Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting

"just after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre." sounds like its referring to time but its 13 years apart. Then I realized its meaning "just behind" as in 2nd place, then I read the rest of the paragraph. " At the time, the event had the largest number of victims (82) in one shooting in modern U.S. history.[6] This number was later surpassed by the 107 victims of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and eventually the 927 victims of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting."

I find this whole section to be insensitive towards the victims in any of these incidents. It comes across as if there is some kind of competition to list the most fatal shootings in American history. I wanted to edit this myself but I respect the original contributor and would like to offer the opportunity for them to reword this themselves, in a more respectful tone.

I'm not questioning the accuracy of the statistics but as I said before, it comes across in a disrespectful light. Please edit this paragraph.

Sincerely, Jaybee JayMaybee (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This article as written implies there were 927 deaths in Vegas but this number would include both indjuries and deaths. 2600:1700:31D7:80:14F5:3A6E:91D7:122B (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises original gross was $1.081 billion but with rereleases it’s $1.115 billion but it is no longer listed here why? https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt1345836/ Ahmed Alency (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:I can't see why the film's gross is relevant here. Barry Wom (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

As of 2025, no conclusive motive has ever been established for why Holmes committed the shooting. The only source attributed to the claim of terrorism was from Jesse Jackson, a civil rights activist (not his ball game, I'd say) claimed. Now I've previously spoken out on the Oxford High School shooting being labeled a "terrorist attack" but most Wikipedia editors seem to circle back around to the same claim that an article saying something you specifically agree with should be treated as if it were the gospel. And while I agree we shouldn't use original research, I strongly disagree that it is "original research" to simply disagree with an evidently biased source. We're taking Jackson's words and putting them over the facts of the case. If the editors of CNN woke up one day and suddenly said the sky is purple, we aren't going to suddenly alter Wikipedia to say the sky is purple. We need to use our noggins when editing sometimes and decipher what is factual and what is biased.

Simply put, a "terrorist attack" is a violent incident involving a perpetrator or perpetrators who targets specific people in the name of either an ideological goal or a religious one. A major incident such as 9/11, an group targeted America because of their interference in Middle Eastern affairs. That is an ideological goal and thus, is terrorism. A smaller incident such as the live-streamed mass shooting in Buffalo is terrorism too because a man shot people who he believed were harmful to the existence of the United States in hopes of starting a race war. That is an ideological goal and thus, is terrorism.

But a random loser buying a bunch of guns and shooting into a crowd of random people for no reason (this page says the motive is mostly inconclusive) is NOT terrorism. I'm so tired of Wikipedia turning their shoulder to the facts and attack a straw man by saying "erm if he had a big scary name like 'Muhammad' then you'd probably think it's terrorism huh?" As a matter of fact, NO! That is not what I said. And with the unfortunate state of mass shootings now, we can argue that there are cases where people with these "big scary Muslim names" are not in fact terrorists. Such as the Boulder shooting.

The reason this frustrates me is because terrorism is something that needs to be distinguished from random people running amok. A lot of people who want to learn about what causes these incidents, either terrorism or random amoks, read Wikipedia. And religiously they are misinformed by Wikipedia's cesspool of pseudo-intellectuals. We need to stop.

I'm removing the baseless claim from the infobox. MountainJew6150 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)