Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting

About the title again

Changing the title to "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting" was completely pointless, just as it was pointless to change the title of "1993 Aurora shooting" to "1993 Aurora, Colorado, shooting". There were no shootings in other places named Aurora in 1993 and 2012, or if there were, they were not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Whose idea was this? --Pjoona11 (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Fully concur. The year and name of city alone is sufficient to distinguish the various incidents. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. And it would solve the awkward MOS:GEOCOMMA mess. 1993 Aurora shooting and 2012 Aurora shooting should do it. Probably need another RM discussion to get there. Dicklyon (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I would think that the title should include the word, "Theater," i.e., 2012 Aurora theater shooting. Activist (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

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

If I remember rightly, text along these lines has been added and removed quite a few times in the past. One of the problems is WP:DUE, because the court accepted in 2015 that Holmes was the only person responsible. Many of the conspiracy theories are based on media coverage from 2012 immediately after the shooting, and things have moved on since then.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources are well cited. DisuseKid was the primary proponent of deletion and he is an accused sockpuppeter. Many arguments were made on both sides but mkultra has become more common. A little ridiculous how Hardball with Chris Matthews' program's so dismissed by people who typically worship that sort of PC / MSNBC drivel 172.58.227.225 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What worries me here is using sources that are all from 2012. Template:Current says "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information." This is common with mass shootings, as the first 48 hours after the incident often have all sorts of claims being made that are subsequently disproved. As things stand, Holmes was the only person found to be responsible for the incident in a court of law. Per WP:REDFLAG, there would need to be more up to date sourcing that there was some sort of conspiracy. I'm also worried that this looks like a resurrection of material that was previously rejected for addition.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Ianmacm here. Please don't re-add the material. At most a small paragraph is needed, using only high quality sources. I think the fact that police were originally looking for possible multiple shooters (as is common) is relevant, but that can be added under "police response" just before the statement from the police chief that he was (now) confident the shooter acted alone. Hydromania (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the age of many of the sources and don't think that they're reliable after this much time has passed without further support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia's better today than when those adds were rejected. Secondly, has anyone here ever fought for something they truly believe in? The prevalence of mkultra lobbed at me literally dozens of times daily, and I'm really serious here, is alarming. Which do you consider "high quality" sources? 172.58.187.255 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC) @Hydromania:

I was going to give a thought-out, well-composed response. Then I realized you basically just said we're mind controlled by the government. OK. (if you meant something else with "mkultra" please enlighten me.) Hydromania (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Forget about my reality for a second - it's more bizarre than anything I could ever make up.. Holmes' whole defense was based on insanity. Either internally or externally, he was definitely not right in the head at the time of the shooting. Presented as a well sourced theory, I think an mkultra plausible explanation is reasonable. The guy was found sitting at his car less than 20 yards away from the site mumbling - the most likely explanation's that an external source made him go loco.. 172.58.227.184 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You said two things above that don't connect. Mind control and plausible. Occam's Razor doesn't even allow that theory as a possibility as it's never been scientifically proven. The most likely explanation is that his insanity didn't allow him to plan for anything after enacting his murderous fantasy; possibly because the voices in his head that were telling him what to do had gone silent. (I do not know if he's been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic or not, but it seems possible.)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Leave it out. Don't care in the least about the IP's reality. I care about WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:WEASEL. "It has been suggested that Holmes committed the shootings under the influence of CIA mind control and was an unwitting participant in the MKUltra CIA mind-control experiments." Suggested by whom? When? The program ended decades ago. The next sentence has a source (now dead), but so what if he took a prescription drug? Meters (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't need fringe/looney theories in Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There was some disagreement among psychiatrists about Holmes' mental state. He was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder but the court ruled that he was sane enough to understand what he was doing, which would have required a considerable amount of forward planning. Anything involving Project MKUltra is well into WP:REDFLAG territory, and should not be mentioned simply because someone claimed/believed that it had happened.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to covering the medical issues, which I believe are adequately discussed in the article already. Meters (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Similar incidents

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

Concur. That material is clearly a tangent and should be deleted. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2012 Aurora theater shooting. There's a consensus to move here with a split as to the target, but this title appears to address most people's concerns.(non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

---

2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting → Aurora theater shooting – It would make more sense to call it the “Aurora theater shooting” than the current title because more people recognize it as the “Aurora theater shooting” as opposed to “2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting”, and it makes no sense to call it the current name because no other notable shootings happened in Aurora, Colorado in 2012, or anywhere else named Aurora. MountainDew20 (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe, but "cinema" would be better than the ambiguous "theater" Michaelmalak (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  This article is written in American English, so "cinema" would not work. And, in any case, "cinema" is also ambiguous since it can mean films in general. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  The article body already uses the word "cinema" and facility's name itself derives from "cinema". Michaelmalak (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I (and I imagine many voters) am indifferent as to: cinema vs theater — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• If memory serves "Colorado" was added to distinguish from 2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  But that didn’t happen in 2012. I would understand if it happened the same year, but there were no (at least notable) mass shootings in Aurora, Illinois in 2012. MountainDew20 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is a fair thing, but doesn't apply since the Aurora Illinois shooting was at a company, not a theater. I think location probably does distinguish them pretty well, and I would support this name change even if it does take us a little farther from "standard" since it is much more colloquial and in line with how news agencies and scholars discuss the event. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support. A large aspect of the notoriety of this case is that it happened at a movie theater. This is far less ambiguous and more in line with how people discuss it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral – Honestly there doesn't seem to be a common theme here. A discussion about this type of article naming existed for the 2022 Buffalo shooting and many people responded and it ended being about 50/50: see here. I will say that if it is renamed it should at least be titled 2012 Aurora theater shooting. Inexpiable (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t see why the year should be put in the title as no one would confuse it with another shooting in a theater in a place called Aurora. I could maybe go with “Aurora, Colorado theater shooting” but I still feel that simply “Aurora theater shooting” would work best. MountainDew20 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Change - I don't think this matters too much anyway, as there are many different names that could distinguish this shooting, anything from "Aurora theater shooting" to "Dark knight rises massacre" could work. That being said, I do think Colorado in the title is unnecessary, and I think "Aurora theater shooting" is the best option. - Genberg47 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Move to 2012 Aurora theater shooting. I agree with the nom (and others) who argue that "theater" is a more helpful disambiguator than Colorado for identifying the most distinctive circumstances of this shooting. That said, WP:NCWWW guides us to (usually) include the year in the titles of event articles, and I think it'd be helpful to follow that guidance here as well. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  TBH people are very inconsistent when applying NCWWW, especially with shootings. With a lot of famous cases the common name overrides the year bit and so that is not included. I'm not really sure. I wish we had more consistency, at least. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Calling it the 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting is too lengthy and unnecessary tbh. Everyone knows it as the Aurora shooting or the Aurora theater shooting.

Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.