Talk:Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting/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 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting. Firstly, I found some of the initial reasoning for the move – that the current title is ambiguous – to not hold much water. Disambiguation on Wikipedia is only concerned with alleviating ambiguity from other topics that are covered here on Wikipedia and it was not shown that any other 2015 shootings in Colorado Springs were notable. The question for me when assessing the consensus came down to how this incident is referred to in reliable sources, or in other words what the 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)

2015 Colorado Springs shooting → 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting – 2015 Colorado Springs shooting is too generic of a name. For example, see Columbine High School massacre, 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)
 * Support as nom. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There's already a discussion of same above. Did you miss it? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No I did not. This is a requested move given the page protection. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I see. The others commenting above need to be made aware of this, then. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There is also another 2015 shooting in Colorado Springs, in which Noah Harpham killed three people.. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wasn't aware of that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Title seems politically motivated, the connection to Planned Parenthood has not yet been established.  I do, however, support an article title change to November 2015 Colorado Springs shooting as there was another shooting in CS during 2015.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update to oppose Still oppose this move. Despite recent events surrounding suspect and his court appearance, motive has still not been released by law enforcement.  Suspect seems mentally ill, statements being made by him are all over the place, and I just don't see any clear cut evidence (especially absent a motive given by law enforcement investigating) that Planned Parenthood was absolutely the intended target. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Update to update: Still oppose per 's comments below regarding how spread out the shootings actually were. Based on that evidence in particular, I reiterate that the renaming seems very political in nature and not based in fact.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Politically motivated? The hostage taking, standoff and killings happened at a Planned Parenthood location, so we report the fact. Maybe the political motivation is in your statement? Follow the sources please! That is what we do in WP. This should be a no brainer.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my opinion. Are we now not allowed to state our opinions in Wikipedia discussions?  If so, I didn't get the memo.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to have the precise location of the event in the article title. For example, the articles 2012 Aurora shooting and 2011 Tucson shooting make no reference to Century 16 Theater or Safeway in the article title.  Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One could equaly argue that oposition to this obvious change appears politically motivated. Artw (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - I agree with Winkelvi; there is no anti-abortion motive officially confirmed just yet. I'm not entirely opposed to the rename, but I think renaming it right now would be too premature. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Changed my mind according to all the other arguments for it. Naming it "Planned Parenthood shooting" isn't necessarily enough to imply an anti-abortion motivation in the article. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not have to be anti-abortion to rename the article. in Wikipedia we follow the sources, and 100% of the sources refer to this shooting as the "Planned Parenthood shooting" in Colorado. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - The primary sources are now mostly referring to this as "Planned Parenthood shooting", and it did take place at Planned Parenthood. The article titles about these kinds of events are not consistent, as noted above, but we should follow what primary sources are doing and what users are likely to search for. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * comment. Originally as I was starting out on this (then titled "2015 Colorado Springs shootings"), I was considering whether or not to include the Halloween incident. Everything moved so fast on article development (as would be expected), and that fell by the wayside.  For right now I'd prefer to not include the "Planned Parenthood" aspect in the title for a couple reasons. 1) Stability. (already a DYK nom on this). 2) Until we know more about any "premeditation", I think it induces POV to the article.  3) A degree of respect for the people affected by this.  I do understand the reason(s) for various titles and such, but in documenting an encyclopedia article, we should not be rushing any judgments.  This is just all my own personal IMO. — Ched :  ?  18:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with (1) but the change appears inevitable as that's where the primary sources are going. For (2), the fact that it occurred at Planned Parenthood is not POV, and many other shooting incidents are named after the place they happened. I'm not sure (3) should be a consideration. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't even know yet exactly what took place at the PP clinic. From what I've read, the gunman went into the PP clinic, but it looks like he did so to evade police, not necessarily to shoot up the place.  There's been no statement released that says, "Yes, this was a planned and specific attack on Planned Parenthood".  Therefore, at this time, putting Planned Parenthood in the article title would be more than inappropriate.  -- WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  18:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Other articles have been named after specific buildings in which the shooting took place, without the shooter's motivation having anything to do with that building. It's likely IMHO that some people are going to try to score political or ideological points from the fact that this took place at Planned Parenthood, but that shouldn't affect editing decisions. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support If only because it was the second mass shooting in Colorado Springs in a month. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Being the second shooting doesn't merit adding Planned Parenthood if it's inaccurate or unwarranted. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  18:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The standoff, hostage taking and murder happened at a Planned Parenthood location. How is that not accurate or unwarranted? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As has already been explained, we don't know if there is truly a connection to Planned Parenthood other than the location. As has also been pointed out previously, we don't name similar incident articles based on the exact location they took place (at a theater, at a political rally, at the corner of Hollywood and Vine).  Until we know for certain the shooting was meant to target the PP clinic, naming the article as you have proposed is inappropriate.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  18:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - We have many media sources specifically confirming it was politically motivated. For example HERE.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The link you provided does not specifically confirm the motivation. In fact, it specifically says "Appears To Have Been...".  That leaves room for doubt, as it should be, since the motivation has not yet been confirmed by law enforcement.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm speechless.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Anti-abortion related or not, this incident will always be remembered and referred to as the "Planned Parenthood" shooting in Colorado. Thus the need for renaming the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot to add, "in my opinion". Which, ultimately, and at this early date, your statement truly is.  Of course, if some have their way, it will be remembered as such if the article is inappropriately (at this time) named as such.  Until the motive is revealed by law enforcement, we have no right as editors to name the article something that isn't proven.  Personally, I think Americans will remember the shooting as being the day after Thanksgiving more than any (at this point alleged) connection with Planned Parenthood.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I agree it should be renamed regardless of motivation.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 (after too many ) Please be aware that the shooting BEGAN - outside of the "Colorado Springs Westside Health Center". I oppose a rename at this time. — Ched : ?  19:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point, -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Most sources describe it as the Planned Parenthood shooting. Its as simple as that.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the search for ratings and increased readership, "sources" get it wrong all the time. It doesn't matter what sources are prematurely declaring it to be, what law enforcement reveals is what counts.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:VNT. The opinion of law enforcement has nothing to do with anything. Please stop repeating that claim.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop telling me to read WP:VNT as it doesn't apply in this case. We don't refer to things in the same hyperbole as the media just because it's "verifiable".  When the media starts reporting that "The shooter confessed to an intention to target Planned Parenthood", then VNT will apply.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note that WP:VNT is just a guideline, not a policy. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article states that the police were first called to the PP building. If you have reliable sources stating that the incident began elsewhere, please add this information to the article. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. That is a different name for the same building.  But nobody uses that name in the sources.  Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The suspect was in the Planned Parenthood building. This is fact.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Jezus, people. Being in the building doesn't mean he intended to shoot up that building or to shoot it up because it was a PP clinic.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But the shooting was within Planned Parenthood. Hence all our sources.  Hence the rename.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It would seem that WP:IDHT now applies in your case. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe WP:IRONY applies to you, since Cwobeel is telling you the same thing as myself.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b>

A suspected criminal has to fully confess his motivation to cite his motivation in Wikipedia? Where is that policy?VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you're familiar with the policy that all claims must be backed by reliable sources? A source consisting of a writer's opinion does not support presenting that claim as fact. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to challenge the Associated Press as a reliable source at the WP:RSN please go ahead.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no way an Associated Press reporter knows the motivation while law enforcement does not. They are generally a reliable source but that does not make them infallible.Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that those looking to push a particular POV see policy as they wish and as it fits their agenda and desired narrative. It's no secret that Wikipedia comes up as the first if not in the first five search results via Google, Yahoo, and so on.  If the article is named "Planned Parenthood shooting" then the world will start believing it and media sources will use it.  Because, after all, "if it's on the internet and if it's in Wikipedia, it has to be true!"  Which is precisely why this article title needs to reflect that facts as presented by those actually in the position of authority to deem the incident as is truly was/is.  Not on the whim of media sources wanting to present a narrative.  What you said,  is spot on: a reporter's opinion doesn't necessarily equate fact.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON, and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Please. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the reliability because I disagree with the claim, I'm questioning it because there is no possible way the source could know whether the claim is true. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 *  Oppose move - This article has a hat note indicating that the other Colorado Springs shooting in October is mentioned where it is. The naming convention shown here is pretty much standard practice, and can be renamed to November 2015 Colorado Springs shooting if the other incident merits an article of its own. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no standard practice - several examples of articles being named after buildings and others named after cities have been given. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support move- The connection of the event to Planned Parenthood has been widely reported and is well sourced. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The new title is too long, and the disambiguator falls afoul of WP:PTOPIC. I suggest "November 2015 Colorado Springs shooting" if you want to disambiguate, but the current title is OK right now, given that we don't have a page on the October shooting yet. epic genius (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move per WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME, Planned Parenthood shooting is prevalent in reliable English-language sources. The shooter's motivation is not relevant to how we title articles. Isaidnoway (talk)  22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move. This is a no-brainer: "The man who police say stormed a Planned Parenthood clinic, killing a police officer and two others, used the phrase "no more baby parts" to explain his act , according to a law enforcement official." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An unnamed, anonymous alleged law enforcement official. Still no verification from law enforcement, BATF, FBI or anyone else in authority that this was intended to be an attack on PP or that he actually uttered the words "no more baby parts".  So far, just the anonymous individual has reported it was said.  Doesn't sound too convincing to me without further verification -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't have to wait for verification from law enforcement as to what the shooter's motivation/reasoning/intentions were to decide what the article title should be. The shooter's motivation/reasoning/intentions belong in the body of the article. Who knows at this point what his motivation was, he could be anti-abortion or he could have stubbed his toe on the sidewalk in front of the PP building, got mad and decided to go inside and shoot the place up. The fact is that the shooting/standoff took place at PP, and that is prevalent in the sourcing, per WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Elliot Rodger's motivation in Isla Vista was that "he wanted to punish women for rejecting him and to punish sexually active men for living a more enjoyable life than his", and McVeigh in the OKC Bombings was "motivated by his hatred of the federal government and by its handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge", Hinckley's motivation in his attempted assassination of Reagan was to impress Jodie Foster, and all their motivations and reasonings are covered in the bodies of their articles, their titles were determined by sourcing and prevalence, not their motivations.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  02:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Decent points, however, we only knew for certain what the motivations of OKC, Isla Vista, Hinckley, et al, later on and not immediately or even just a few days after the incidents. It's only been two days.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Now you're simply filibustering and should walk away; source after source  after source  after source  have determined what the title of the article should be. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - sad we have to disambiguate but apparently we do —Мандичка YO 😜 12:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support necessitated by multiple shootings. Artw (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too early and no details. No one affiliated with planned parenthood was injured or killed while a numve of persons unaffiliated with PP are dead and injured.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ke'arre Stewart and Jennifer Markosvsky, two of the deceased, were accompanying friends that had appointments at the PP clinic. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But shot outside the clinic as they had not entered it, correct? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 15:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it matter? They went to a Planned Parenthood clinic and got killed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it matters. It matters as far how the article is written and its title.  I'm sure the FBI, BATF, and other involved law enforcement involved in the investigation think it matters, as well.  "They went to a Planned Parenthood clinic and got killed."  No, they were walking in a public space within the city limits of Colorado Springs and were gunned down.  Their destination may matter, but it may not matter in the least.  Of course, that's up to law enforcement to decide how much it matters and why, not us.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  16:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazingly convoluted logic. Let the RFC run its course. 16:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Convoluted"? Not in the least.  Focused on the facts and NPOV, yes, most definitely. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  17:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The move would serve all five interests mentioned in the title policy. Planned Parenthood is obviously a controversial organization but calling a shooting at Planned Parenthood the "Planned Parenthood shooting" expresses no point of view about Planned Parenthood. Even given the arguments of opponents (e.g., possibility PP was not the target), the shooting happened there. Inonit (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It implies Planned Parenthood was the victim and/or target which has not been established. Considering the victims, it could just as easily be called an attack on first responders/police.  But we don't know that yet.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not imply that, any more than "2015 Colorado Springs shooting" implies that Colorado Springs was the victim and/or target. It's descriptive. It's a location. Inonit (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - "It implies Planned Parenthood was the victim and/or target which has not been established." By the right-wing blogosphere, who won't admit it no matter how much is against them. Everyone else knows it definitely is, and reliable sources say it was. But it's a descriptor anyway, not some POV statement. The fringe arguments are sure strong on this one. DreamGuy (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support some sort of move. I don't really care if it has "Planned Parenthood" in the title, but the current name is simply too vague, especially when there was another shooting in Colorado Springs in October that is not covered by this article. Cannolis (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Is there now sufficient support to go ahead and make this move? Or is more discussion warranted?  ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say give it a few hours to meet the full seven days per the box at top. As long as there's no large change it should end up moved. 14:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – this is the only shooting in Colorado Springs in 2015 that is notable enough for its article. The proposed move would create unnecessary disambiguation. sst✈(discuss) 14:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per SSTflyer, changing (i.e. adding more words in) the title would make the article harder to search, even with the AutoComplete system. Even when seemingly ambiguous, this incident is the only notable topic of all shootings in Colorado Springs. Creating the articles about other incidents and deleting them look inevitable, but we should avoid that and not make a cycle of it. --George Ho (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest leaving this open for another couple of days, or longer if necessary. There's no rush, and it's better to establish a firm consensus on a hopefully final title than to keep moving the article about. I've move-protected the article and this talk page to prevent any more back-and-forth, and to prevent any further undiscussed moves after the RM closes. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached." Consensus doesn't mean EVERYONE agrees, it means the majority does, and they sure do. Why then does the minority think they can name it the way they want? Makes no sense. It's not like the current way was some longstanding consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, " may " be closed after seven days, not "must"; what's the rush? Consensus is not about counting votes, it's about strength of argument. While the move-warring is not on (hence the protection), there does seem to be a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether the defining feature of the incident is its geographical location (Colorado Springs) or the nature of the place involved (a Planned Parenthood clinic). So where's the harm in continuing to discuss it instead of railroading through one version or the other? It's not like we have a print deadline to meet; we can take as long as we need to decide what we're going to call the article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The suggested new title is based on the POV that the Planned Parenthood clinic was the only place people were shot, which is just one interpretation. Several news articles, including the New York Times article I've linked to farther below, quote eyewitnesses who said that at least one victim was shot outside a "King Soopers" grocery store which is a significant distance from the PP clinic, which raises the likelihood that this may have been a more general shooting spree. In fact the staff of the PP clinic have said that the reason they had time to barricade themselves in back rooms was precisely because the gunfire began elsewhere, and that's also backed up by eyewitnesses who said it began elsewhere. That's a valid alternative POV that has been mentioned in reliable sources, so unless the police say that the PP clinic was the only target, we cannot declare it to be so. The current title is just fine, for the reasons other people have given farther above. Here's a link to the NYTimes article I mentioned, and there are other articles which say the same thing:  GBRV (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Naming it what it's called is not a POV, it's naming it what it's called. Besides which, and per above, calling a fact (that it's best known by the Planned Parenthood name) a POV is insane. It's like a fact-free zone with some people. DreamGuy (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "insane". A number of media sources began calling it the "Planned Parenthood shooting" because the final standoff occurred there, but that doesn't make it the official title of the incident for all time. Many eyewitnesses said that the shooting actually started elsewhere and included multiple targeted locations, in which case your proposed title is going to look rather contradictory unless you want to censor all mention of these eyewitness accounts. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's known by what it's most called by and what's accurate. You just admitted you voted out of opinion and not what the sources say. DreamGuy (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I did not say I was voting based only on my own personal opinion. I said "a number of media sources" (not all of them) called it "the Planned Parenthood shooting" but many sources have mentioned eyewitness accounts describing victims in other locations than the PP clinic. You keep refusing to address this issue. Only a few of the civilian victims were shot in front of the PP clinic, with others being shot 1/4 mile away outside a "King Soopers" store and in front of "Elite Vision". The only reason the police casualties were shot near the PP clinic is because Dear hid in the clinic during his shootout with police. No one inside the clinic was harmed, not a single one, according to PP's own spokeswoman. But you claim the motive is clear-cut? It frankly takes the classic pattern of a random shooting spree, which is probably why the police haven't determined a motive yet. But it's for THEM to decide the motive, not you, and not the selectively chosen collection of sources which happen to fit your assumptions. GBRV (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the source posted by GBRV: "a gunman had gone to the parking lot of a Planned Parenthood center here" - "the police had been able to watch the siege from their command center by tapping into Planned Parenthood’s security cameras" - The source also states that the suspect was taken into custody while inside the Planned Parenthood clinic . -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That part of the article is referring to the end of the incident, when the gunman was inside the clinic exchanging fire with police. But the article also mentions a man who was shot in the chest outside the King Soopers grocery store, evidently near the beginning of the shooting spree. Why must we completely ignore a portion of the shooting spree and pretend that part didn't happen? GBRV (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It is now nine days after the event. The information we have is sketchy and ambiguous at this point. Suggest revisiting in January, when we should know more. Full disclosure: I have previously commented on this page logged out, as 72.198.26.61, and am now editing logged in again. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Changing from Oppose due to Dear's statements in court today. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVNAME. However, see my comments below about a possible restart. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support there are now weekly shootings so we have to distinguish them better than just year and city. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That only makes sense if there are weekly notable shootings in Colorado Springs, not the nation as a whole (and I would dispute that there are now "weekly shootings" of this type in the nation as a whole; these events tend to cluster due to the copycat effect, so a spike of two or three shootings clustered together does not make it "weekly"). — Bardbom (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Better to wait and see what the actual, confirmed motive is first. If the police find later that PP was the target, then the move would make sense. Otherwise, the current title is fine. ETA: Dear's statements in court makes it pretty clear, so go ahead and strike my "oppose" vote. — Bardbom (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're aware that striking an Oppose is not the same as switching it to Support? Just making sure that's what you meant to do. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware. I don't really care too much where it ends up − either title would be fine with me − I just felt that confirmation on the actual target was needed before making any decisions. —Bardbom (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Shooting suspect asked for directions to clinic - I'm not seeing "maybe he ended up at Planned Parenthood by accident" as an even vaguely plausible argument now, TBH. Artw (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That article (quoting an anonymous source) says Dear asked for directions to the clinic while he was at a "nearby shopping mall", which would presumably be the nearby shopping mall where he shot at least one man in front of the King Soopers grocery store which is at the southern end of the mall. So he shot this guy at the mall despite planning to target the clinic? And one or more people were shot in front of "Elite Vision", but that was just part of the clinic attack too? Eyewitnesses repeatedly said the shooting began in the general direction of Chase Bank, which is near the mall, so he clearly started shooting somewhere in that area. The only thing we know for sure is that there were victims spread out over a distance of nearly a fourth of a mile (the distance from King Soopers to the PP clinic), which is a little difficult to reconcile with the theory that only one building was targeted. Clearly it was more than one location, unless you just want to ignore the victims who were shot elsewhere, or pretend that they were shot near the PP clinic. GBRV (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I have yet to see a sound argument that justifies opposing the move: (New York Times) -- (CNN)  -- (Washington Post)  -- (Los Angeles Times)  specifically refer to Planned Parenthood -- Where's the policy that says don't follow reliable sources? -- And even though the suspect was quoted as saying "no more baby parts"  his motivation for what he did is actually irrelevant to this move discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The main argument against the new title is simply that it implies the shooting took place in only one location, which clearly isn't the case since at least one victim was wounded in front of a grocery store nearly 1/4 of a mile away, and others were shot outside "Elite Vision", not just outside the Planned Parenthood clinic. The current title is more accurate since it doesn't imply a single location. GBRV (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. The person was wounded in between Planned Parenthood and the grocery store, and went to the grocery store to seek help, rather than going to the Planned Parenthood, where we know the shooter was going (as he ended up there). Elite Vision is directly across an access road, so this certainly seems like one location. And even so, the bulk of the event occurred inside Planned Parenthood, where the gunman made his way early in the event, and remained. Inonit (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're claiming that a man with a chest wound walked all the way to the grocery store to seek help rather than the several stores in between the Planned Parenthood clinic and the grocery store? If he really had been wounded in between those two buildings, he could have gone into any of the stores on the north side of the shopping mall rather than the grocery store on the farthest end. He therefore must have been shot next to the grocery store, which is nearly a fourth of a mile from the PP clinic and separated from it by a number of obstructions which would make it unlikely that a bullet would have made it all the way over there if the gunman had been in the PP parking lot. GBRV (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have switched to Support based on Dear's statements in court today. However, I think we should consider restarting the RM with that new information, as I suspect I'm not the only Oppose who would be swayed by that. (This is the problem with opening RMs two days after the event.) I also think the "2015" would be unnecessary for disambiguation if the title includes Planned Parenthood, and could be dropped for the sake of a slight reduction in length. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But the eyewitnesses said the shooting began some distance away from the PP clinic, hence it didn't just involve the clinic itself, regardless of Dear's motives. GBRV (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was pretty close to the fence when I !voted Oppose. The COMMONNAME evidence is there and can't be ignored. I believed that that might change given more time and more information, but I don't see that happening now given his court statements today. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - (in lieu of a RM restart) -  Please review Dear's statements in court today and see if this converts you from Oppose to Support. If not, no need to say so; we can assume that all remaining Opposes were not swayed. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  02:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Dear's behavior turned the court into a circus. We can't verify his "guilt" (or mental ramblings) as justification to adding "Planned Parenthood" to the title. And 179/197 charges? Court has gone made these days... Wait, it's been done to death in other cases. George Ho (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Guilt or not guilt, that is not what is being argued and that is for the courts to decide. But unless you live in a parallel universe, now it is 100% clear that the attack was to Planned Parenthood. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't 100% clear, given that the eyewitnesses consistently said the attack began elsewhere, and at least one victim was shot nearly 1/4 mile away. That's the most objective evidence we have, from eyewitnesses who at least are sane, whereas Dear's ravings in court included a reference to one of the Batman movies and his latest outburst follows his random comments to police on a huge variety of unconnected topics. The title needs to reflect the actual locations of the shooting spree, regardless of what Dear's motives may have been. See my more thorough comment on this in my restatement of my 'oppose' vote today (rather than repeating it all here). GBRV (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The strongest case for the move has always been WP:COMMONNAME, per titling policy . Many of the opposing arguments (most of them extra-policy), including mine, were based on the fact that his motive was unclear given the sketchy information we had. That can hardly be said now. Mentally ill or not, there is no more qualified source for Dear's motive than Dear himself. That leaves us with COMMONNAME, and there is plenty of COMMONNAME support for this move. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comment above about the multiple location issue, as well as the reasons why Dear's statements need to be taken with a big grain of salt. GBRV (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just media circus talk. Even when the media frequently uses it, accuracy should be also considered. Without academic resources, we should not do what the press does. --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:POVNAME. Note that it says nothing about "academic resources". What policy says that we can disregard COMMONNAME on "media circus" grounds? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCE says that they are the most reliable usually. Also, using his circus "confession" in court to justify the proposed title would be subject (or violation of)WP:BLP, which says that the policy applies to material related to living persons, including the title. --George Ho (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Without academic resources we will not have millions of articles in the pedia, LOL. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the third time (? - I've lost count), I am not using his court statements to justify the move. I am using COMMONNAME and POVNAME to justify the move. I merely said that his court statements are what caused me to withdraw my opposition to the COMMONNAME argument. They are not the same thing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay, you're not using court statements. As for commonality, sources do not use the exact current or proposed title. Therefore, COMMONNAME might not apply. POVNAME doesn't apply as well because, as said before, there is no common name for the event (but commonly used terms referring to the event). What about WP:NDESC? That applies to this case for either title. Also, I think you meant WP:NCE, which allows any method of naming the event. --George Ho (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So we've shown that there are policies that can be interpreted to support either side, and we choose the ones that support what we already want. Surprise. Now we wait for more !votes, and then for a closer to sort it out. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the bottom line here is that accuracy requires avoiding a title which implies the shooting only occurred at a single location, which doesn't seem to have been the case, regardless of Dear's motive. Even if we can accept his outbursts in court, there is still the patent fact that some of the victims were shot at a distance from the PP clinic and hence in a different location, and the eyewitnesses consistently said that the shooting didn't begin at the PP clinic even if it ended there. None of the victims were shot in the clinic itself, and yet the new title would imply that they were. GBRV (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the bottom line is that we have an entire page, WP:TITLE, devoted to article titling policy, and you're not citing any of it in your arguments. COMMONNAME and POVNAME are clear enough in my opinion. Most policy-based arguments against the move are not specific to article titles, so I believe COMMONNAME and POVNAME should carry more weight here. In any case, at least make a policy-based argument. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But the overriding, primary policy is that titles should be chosen based on the specific context of a given topic, with accuracy being the primary objective. I think others have already given good reasons for avoiding the label used by many media sources. GBRV (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME says avoid inaccurate titles. Evidence and opponents would point out that the new title is inaccurate, even when press uses "Planned Parenthood" to distinct the incident from other incidents of the same year. Dear's motive doesn't make the new title accurate; neither do sources. --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
By the suspect's own words in a court appearance today, there is no doubt that the attack was directed at Planned Parenthood. Therefore, the move to 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting should be a no-brainer.
 * Kill the babies. That’s what Planned Parenthood does.
 * Planned Parenthood and my lawyer are in cahoots to shut me up. They don’t want the truth out
 * I am a warrior for the babies.

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If we are taking lunatic primary source statements, how about "2015 cahoots conspiracy involving Batman shooter's lawyer and baby killers." Not.  His spontaneous outburst is no different than any of the others and no motive has been provided (or the number of baby voices in his head telling him which statements make headlines or support insanity defense.  BTW, his biggest fear was medication. Nothing he says is worth anything. --DHeyward (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe WP:POVNAME applies. In a nutshell, COMMONNAME wins here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Nile is not a river in Egypt. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So, why is it always that shooters such as this are "lunatic" or "deranged", but other non-white shooters are "terrorists"? Amazing bias.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He's pretty lunatic in my opinion. And that's beside the point in my opinion. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POVNAME, close. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The amazing bias is taking a primary source of a guy that wears tin-foil hats in this case, while ignoring secondary and tertiary sources labeling terrorists. I'm sorry you can't get past skin tone.  Virtually all the reliable sources in this case discuss erratic mental behavior.  That makes his judgement as "absolute" quite questionable.  But hey, call the guy that shot no Planned Parenthood people the "Planned Parenting shooter" but call the islamic terrorists in California a "disgruntled workplace shooting" and igmore all the experts.  Bias indeed.    --DHeyward (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Search the term "warrior for the babies" (Bing Google) and look at what a plurality of news sources call it:
 * Reuters - Suspect in deadly Planned Parenthood attack declares self guilty
 * AP - Planned Parenthood suspect: 'I am a warrior for the babies'
 * NBC New York - Planned Parenthood Shooting Suspect Says He Is 'Warrior for the Babies'
 * NYDailynews - Robert Lewis Dear yells, ‘I am a warrior for the babies’ during court appearance for Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting
 * dispatch.com - ‘Warrior for the babies’ admits guilt in Planned Parenthood killings, keeps interrupting hearing
 * foxnews.com - Accused Colo. Planned Parenthood shooter shouts in court 'I'm guilty'
 * theblaze.com - Planned Parenthood Suspect: ‘I Am a Warrior for the Babies’
 * breitbart.com - Accused gunman in Planned Parenthood attack declares guilt
 * hotair.com Planned Parenthood shooter: “I’m guilty. There’s no trial. I’m a warrior for the babies.”
 * The media seems to strongly use the phrases "Planned Parenthood killings" and "Planned Parenthood suspect" in a plurality of sources. The use of "Planned Parenthood shooter" on hotair.com, "Planned Parenthood attack" on breitbart.com, "Planned Parenthood Suspect" on theblaze.com and "Colo. Planned Parenthood shooter" on foxnews.com means that POV issues really aren't that major. COMMONNAME applies, and the term "Planned Parenthood shooter" is used by a plurality of media sources, so "planned parenthood shooting" wound be appropriate. -- Callinus (talk) 05:25, 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)


 * Oppose - The title should reflect the actual locations of the shootings, and the most objective evidence we have is the location of the various victims, some of whom were in fact shot some distance from the PP clinic, including at least one who was nearly a fourth of a mile away. Numerous eyewitnesses said the shooting began over there, not at the PP clinic. The PP clinic clearly wasn't the only location, even if Dear's goal was to attack the clinic. The name change implies otherwise and is therefore inaccurate. I would add that if Dear's ravings in court contradict the clear facts on the ground, then his ravings are the dubious elements here, not the clear facts on the ground. The police said that Dear has been rambling about numerous disconnected subjects since he was arrested; his courtroom statements included references to Batman; and his life history shows indications of paranoid delusions and other elements of mental illness. If he's mentally ill - as seems likely - then his outburts in court may mean very little. Or he could be attempting to recast his motive as "saving babies" to create a nobler justification for an action that seems to take the classic pattern of a random shooting. Or there could be any number of other reasons for his outburst. The only objective facts we have are the multiple locations of the shooting spree. The title should reflect this. GBRV (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I view the distinctions about where exactly people were shot as meaningless, but just in case someone things otherwise ... to be clear: to my knowledge, it's not that someone was shot a quarter-mile from the clinic, it's that someone was shot **somewhere** and then after being shot, walked into a place a quarter-mile from the clinic reporting he'd been shot. So there's no evidence there were multiple locations. The victim could have obviously walked a couple of hundred yards, presumably attempting to move away from the shooter, who we know entered the clinic. This source mentions the grocery store and then 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" Inonit (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You think a guy with several chest wounds could walk "a couple of hundred yards", and you think he would have gone all the way to King Soopers to get help rather than the many other businesses that are between that store and the PP clinic? That seems very unlikely. The eyewitnesses said he had several holes in his chest, which would make it very difficult to walk even a few yards, much less a couple hundred; and Google Maps shows that King Soopers is the farthest store in that shopping mall, since there are several stores on the north end of the mall which are closer to the PP clinic. There's also a bank which is closer. The eyewitnesses additionally said that the gunfire began near that area, in fact they initially thought it was coming from the drive-through outside Chase Bank, which is near the shopping mall; so Dear must have first opened fire in that area. He had been at the shopping mall at one point, according to at least one eyewitness. The staff of the PP clinic also said they had adequate time to evacuate everyone into rooms in the back of the clinic because the shooting began elsewhere. All of this clearly indicates that the shooting began near the shopping mall. GBRV (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Point of order, you can't have two !votes in the same RM. You might wish to convert the above to a reply (to whom?) or merge it with your !vote and remove it here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Other people restated their votes, so I did the same. I don't understand what your objection is. GBRV (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No need; already struck out double vote. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you strike thru my oppose vote? Other people have restated their votes even if they didn't change their mind, and I was doing the same. GBRV (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Who else has done this by starting with a bolded Support or Oppose? I think they would need to be fixed as well. I have never seen that done before; rather, we state our concise argument once, revising it in place if necessary after discussion. Closers don't decide solely on the basis of a count, but they do count. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both ParkH.Davis and Inonit restated their votes a second time, with a bolded "Support", right above my restated "Oppose" vote which you're disputing (take a look right above it), despite the fact that both of them had also previously voted "Support" much earlier (scroll still farther up and you'll see that both of them had previously voted). This should be obvious given that their second votes are right above the very same vote from me that you're disputing. This gets frustrating. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All this restating of !votes is completely unnecessary and will only serve to make things more difficult for the closer (and potentially even alter the close). But I'm not in charge here and my responsibility ends here. I'm not going to compound the problem by restating my !vote too. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just following what others were doing because I assumed they were following policy. GBRV (talk) 23:39, 14 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) -- (CNN)  -- (Washington Post)  -- (Los Angeles Times)  -- (Wall Street Journal)  - 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)
 * Artw, why are you indifferent between the two options, if one of both contains unnecessary information? The need for more specification is definitely there, just the proposed solution seems imperfect. gidonb (talk) 13:35, 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)

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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:39, 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 think there is wide RS agreement, though I'm open to being shown otherwise. However, the only example I've been shown actually supports what I'm saying, not the alternative. See below. Inonit (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See my response below to your comment about this subject. The eyewitnesses do indicate that the shooting began near the shopping mall. GBRV (talk) 23:27, 12 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)
 * 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., []. 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)
 * Most of them would be applicable. GBRV (talk) 23:39, 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: []. 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)
 * 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)
 * If one or more victims were outside Elite Vision, then that strongly implies they were shot in that location.
 * I don't agree. Elite Vision is very nearby -- across the street -- and people being treated at Elite Vision could easily have been shot in the Planned Parenthood parking lot and either fled to, or been evacuated to, that location. Inonit (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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
 * I assume you saw the tweet from Chase in that article: "This incident wasn't at Chase. Please DM us if you need more information. Our thoughts are with all those affected. ^JS" Inonit (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The eyewitnesses said it was NEAR Chase Bank, not AT, hence that tweet from Chase Bank doesn't contradict the eyewitnesses. GBRV (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. []
 * 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)
 * 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." [] 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)
 * Plus I've got an eyewitness account far more specific than the one you're citing. So I'm not cherry-picking one sentence in one source. See [], the statement from the police department, the New York Times article, and so forth. Inonit (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I didn't say it was. It provides a summary of sources which are. The idea was to look at the sources it lists. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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. 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. [] Inonit (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, the initial 911 call came from Planned Parenthood [], and that 911 call reported there was already a gunman inside the building. []


 * 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)
 * Yes, he does. It's a paraphrase. Just because it's not in quotation marks doesn't mean he didn't say it in different words. Inonit (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not in his videotaped testimony (the video was included with the article). GBRV (talk) 23:25, 15 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 [] "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 WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia does not require us to include as many points of view as possible. Artw (talk) 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)

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)
 * 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  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 1 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 ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)