other I've seen. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about whether it is vandalism or whether someone doesn't read the sentence correctly. It is clear from the context that it is "to" and not "two".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Now it's even more confusing, because you're the one in the "This doesn't happen" link. If you're not sure, who can be? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking back at the edit history, I got it wrong here in March 2013 and am not sure how it happened. The change has been made by various editors, so it probably isn't vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2012 Aurora shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Aurora_theater_shooting/Archive_6&oldid=1206946501"