Talk:Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Requested move 29 November 2015
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved to
commonly recognisable name is. On this issue, I found the arguments in support to be far stronger – they clearly demonstrated that a plethora of reliable sources were referring to this as a "Planned Parenthood shooting", often in the headings of articles (in particular see comments by Somedifferentstuff and Callinus). Even the sources presented by opposers used "Planned Parenthood" in either the heading or the lead sentence. The opposers based their position mainly on the fact that the entire incident did not take place at Planned Parenthood and also that using "Planned Parenthood" in the title would be some sort of POV. I did not find these rationales to be particularly strong because Wikipedia simply reflects reliable sources and it was demonstrated in the discussion that the sources – apparently from across the US political spectrum; I am not an expert in this area but the assertion was not countered – referred to this incident by using some variation of "Planned Parenthood". As a bit of a side note, those saying that "2015" is unnecessary if using the more detailed title are correct because "Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting" is unambiguous. Lastly, something to keep in mind for future RMs is please don't "double vote", it makes it a real pain for the closer constantly having to scroll up and down while reading over the discussion to see if it was a user's first/second/third vote. Thanks. Jenks24 (talk
) 14:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Aurora Chuck E. Cheese shooting, and 2007 Colorado YWAM and New Life shootings - Cwobeel (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC) - Cwobeel (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is also another 2015 shooting in Colorado Springs, in which Noah Harpham killed three people.[1]. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: A suspected criminal has to fully confess his motivation to cite his motivation in Wikipedia? Where is that policy?VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary breakBy the suspect's own words in a court appearance today,
References
- Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Support the motives and locations are not in question, and there has been at least one other shooting in Colorado Springs, so at the very least for clarity's sake... Observer31 (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Support - For same reasons as above. ParkH.Davis (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Still Support ("voted" above, before the hearing) - Callinus' list should make it obvious here, and as Callinus points out, even the right-most of right-wing news sources agree. Before it was "we don't know his motive," and now we're reduced to "his own statements are not indicative of his motive." C'mon. Inonit (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Move to Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting. The specification of the location is necessary because the current name is ambiguous. However, once specified, the year 2015 is not needed. gidonb (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Move to Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting as suggested above. There is no need to show the year if you have Planned Parenthood and Colorado Springs in the title. Here are 5 good sources that support having Planned Parenthood in the title: (New York Times) [14] -- (CNN) [15] -- (Washington Post) [16] -- (Los Angeles Times) [17] -- (Wall Street Journal) [18] - and it has been well established that the event took place in Colorado Springs. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Move to Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting (previously voted in support of proposed move) is a better alternative than the one including the year. Inonit (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Comment would also support move to Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, no preference between the two suggested names. Artw (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Support either the proposed name or the slightly more accurate Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting as suggested above.Tiggerjay (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC) |
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Location
I keep getting reverted as I try to revise the clunky phrase "near and at" describing the location of the shooting. I've tried "outside and inside," "at," and "in and around." I've now added a citation stating that gunfire erupted in the parking lot to support "outside and inside," though I believe it also would support "at" (I think the distinction between the parking lot and building interior is meaningless). I would still call it a party "at my house" even if people were grilling in the driveway, not a party "near and at my house." Inonit (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- If there's fairly wide RS agreement that Dear did all of the shooting from the PP parking lot or inside, I have no problem with "at". It was my impression that RS agreement does not exist, so "near and at" seemed more accurate (or less inaccurate) than the alternatives.
I'll disagree again that "near and at" is clunky. It's no more clunky than "in and around" or "on or about". The fact that you don't see the phrase "near and at" used as much (only because there is less need for it) doesn't make it clunkier than the others. It's sound English grammar. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- See my comments farther above on the clear proof that the shooting began near the shopping mall, in fact I don't see how else you can possibly interpret the descriptions we have in the sources. You can always pick a source which vaguely describes it as "outside" the PP clinic or which ignores the earliest phase of the shooting, but that just bypasses the more detailed sources which give a fuller description of the event. GBRV (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can you post a source that says it happened near the shopping mall? And is it recent, or very early, when the events were less clear? I'd prefer a more recent one as more facts have come to light. Inonit (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a New York Times article (which is already cited as a source) which mentions a man who was shot outside the King Soopers grocery store: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-shooting.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBRV (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. That's not what it says. What it says is that he staggered into the grocery store after being shot, presumably at the Planned Parenthood parking lot. The article also says "Just minutes earlier, on Friday morning around 11:30, a gunman had gone to the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood center here and unleashed a barrage of bullets." And the PP parking lot is in between PP and the grocery store, consistent with the other mention in the article. The grocery store parking lot is so far from PP, and faces the wrong direction; it would be odd indeed to call it "between PP and the grocery store." So your source supports my phrasing more than "near and at." Do you have anything else? Inonit (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Are you really going to keep claiming that a guy with multiple bullets in his chest walked nearly a fourth of a mile to the grocery store? That defies common sense. Yes, the PP parking lot is "between" the two but it's a long way from the grocery store. Which means he must have been shot just outside the grocery store and then managed to walk into it. Other articles have also quoted eyewitnesses who said the shooting began in that direction rather than at the PP clinic. You're taking one line from the New York Times article which seems to contradict its own previous statements from actual eyewitnesses as well as other sources' quotations from eyewitnesses, and then using that contradictory statement to claim the shooting began in the PP parking lot. We need to go by the preponderance of the evidence, not just one line taken from one source, and the eyewitness statements are far more likely to be accurate than a reporter's own contradictory description which may be erroneous. Your argument that the grocery store parking lot isn't in a straight line between the PP clinic and grocery store is entirely beside the point, because no source claims the man was shot directly in a straight line between the two. The eyewitnesses said he staggered into the grocery store, without saying where he was shot other than implying that he must have been shot right outside the store since he couldn't have walked far with multiple chest wounds. GBRV (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it defies common sense to think that someone could walk a couple of hundred yards, in a labored way, with what an eyewitness in shock thought were multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. There are multiple explanations for that, including eyewitness errors on the number or location of wounds, or the wounds being superficial based on the nature of the hits. There is literally nothing in any of the sources you've posted -- including the dubious ones -- that says someone was shot near the grocery store. And the most reliable one you've posted -- the New York Times -- affirmatively says the opposite. Inonit (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- So you're second-guessing the eyewitnesses' description of the victim's chest wounds because their description doesn't fit your assumptions? And as I pointed out, if he had really been shot near the PP clinic - or even halfway in between, for that matter - there would be no reason for him to walk all the way to the King Soopers store since there are several other businesses that are closer. He certainly couldn't have walked that far in only "minutes", if you really want to accept that line in the NY Times article which says the gunfire began only minutes before he walked into King Soopers. That leaves the possibility that he was shot close to King Soopers, which is also consistent with what other eyewitnesses said about the initial gunfire coming from that general area. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps the fact that police officers were apparently using the Chase parking lot would cause one to go a bit farther away to seek care. And yes, one can walk 300 yards in "minutes." About four of them. Even faster if you're in a hurry, which you might be if you're fleeing a location where you got shot. And I provided other explanations which require no eyewitness error (like superficial wounds), although eyewitness error is obviously quite common. Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- So you're second-guessing the eyewitnesses' description of the victim's chest wounds because their description doesn't fit your assumptions? And as I pointed out, if he had really been shot near the PP clinic - or even halfway in between, for that matter - there would be no reason for him to walk all the way to the King Soopers store since there are several other businesses that are closer. He certainly couldn't have walked that far in only "minutes", if you really want to accept that line in the NY Times article which says the gunfire began only minutes before he walked into King Soopers. That leaves the possibility that he was shot close to King Soopers, which is also consistent with what other eyewitnesses said about the initial gunfire coming from that general area. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it defies common sense to think that someone could walk a couple of hundred yards, in a labored way, with what an eyewitness in shock thought were multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. There are multiple explanations for that, including eyewitness errors on the number or location of wounds, or the wounds being superficial based on the nature of the hits. There is literally nothing in any of the sources you've posted -- including the dubious ones -- that says someone was shot near the grocery store. And the most reliable one you've posted -- the New York Times -- affirmatively says the opposite. Inonit (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Are you really going to keep claiming that a guy with multiple bullets in his chest walked nearly a fourth of a mile to the grocery store? That defies common sense. Yes, the PP parking lot is "between" the two but it's a long way from the grocery store. Which means he must have been shot just outside the grocery store and then managed to walk into it. Other articles have also quoted eyewitnesses who said the shooting began in that direction rather than at the PP clinic. You're taking one line from the New York Times article which seems to contradict its own previous statements from actual eyewitnesses as well as other sources' quotations from eyewitnesses, and then using that contradictory statement to claim the shooting began in the PP parking lot. We need to go by the preponderance of the evidence, not just one line taken from one source, and the eyewitness statements are far more likely to be accurate than a reporter's own contradictory description which may be erroneous. Your argument that the grocery store parking lot isn't in a straight line between the PP clinic and grocery store is entirely beside the point, because no source claims the man was shot directly in a straight line between the two. The eyewitnesses said he staggered into the grocery store, without saying where he was shot other than implying that he must have been shot right outside the store since he couldn't have walked far with multiple chest wounds. GBRV (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. That's not what it says. What it says is that he staggered into the grocery store after being shot, presumably at the Planned Parenthood parking lot. The article also says "Just minutes earlier, on Friday morning around 11:30, a gunman had gone to the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood center here and unleashed a barrage of bullets." And the PP parking lot is in between PP and the grocery store, consistent with the other mention in the article. The grocery store parking lot is so far from PP, and faces the wrong direction; it would be odd indeed to call it "between PP and the grocery store." So your source supports my phrasing more than "near and at." Do you have anything else? Inonit (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a New York Times article (which is already cited as a source) which mentions a man who was shot outside the King Soopers grocery store: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-shooting.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBRV (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Can you post a source that says it happened near the shopping mall? And is it recent, or very early, when the events were less clear? I'd prefer a more recent one as more facts have come to light. Inonit (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The police only showed up near Chase Bank some time after the shooting, not merely a few minutes after; and they went there only (ironically) because people thought the shooting had occurred there, which contradicts your assumptions; and even if they had somehow arrived there immediately after the shooting, why would the victim walk farther because of that? Chase Bank is to the northeast of the shopping mall, so why would it factor into his decisions at all, and why would a victim avoid police rather than seeking help from them? And someone with bullet wounds in their chest could not walk as quickly as your scenario requires, nor would chest wounds be "superficial". I don't see how your explanation would make any sense, and in any event you're using speculation as an excuse to censor all mention of what the eyewitnesses said about the location of this victim. GBRV (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that "near and at" sounds more appropriate than something like "outside and inside". Parsley Man (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
GBRV keeps insisting things like "many sources have mentioned eyewitness accounts describing victims in other locations than the PP clinic" but I haven't been able to verify this; it seems to come down to one source that says the opposite (that the shooting was in the parking lot of the PP clinic). Is there anything else substantiating GBRV's claim? Inonit (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here are some examples of sources which mention eyewitnesses who said the shooting began elsewhere aside from the PP clinic, or similar information:
- Summarizes some of the eyewitnesses: (to get around Wikipedia's spam filter, I've had to break this URL into sections; just put it back together): http://www.e xaminer.com/article/witness-accounts-conflict-with-planned-parenthood-shooting-narrative
- Very long and detailed article which gives almost moment-by-moment information (you'll have to scroll down a long ways to find the eyewitness accounts but it mentions them): http://gazette.com/active-shooter-situation-reported-near-planned-parenthood-in-colorado-springs-reports-of-multiple-people-shot/article/1564419
- I would add that most of the media accounts avoid any mention of specifics, instead just using the generic and misleading phrase "Planned Parenthood shooting" but without mentioning where specific victims were shot or where the shooting started. That doesn't mean we have to ignore the ones which do provide specifics, in fact those are the only truly valuable ones. The vague sources offer very little information. GBRV (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The first source is from "News / Politics / Republican," and is from examiner.com, which is hardly a reliable source (the fact that it's on the Wikipedia spam list says something) -- it's a collection of bloggers. See, e.g., [[19]]. As for the second, police scanner traffic is not a reliable source. Even if it were, it never says anyone was shot near the grocery store. It never even says anyone was shot at Elite Vision -- it says that one wounded patient was reported to be located outside Elite Vision, which doesn't mean the person was shot there, just means the person was located there at the time of the transmission. So, no. There's nothing here. Inonit (talk)
- The examiner.com article just summarizes other sources and has links to them; and I only included it because it's a concise summary, not because it's an RS in its own right. The individual links should be reliable sources.
- Could be: can you point us to which reliable sources that are linked you think are applicable? I have a media source quoting a police officer expressing doubt about the motive and target for the shooting, but none about where it began: Planned Parenthood. (see below) Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- And I've added two eyewitness accounts, each in detail, which assert that the shooting began in the Planned Parenthood parking lot. Inonit (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Gazette article contains a lot more than just "police scanner traffic", so your objections aren't valid. You've adopted the tactic of just dismissing any and all sources that I present, using any excuse you can think of.
- Yes, it does contain more than police scanner traffic; it's a long article. But the police scanner traffic, reporting the Elite Vision victim, is the only mention in the entire chronology of victims being anywhere else besides Planned Parenthood. The Gazette article also says: "A few workers head into the King Soopers, indicating the store may reopen later today. Many police are still working the scene around Planned Parenthood." And "Springs police also confirm that the Planned Parenthood clinic has been cleared, though it still is an active crime-investigation scene." Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- That article also contains an account of an officer being shot next to Chase Bank, as described by an eyewitness who thought the gunfire was coming from behind the bank's drive-through. The article mentioned other relevant information as well. And I have no idea why you think police scanner information is unreliable. Which Wikipedia rule says that? The information is from the police, and is in an RS. As for the eyewitness account which you provide : the words "opening shots" were added by the journalist, not the eyewitness, who does not actually claim that he was describing the first shots; so that account doesn't contradict the other eyewitnesses who said the shooting started elsewhere. GBRV (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Also, here's a Gazette article which consists of a detailed story about an eyewitness: [[20]]. It says, "The Planned Parenthood shooter wore a "cold, stone face" as he fired the opening shots in a deadly, five-hour standoff on Colorado Springs'northwest side Friday, according to a man who said he narrowly survived an encounter with the gunman. Parked in a handicap spot near Planned Parenthood's front door, Ozy Licano, 61, of Manzanola in eastern Colorado, said he watched helplessly from his driver seat as a rifle-toting assailant pursued a crawling man through the parking lot and into the medical clinic. That's pretty specific. Inonit (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it does contain more than police scanner traffic; it's a long article. But the police scanner traffic, reporting the Elite Vision victim, is the only mention in the entire chronology of victims being anywhere else besides Planned Parenthood. The Gazette article also says: "A few workers head into the King Soopers, indicating the store may reopen later today. Many police are still working the scene around Planned Parenthood." And "Springs police also confirm that the Planned Parenthood clinic has been cleared, though it still is an active crime-investigation scene." Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The eyewitness accounts about the person shot near King Soopers were already mentioned in the NY Times source we had previously discussed, so I didn't think I needed to mention it again. You're now claiming that it doesn't exist? Come on.
- As I said, there is no account about someone being shot near King Soopers. There is an account about a shot person walking into King Soopers. Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- And I already explained why it's almost certain that he must have been shot just outside King Soopers. But the bottom line is that if a source mentions a wounded person coming into a building, we should go with what the source says rather than dismissing it based on the rather farfetched speculation you've come up with (i.e. a guy with multiple bullets in his chest quickly walks hundreds of yards to a distant store, bypassing the other stores that are closer). GBRV (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, there is no account about someone being shot near King Soopers. There is an account about a shot person walking into King Soopers. Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- If one or more victims were outside Elite Vision, then that strongly implies they were shot in that location.
- Among the other evidence:
- Many eyewitnesses said the shooting began near Chase Bank or in that general area, which is near the shopping mall. One eyewitness said she initially thought it was a bank robbery due to the location of the initial gunfire. It's hard to see how you can translate that into a shooting that began at the PP clinic.
- Many? Where were they located? Can you link to reliable sources describing each of the "many?" You're wanting to put these unnamed eyewitnesses up against the New York Times, KDVR TV, and the Colorado Springs Police Department. So let's see exactly who they are, where they were located at the time of the shooting, and what they said. Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think I already linked to at least some of them, but here are some articles which mention these witnesses:
- Article mentioning that an eyewitness said the suspect ran from Chase Bank to the PP clinic, and she initially assumed it was a bank robbery: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colorado-shooting-fox-news-reported-that-the-planned-parenthood-abortion-clinic-wasnt-the-real-a6752461.html
- Article which says eyewitness Denise Speller saw a police officer shot next to Chase Bank, which is some distance from the PP clinic, and she said "we assumed it [the gunfire] came from behind the Chase Bank drive-through": http://gazette.com/clerical-glitch-causes-speculation-about-colorado-springs-shooting-suspects-gender-identity/article/1564656
- No, it doesn't say a word about Chase Bank. Did you link to the wrong article? Inonit (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant to link to this one instead: http://gazette.com/active-shooter-situation-reported-near-planned-parenthood-in-colorado-springs/article/1564419 GBRV (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't say a word about Chase Bank. Did you link to the wrong article? Inonit (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Article which says: "Witnesses at the scene told MSNBC the original gunshots came from near the Planned Parenthood at a Chase Bank facility." http://www.ibtimes.com/colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-shooting-officer-reported-shot-injured-scene-not-2202582
- That is true, it does say that. But a third-hand reference to it -- a news report citing another news report with an eyewitness interview -- carries nowhere near the weight as the bevy of sources I've cited that state as fact that the shooting began in the Planned Parenthood parking lot (including the statement from the police). The reliable secondary sources state as fact that the shooting began at Planned Parenthood, and I've produced several that say so. You have produced none that state otherwise; most say other things from which you draw inferences, and this one does say that some eyewitness said something about the gunfire originating from near Chase Bank. But we have lots of other sources, including the police who had access to the same eyewitnesses, synthesizing the available information and drawing the same conclusion. One eyewitness doesn't override that. (Yes, I know the IBT uses a plural phrase, but I have seen other sources citing just one. It doesn't matter, for the aforementioned reasons. Inonit (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- The witnesses you've cited don't actually say the shooting began there, though, as I've already pointed out; and the police statement you're referring to was a very early statement which is actually contradicted by another early police statement. Have the police released a more recent statement after sifting through all the facts? GBRV (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is true, it does say that. But a third-hand reference to it -- a news report citing another news report with an eyewitness interview -- carries nowhere near the weight as the bevy of sources I've cited that state as fact that the shooting began in the Planned Parenthood parking lot (including the statement from the police). The reliable secondary sources state as fact that the shooting began at Planned Parenthood, and I've produced several that say so. You have produced none that state otherwise; most say other things from which you draw inferences, and this one does say that some eyewitness said something about the gunfire originating from near Chase Bank. But we have lots of other sources, including the police who had access to the same eyewitnesses, synthesizing the available information and drawing the same conclusion. One eyewitness doesn't override that. (Yes, I know the IBT uses a plural phrase, but I have seen other sources citing just one. It doesn't matter, for the aforementioned reasons. Inonit (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are other articles quoting eyewitnesses who said the gunfire started "in the direction of Chase Bank" (or words to that effect), but I don't have time to hunt all of the articles down. The above should suffice as examples. And as I noted farther above, the eyewitness you mention does not actually say that he was describing the first shots (that was added by the journalist, not the witness), so he doesn't contradict these other eyewitnesses. GBRV (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just because it's not in quotation marks doesn't mean the journalist added it. It means it's a paraphrase. He still says it in the witness' voice. Inonit (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- But the video of the witness speaking doesn't include anything similar to that statement, hence it doesn't come from his testimony. It's an assumption that the journalist came up with, undoubtedly based on the media's relentless attempt to portray the event in that manner. GBRV (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just because it's not in quotation marks doesn't mean the journalist added it. It means it's a paraphrase. He still says it in the witness' voice. Inonit (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Were any of them close enough to see the shooter's face as he fired the first shots? This guy was. As he sat in the Planned Parenthood parking lot. [[21]]
- Many? Where were they located? Can you link to reliable sources describing each of the "many?" You're wanting to put these unnamed eyewitnesses up against the New York Times, KDVR TV, and the Colorado Springs Police Department. So let's see exactly who they are, where they were located at the time of the shooting, and what they said. Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers said at a press conference that there was a "huge crime scene", which is certainly more than just the PP clinic. The clinic isn't exactly "huge", so we're talking about a substantial area aside from the clinic itself.
- Sure, because the shooter was shooting bullets. The crime scene would include anywhere the bullets *landed*. Guns can fire them a long way. Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The only way you've tried to justify that assumption is to assume that a guy with multiple bullets in his chest would have chosen to walk to the farthest possible store rather than the closer ones. That explanation doesn't hold up to common sense. The only alternative is that at least one of the victims was in fact shot from a position quite some distance from the PP clinic. GBRV (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, because the shooter was shooting bullets. The crime scene would include anywhere the bullets *landed*. Guns can fire them a long way. Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- In any event, you can't just cherry-pick one sentence in one source which is contradicted by the direct eyewitness accounts quoted in various reliable sources, then add your own speculation which is contradicted by the most likely explanation for the eyewitness statements. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hopefully I've provided a comprehensive set of reasoning about why I don't believe that's what I'm doing. Here's one source that states clearly: "Buckley said officers were still encountering gunfire with one shooter inside the Planned Parenthood office at 3480 Centennial Boulevard during the course of the afternoon. It had not been confirmed if that organization was actually targeted, although she did confirm the incident began there." [[22]] The police department obviously had access to the eyewitnesses. There really isn't much ambiguity here. I don't see any particular reason the police department would try to conceal the truth, or that a random eyewitness is more believable than an organization that had many fact-gathering mechanisms available. Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The examiner.com article just summarizes other sources and has links to them; and I only included it because it's a concise summary, not because it's an RS in its own right. The individual links should be reliable sources.
- The first source is from "News / Politics / Republican," and is from examiner.com, which is hardly a reliable source (the fact that it's on the Wikipedia spam list says something) -- it's a collection of bloggers. See, e.g., [[19]]. As for the second, police scanner traffic is not a reliable source. Even if it were, it never says anyone was shot near the grocery store. It never even says anyone was shot at Elite Vision -- it says that one wounded patient was reported to be located outside Elite Vision, which doesn't mean the person was shot there, just means the person was located there at the time of the transmission. So, no. There's nothing here. Inonit (talk)
- If I'm not mistaken, that statement from Buckley came from a very early press conference before much was known about the shooting, and it directly contradicts what several eyewitnesses said. Some of the other early police statements had said the shooting had "nothing to do with Planned Parenthood" (see: http://gazette.com/active-shooter-situation-reported-near-planned-parenthood-in-colorado-springs-reports-of-multiple-people-shot/article/1564419 ) so if you want to use early police statements then you've got some contradictory information there. And as I noted twice above, the eyewitness you're using does not actually say he was describing the initial shots. GBRV (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- It was two-and-a-half hours after the statement I assume you mean (the one at 1:30pm). The police news conference was at 4pm.
- I agree with Inonit that the Washington Examiner is absolutely not a reliable source. Neutralitytalk 23:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- It was two-and-a-half hours after the statement I assume you mean (the one at 1:30pm). The police news conference was at 4pm.
Here's an article interviewing a survivor which explicitly states in the opening that the survivor, sitting in the Planned Parenthood parking lot, saw the shooter's face as he fired the opening shots. So he wasn't a quarter-mile away at the grocery store. [24] Inonit (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's another eyewitness account from someone inside the clinic who heard someone shout "Get down" and *then* heard gunshots. [[25]] Inonit (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, the initial 911 call came from Planned Parenthood [[26]], and that 911 call reported there was already a gunman inside the building. [[27]]
- I already explained above why the first eyewitness you mentioned does not actually say he was describing the first shots. The second witness also doesn't say that these were the first shots fired, merely the first she heard - which makes sense if she was inside the PP clinic and the first shots were fired nearly a fourth of a mile away. Also, both she and the staff of Planned Parenthood said they heard gunfire outside and had time to move everyone to safety, which alone would indicate that the shooting didn't begin in the clinic itself nor did the gunman move very quickly into the clinic, otherwise the people inside wouldn't have had time to relocate into back rooms. The third source doesn't say where the first shots were fired, but merely where the 911 call came from. I don't see how any of these would contradict or supersede the several sources I listed farther above which quote eyewitnesses who said the initial gunfire came from the area around Chase Bank. GBRV (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Shooting | Event (Chronology)
I've reworded and rearranged the early chronology of the event based on the source research I've been doing to support my edits in the opening sentence (see the discussion in the Location section, which has a lot of the detail).
I've added sources to support the additional information about the chronology and removed some (apparently accurate but unsourced) original research about the name and location of the grocery store mentioned in the New York Times article.
I have attempted to reflect what is known (from reliable sources) clearly and fairly, but I'm mindful there may be dissent based on the above discussion. If there is, let's talk about it and see what we can do to reach a broad consensus. If not, thanks for listening, and sorry to take up the bandwidth. :) Inonit (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- See my responses above for an explanation why your chronology is contradicted by a number of eyewitnesses, and the ones you've cited do not actually say what you're claiming they say. I noticed your edits to the article removed all mention of the guy who was shot near King Soopers, since it doesn't fit easily into your narrative (unless you want people to believe that a guy with multiple chest wounds walked to the farthest possible store rather than the closest ones). Do you plan to just censor any countervailing information from now on? In any event, let's try to work out a compromise that covers all the bases rather than insisting on only one interpretation. GBRV (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want people to believe anything, and it's not my chronology. I am following what the secondary sources say; I'm not doing interpretation, merely attempting to defend their interpretations against your allegation that they are definitely incorrect, impossible to reconcile with the "facts" you cite, and consequent insistence on substituting your theory. New York Times: "a gunman had gone to the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood center here and unleashed a barrage of bullets." Gazette: "The Planned Parenthood shooter wore a "cold, stone face" as he fired the opening shots in a deadly, five-hour standoff on Colorado Springs'northwest side Friday, according to a man who said he narrowly survived an encounter with the gunman. Parked in a handicap spot near Planned Parenthood's front door, Ozy Licano, 61, of Manzanola in eastern Colorado, said he watched helplessly from his driver seat as a rifle-toting assailant pursued a crawling man through the parking lot and into the medical clinic." KDVR: "Buckley said officers were still encountering gunfire with one shooter inside the Planned Parenthood office at 3480 Centennial Boulevard during the course of the afternoon. It had not been confirmed if that organization was actually targeted, although she did confirm the incident began there." Associated Press [[28]] "Police say three people are dead after a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs." You, GBRV, are entitled to believe that all of these outlets, as well as the Colorado Springs Police Department -- all of whom have access to far more information than either of us do -- are inappropriately drawing conclusions. You may think that because someone described in the Times article walked into a grocery store 300 yards away, and you, GBRV, know that no one who would be described that way by an eyewitness would be able to walk that far, and that person definitely would walk to somewhere nearer (nearer the gunman and the flying bullets, but that's presumably irrelevant, in your view), and thus you, GBRV, know that the narrative published in reliable sources must be wrong, and yours is correct. But that's original research, and thus not Wikipedia. Inonit (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Until the police release a definite conclusion after thorough investigation - not just the very early press conferences - what we've got here are a number of piecemeal media accounts, some of which explicitly contradict the version you want to promote. So what do you want to do with the sourced information - from some of those same media sources that you're using for other information - which include quotes from eyewitnesses who said the shooting began near Chase Bank, and that one of the victims staggered into King Soopers? Do we just censor all that? If not, how do we work it into the chronology which you want to use? You're pretending that all the RS information confirms a single narrative, which isn't the case; and most of the sources which do confirm this narrative are the ones which give virtually no specific details about where the victims were or what the eyewitnesses said, except for a few sources in which the reporter has extrapolated what the witnesses said (e.g., the spin placed on Ozy Licano's testimony). You accuse me of "original research" for trying to figure out how to fit this sourced information into a cohesive narrative, while admitting that you're doing the same thing by "attempting to defend their interpretations". You're trying to explain one set of interpretations and I'm trying to explain how to work the rest of the information into a coherent narrative. Wikipedia requires us to try to include as many different points of view as possible, especially when it comes to eyewitness information. GBRV (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Per ) 23:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- But it does require that we include more than just one point of view. Eyewitness accounts in reliable sources can hardly be called "fringe views" nor would including them qualify as "undue weight". You guys are basically admitting that you do, in fact, want to just censor this information. GBRV (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. The reliable sources all, to my knowledge, state that the shooting began at Planned Parenthood. I have seen literally no secondary sources saying "the shooting, which began at a supermarket and continued at Planned Parenthood, ..." That's the difference. Interviewing an eyewitness is not the same as a secondary source making a statement. So what you call "spin" (because it's not in quotation marks) is exactly the point. The secondary source states that the shooting began at Planned Parenthood, possibly based on the interview with the eyewitness, possibly based on other information; we don't know, we don't care. Same as your supermarket thing -- the secondary source states that the shooting began at Planned Parenthood right after the eyewitness account on which you're hinging your dissent. So they clearly don't think it's contradictory. You do, that's fine. But for Wikipedia to reflect it, you should call the New York Times and point out to them that you are certain their story is wrong. You can include in your communications with them all the conclusions you deem completely unassailable, and I assume they'll have no choice but to issue a correction, and perhaps publish a story about what really happened. Then we'll cite it. Inonit (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- So you want to just leave out the eyewitnesses - quoted in RSs - who said that the shooting began near Chase Bank and one victim was at King Soopers? GBRV (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I put the part about the victim at King Soopers in there. I just didn't add your interpretation (that the person was therefore shot right outside), which is not included in the RS. The reliable sources do not indicate that the shooting began outside Chase Bank, although very scattered sources quote eyewitnesses saying so -- which is not the same as reliable sources saying so in their own voice. Because all reliable sources (to my knowledge) taking a position, in their own voice, agree the shooting began in the PP parking lot, it's appropriate to state that in the Wikipedia article. Inonit (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any sources which say these eyewitnesses were mistaken, although many sources gloss over them while repeating the narrative about a "Planned Parenthood shooting". You interpret that to mean these sources have considered and dismissed the eyewitnesses, whereas I think they're just glossing over them or going by that early press conference which claimed the shooting began in the PP parking lot (before the police had conducted a thorough investigation). We need to leave both possibilities open and wait to see what the police investigate concludes. GBRV (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I put the part about the victim at King Soopers in there. I just didn't add your interpretation (that the person was therefore shot right outside), which is not included in the RS. The reliable sources do not indicate that the shooting began outside Chase Bank, although very scattered sources quote eyewitnesses saying so -- which is not the same as reliable sources saying so in their own voice. Because all reliable sources (to my knowledge) taking a position, in their own voice, agree the shooting began in the PP parking lot, it's appropriate to state that in the Wikipedia article. Inonit (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- So you want to just leave out the eyewitnesses - quoted in RSs - who said that the shooting began near Chase Bank and one victim was at King Soopers? GBRV (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Per ) 23:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Until the police release a definite conclusion after thorough investigation - not just the very early press conferences - what we've got here are a number of piecemeal media accounts, some of which explicitly contradict the version you want to promote. So what do you want to do with the sourced information - from some of those same media sources that you're using for other information - which include quotes from eyewitnesses who said the shooting began near Chase Bank, and that one of the victims staggered into King Soopers? Do we just censor all that? If not, how do we work it into the chronology which you want to use? You're pretending that all the RS information confirms a single narrative, which isn't the case; and most of the sources which do confirm this narrative are the ones which give virtually no specific details about where the victims were or what the eyewitnesses said, except for a few sources in which the reporter has extrapolated what the witnesses said (e.g., the spin placed on Ozy Licano's testimony). You accuse me of "original research" for trying to figure out how to fit this sourced information into a cohesive narrative, while admitting that you're doing the same thing by "attempting to defend their interpretations". You're trying to explain one set of interpretations and I'm trying to explain how to work the rest of the information into a coherent narrative. Wikipedia requires us to try to include as many different points of view as possible, especially when it comes to eyewitness information. GBRV (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want people to believe anything, and it's not my chronology. I am following what the secondary sources say; I'm not doing interpretation, merely attempting to defend their interpretations against your allegation that they are definitely incorrect, impossible to reconcile with the "facts" you cite, and consequent insistence on substituting your theory. New York Times: "a gunman had gone to the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood center here and unleashed a barrage of bullets." Gazette: "The Planned Parenthood shooter wore a "cold, stone face" as he fired the opening shots in a deadly, five-hour standoff on Colorado Springs'northwest side Friday, according to a man who said he narrowly survived an encounter with the gunman. Parked in a handicap spot near Planned Parenthood's front door, Ozy Licano, 61, of Manzanola in eastern Colorado, said he watched helplessly from his driver seat as a rifle-toting assailant pursued a crawling man through the parking lot and into the medical clinic." KDVR: "Buckley said officers were still encountering gunfire with one shooter inside the Planned Parenthood office at 3480 Centennial Boulevard during the course of the afternoon. It had not been confirmed if that organization was actually targeted, although she did confirm the incident began there." Associated Press [[28]] "Police say three people are dead after a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs." You, GBRV, are entitled to believe that all of these outlets, as well as the Colorado Springs Police Department -- all of whom have access to far more information than either of us do -- are inappropriately drawing conclusions. You may think that because someone described in the Times article walked into a grocery store 300 yards away, and you, GBRV, know that no one who would be described that way by an eyewitness would be able to walk that far, and that person definitely would walk to somewhere nearer (nearer the gunman and the flying bullets, but that's presumably irrelevant, in your view), and thus you, GBRV, know that the narrative published in reliable sources must be wrong, and yours is correct. But that's original research, and thus not Wikipedia. Inonit (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Terrorist attack
Why was the despriction of this event as a "terrorist attack" removed from the lede? Are there still people who are trying to pretend like this wasn't a terrorist attack? ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think I removed it. Per the definition of Terrorism, I don't think it's yet clear that this was the intent, although I believe it's one likely possibility. My guess is we'll hear all about the shooter's motivations at some point, and then be able to make a judgment as to whether he was attempting to deter abortion doctors from practicing, or patients from going through with abortions, or Planned Parenthood specifically from operating -- these I would call "terrorism" -- or whether he saw this as more like a revenge killing (in which case I would say that is not "terrorism"), or defense of a third party (i.e., on behalf of the unborn), in which case I would also say that is not "terrorism." Inonit (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- The terrorist has already explicitly stated his motive in court though. Am I missing something? Why are you attempting to suppress the fact that this was a terrorist attack? ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oh boy, "suppress." Just a few days ago, I was "suppressing" all the eyewitnesses that right-wingers believe support the possibility that Planned Parenthood wasn't the target. Now I'm "suppressing" a "fact" the other side believes. What we know is that he was opposed to Planned Parenthood, and abortion. (I also wrote the "Motive" section in the infobox.) What we don't know is whether the attack was designed to intimidate, retaliate, defend, or some other possibility I haven't imagined. The first would be terrorism; the second two would not. Is there a specific court statement outlining the suspect's reasoning that you think supports the first as opposed to the other two? "Warrior for the babies" seems to me to apply to any of the three. Inonit (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- The terrorist has already explicitly stated his motive in court though. Am I missing something? Why are you attempting to suppress the fact that this was a terrorist attack? ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- From the lead of the above-linked article: "The word terrorism is politically loaded and emotionally charged." That says it all. The word is 100% a matter of perspective, rendering it fairly useless for an encyclopedia that strives to be neutral. And I agree that this pattern of AGF failure is becoming tiresome. No one is censoring, suppressing, or committing any other evil conspiracy here. Please cease or take a much needed wikibreak. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The terrorist has already explicitly stated his motive in court though.
Really? He said his motive was terrorism? I must have missed that quote. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)- After a moment's reflection, I'll alter my position on this as follows. If a majority of RS calls this a terrorist attack, we should follow suit whether we agree with that characterization or not. But I don't believe such a majority exists. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's been said before, if groups like the FBI or DHS call this terrorism then the contentious label is used by an official source. If it's only politicians, then they can be named in the body, but the contentious label shouldn't be in the lead section. -- Callinus (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
New Facts on Motive
Apparently he believed that the FBI had been surrepticiously putting holes in his clothes and monitoring him from afar and that they were following him that day planning to kill him, so he chose the clinic on the spur of the moment to make a last stand.
This is according to an interview he gave to Denver CBS affiliate on January 13th. http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/01/13/planned-parenthood-suspected-gunman-they-wanted-to-start-a-war/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.12.72 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice
This article does a good job at explaining the event in a basic and easy to understand way. Because the case ended in Dear being admitted to a mental health institution, the information of aftermath is not as in depth. However, the basic information is very helpful in just needing a brief summary or quick fact check. I believe this was described in the article that the timeline of the event was not released due to the case still being open, but I think once that information is accessible, it would help strengthen this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.222 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151127230543/http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29172660/colorado-springs-firefighters-respond-active-shooter-at-planned to http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29172660/colorado-springs-firefighters-respond-active-shooter-at-planned
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{).
Sourcecheck}}
This message was posted before February 2018.
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
{{source check- 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)