Talk:2011 Tucson shooting

Casualty Count Needs Updating

http://www.keyc.com/node/45899

(CBS News-Tucson)

"Six people are dead and 13 <<not '12'>> wounded after a gunman opened fire at a public meeting held by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona."

68.5.76.19 (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism?

Doesn't this fit the accepted definiton of a terrorist act? If so, it should also be put under "terrorism in the United States."174.101.121.203 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would hold off until we know more about the motivation. The [new york times] gives a description of the shooter.--Banana (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is no widely agreed-upon definition of terrorism. Let's hold off on that for now until we get a number of news organizations calling it that. NW (Talk) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It might, but it's too soon to say. We don't know the motivations of the shooter (though I can't help but wonder if it's a tea party sympathizer taking to those "second amendment remedies"). I was thinking about whether or not it belongs on List of events named massacres, but it's too soon to say. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read this. It seems political with the targeting of all her aides, bear in mind it doesnt have to be by an organised group per Lone wolf terrorism (emphasis on "terrorism"((Lihaas (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)).

Terrorism would seem to be a loaded term to add to any article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research at this point to call the shootings terrorism, since law enforcement, government, and the press have so far not called it that. Edison (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The [new york times] made it clear the motives were uncertain in "The shootings raised questions about potential political motives"(italic added)173.180.214.13 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin's Map Notable?

I think the map that is being circulated all over the place which appeared (up until a few moments ago) on S. Palin's website is notable and should be a part of this article. I'm not sure in what light it should be painted, but it is certainly relevant to the situation whether or not the shooters are right-wing, etc. The controversy surrounding Giffords in AZ has went on for awhile. Her stance on border control could be listed under the same sub-heading. 216.26.124.22 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And her 2010 opponent ran a campaign heavy on the violent metaphors with his military experience. It's too soon to make assumptions like this. There was a federal judge there, for all we know he was the main target and Giffords was caught in the crossfire. Analysis of this shooting will surely be coming in the future, after the dust settles. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Appears now that the shooter to be a soldier who served in Afghanistan, hardly the usual occupation of an anarchist or communist in America. --Rarian rakista (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's an video of an interview with Gifford, where she was complaining about the the gun rhetoric of the tea party, and mentioned this very image. This was 9 months ago. http://kateoplis.tumblr.com/post/2655554409/msnbc-talks-to-rep-gabrielle-gifford-about-the Highlighting it here for possible future inclusion in the article, if right wing/tea party involvement in the shooting is established.CardboardGuru (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The soldier's military experience appears to be grossly exaggerated. Several news outlets are reporting there is no record he ever made it to the military, and the only passing note was something on a suspected YouTube video where he says he was given a bible at MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station). This does not mean he joined the military, he could have been deemed unacceptable or applied and changed his mind. Zenmastervex (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

NBC and The Arizona Republic are reporting the shooter tried to enlist in the Army, but was rejected for unspecified reasons. This is why patience and prudence should prevail in a wiki article. Zenmastervex (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the fact it's been removed from the SarahPAC page is itself notable.CardboardGuru (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Has it been removed? The server could be overloaded due to the traffic. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, the SarahPAC page at http://www.takebackthe20.com/ displayed perfectly, except for an error for the image in question. Now, the URL does not respond at all. It's pretty clearly a rapid attempt to remove the evidence.CardboardGuru (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, this edit should be allowed: "Her opponent in last year’s election held a campaign event at a gun range, to “get on target” to “remove Gabrielle Giffords from office”."CardboardGuru (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Stating the obvious here, but hold off on calling this political motivation. Little is still known.Tktru (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The link to the map was updated. There is now a screenshot of the calendar of events of her opponent during the campaign. It reads: "Get on target for Victory in November Help remeove Gabriele Griffords from office Shoot a fully loaded M16 with Jesse Kelly." Wingtipvortex (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the above. For all we know, this could by an anarchist or a communist, or just a random shooting by a deranged man. Toa Nidhiki05 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Say what? She was a fairly liberal Democratic representative. If it was political, it was from the other side. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually she's fairly centrist, with demonstrated stances being pro-gun and tough on illegal immigration.Zenmastervex (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A Daily Kos diarist recently posted an entry titled, "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And now is DEAD to me!" The Kos diarist's congresswoman is Gabrielle Giffords. dKos has removed the post but a screenshot has been saved at http://twitpic.com/3o7s5c 24.178.119.61 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether this was politically motivated or not I think that there is little question that there is a significant amount of speculation to that end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.124.22 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream press are noting the map, so it seems appropriate to mention it in the article. It is not original research or synthesis if the newsmedia are noting it. Edison (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with adding it. How to do it is a touchy issue though. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't add it yet. It would imply that Palin ordered a hit or something. Let's wait until we get all of the facts. --BurtAlert (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The NY Times and the Voice of America mentioned the Palin map in the article. Edison (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree not to add the map. Sarah Palin, as far as all evidence suggests, had absolutely nothing to do with this shooting. The article needs to remain about people who were actually there, people who actually witnessed the event, the victims and the shooters, and the investigation. Any assumptions about the motive or mindset of the shooter prior to official reports being released is unnecessary and irresponsible.Zenmastervex (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You are quite wrong per policies and practices in what is included in Wikipedia articles. See WP:RS and WP:V. We absolutely do not wait months or years for "official reports being released" before including material in an article if it is included in coverage of the subject by mainstream news media and other reliable sources. We are not reporting "truth;" we are reporting what is noted by reliable sources, with appropriate weight. Edison (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you're so dead set on including mention of the Palin map, don't you also think it's relevant that the Democrats have used similar maps in the past? I think it's important to make known that this type of campaign map isn't new to American politics, and it contributes to NPOV. Zenmastervex (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please see discussion at WP:BLPN#Alleged connection of Sarah Palin to Gabrielle Giffords shooting. Kelly ^hi! 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear! Perhaps her election opponent was the shooter on the grassy knoll? (In other words, so what?) 199.2.126.188 (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Democratic party released similar maps in previous years. Draw from that what you will: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647 Zenmastervex (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Note also that Palin has decried the violence and expressed sympathy to the victims and their families. (cite removed from article for some reason). Collect (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That could be mentioned in the "reactions" section, but in no way takes away the need to include the map, as news media worldwide have seen fit to in their coverage. Edison (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But those media outlets are only including the map in their stories because they have nothing else to write about and they have already displayed a political interest in embarrassing Sarah Palin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.166.239 (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As of right now this quote is found in a large number of articles in one form or another:

"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC. "When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action." USA Today

--Guerillero | My Talk 06:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article erroneously states that the map created by Palin's PAC (which I do not believe even belongs in this article) used "cross hairs," when, in fact, the map includes surveyor symbols.Pediawiki123 (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a near-consensus at BLP/N that the Palin 'target list' deserves a mention, in that it is getting widespread media commentary. We aren't saying that it is relevant, but merely that the media have commented that the issue has been raised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove, remove, remove. Sure it's a coincidence but it has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. It's just bringing bad press to Palin.Philipmj24 (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And you have reliable sources to back that up? In any case, we aren't talking about the 'coincidence', but the fact that the media (worldwide apparently) have commented on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Even fox used the quote that I quoted. You can't get anoy more widespread then that. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not arguing it hasn't been covered extensively by the media. No, I don't have a reference Palin wasn't involved in the shooting, I'm just using common sense. The fact that Palin's name is even brought up in this shooting just shows you how the liberal media works. Using tragedies to make a point. How sick.Philipmj24 (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

this isn't a forum about the media --Guerillero | My Talk 07:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Sarah Palins map didn't just include imagery that looked like gun sights, the sights looked more like the logo of white nationalist website stormfront. It's being reported all over and is very notable and should be included. 121.208.114.70 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The logo of Stormfront is a gun sight. Plain and simple. It's ridiculous to think that Sarah Palin would express her covert Neo-Nazi sentiments in a map being used for political purposes. It's not notable and given that many on that map were WASPs I don't think there is any foundation for linking the map itself to Stormfront. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifekiwi (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wsan't crosshairs people...quit trying to make this BS into news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.207.14 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

14 matches for "Palin" on this page, REALLY?E2a2j (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories

I think that Mass murders in 2011 and Assassination attempts in 2011 cats should be removed since we don't know the actual number of dead for sure yet and until more about the motivation is known we do not know that this was an assassination or assassination attempt. There has to be more conservative categories we can use until we know all the facts. Is there a shootings in 2011 category? Cat-five - talk 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Murder is being misused. Technically, it is a BLP violation. Killings, yes. Murder is a legal term. Let's be precise. Nesteoil (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Murder - The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another Toa Nidhiki05 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My issue was more with the use of it being mass murder, since that's a bit unclear especially when the number dead isn't concretely known. Cat-five - talk 20:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed Category:Assassination attempts and Category:Mass murder in 2011 per the above. Cat-five - talk 20:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is amazing to me that anyone here would debate this was not a mass murder or even a murder. Premeditation is not required for murder, murder is simply the unlawful killing of a human being. Can anyone to argue the killing was lawful, and if six killings isn't mass murder, then what number is? KeptSouth (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See the present AP coverage of the shootings. They call it "in an attempted assassination." Good enough to include the categorization. Edison (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"See also" links

I blanked the section after Anna Lindh and JFK were both added; JFK is definitely not relevant, plenty of other politicians have been assassinated. Anna Lindh was readded; it may make sense to keep her IF this turns out to be an assassination attempt, as she was a woman in a similar political position. But I'm not sure if that's enough similarity to qualify for relevance; by the same token, any US congressperson assassinated might be notable. However, the motives have not been reported yet, so we cannot assume that this is an assassination attempt (even if it looks very certain to be one.) Thus, I believe nobody should be listed here until we know more about the motive and such. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I accidentally deleted comments, this is a section that got lost in the restoration. Cat-five - talk 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Lindh was a attacked in a store as was the congresswoman, both had no security, both attacks raised questions about the security of public officials, really the only major differences between this incident and the Lindh incident is that there were multiple fatalities in this attack, the persumed target of the attack has not died and the other attack was in Sweeden. The see also section is to link articles of similar nature which both have. JFK certainly has no relation to this incident, but Anna Lindh's murder, assassination or whatever you call it is actually quite similar to this particular event. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Lindh was stabbed, her attacker initially fled, she was shopping inside a department store, and not at a political event outside a grocery store, is from another country, etc. (Just to note some major differences.) I'm sure we could come up with plenty of other figures who are as relevant as she is. Also, this article is about the attack, not directly about Ms. Giffords. Links to descriptions of very similar attacks themselves might be appropriate, but not links to the figures involved in my opinion. Those belong on the Gabrielle Giffords page, if anywhere. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the details of Lindh's killing are on her own page. She does not have an individual article on her death. Essentially all I did was add a See Also link. It certainly isn't taking away from the article infact it adds context with similar events in the past. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Would a compromise be if I directly linked to the murder section on Anna Lindh's page? I don't think that Anna Lindh and Gabrielle Giffords should be linked on each other's pages because other than these attacks they both have nothing in common. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say we need input from more than the two of us to decide whether to include that. Opinions? 99.55.199.47 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, which is why I'm saying if linked, it should be from Gifford's page. For example, there are no "see also" links to other people, or even other assassinations, from the JFK Assassination page. However, the JFK page has "see also" links to Robert Kennedy, lists of other assassinated public figures, etc. I believe that is reasonable precedent to follow. This page should remain about the assassination event, especially when there is a page for the specific person who you're trying to add information about. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See I find that strange, but perhaps the Kennedy Brothers are not a great example as this circumstance as they were brothers, you would think they would have mention of one's brothers as something that might be important to see also on their page. I'm looking through MLK and other assassination victims and found that in the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto there is a link in the See Also section to Liaquat Ali Khan who was also assassinated but does not have an article on his death. So I'm kind of of the opinion that it really does not matter either way? --Kuzwa (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking JFK, but now I think thats not really related. Oklahoma City is probably something to consider putting. The theme of See Also should be incidents related to right wing anti-government violence. Do we have an article on that guy who brought a gun to the Obama rally? Anna Lindh is most definitely irrelevant. Our goal in See also should be articles that people might think of when reading this.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. We don't know this was right wing anti-government violence. We really don't know the motivations of the shooter at all. But regardless the ideaology behind does not have to be the exact same, the circumstances under which the attack occured however are similar between Lindh and Giffords. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtube channel of shooter

Is this legit? Classitup10 --BurtAlert (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, join date and video post dates indicate that it is indeed a youtube page of A Jared Loughner but if it is the youtube channel of THE Jared Loughner is another matter. Hackers may have got there etc. etc. 86.134.88.250 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Craziness he posted on a girl's Myspace page :www.myspace.com/28299026+%22fallenasleep%22+az&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" target="_blank"&gt ;http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca..." target="_blank"> :www.myspace.com/28299026+%22fallenasleep%22+az&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

" =| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L1lsLU-kUw If there's no flag in the constitution then the flag in the film is unknown. There's no flag in the constitution. Therefore, the flag in the film is unknown. Burn every new and old flag that you see. Burn your flag! I bet you can imagine this in your mind with a faster speed. Watch this protest in reverse! Ask the local police; "What's your illegal activity on duty?". If you protest the government then there's a new government from protesting. There's not a new government from protesting. Thus, you aren't protesting the government. There's something important in this video: There's no communication to anyone in this location. You shouldn't be afraid of the stars. There's a new bird on my right shoulder. The beak is two feet and lime green. The rarest bird on earth, there's no feathers, but small grey scales all over the body. It's with one large red eye with a light blue iris. The bird feet are the same as a woodpecker. This new bird and there's only one, the gender is not female or male. The wings of this bird are beautiful; 3 feet wide with the shape of a bald eagle that you could die for. If you can see this bird then you will understand. You think this bird is able to chat about a government? I want you to imagine a comet or meteoroid coming through the atmosphere. On the other hand, welcome yourself to the desert: Maybe your ability to protest is from the brainwash of the current government " --Rarian rakista (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this guy was pretty insane. I will be on the lookout for more. --BurtAlert (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He lists all of his literarry inspirations: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

Notice he has Animal Farm, Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Meno in that reading list. Is philosphy must be quite interesting... --Kuzwa (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's leave this out until a reliable source connects the channel to him, ok? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What Sarek said. See WP:PRIMARY for more. NW (Talk) 21:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also, I just searched for him on Facebook, there was a troll account and this. Could be him. It says he lives in Tuscon, Arizona and it has a picture. --BurtAlert (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

None of this should be linked from or added to the Wikipedia article until it has been in the mainstream news media. Edison (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reuters has mentioned the Youtube account. Nanobear (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN has referred repeatedly to the Youtube videos themselves as well as the biographical information included therein (the books Loughner is referenced as listing as favorites). For this article it is a primary source (more important than the MySpace profile), duty is to inform. danielkennedy74 (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If the shooter's alleged page on YouTube is genuine, then the user name under the investigation section should reflect "Classitup10" instead of "ClassItUp10". Amidst dispute over the authenticity of YouTube page, an inconsistency such as this only serves in furthering confusion since YouTube does not allow the creation of a new account if the intended user name is spelled the same way as a preexisting one regardless of the choice of case. -- smarfling (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, since this is clearly the YouTube channel involved and the spelling is "Classitup10".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

http://azstarnet.com/image_e2eb0f94-2fb9-11df-8820-001cc4c002e0.html His picture is on the azstarnet page for an unrelated event.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/e/2e/b0f/e2eb0f94-2fb9-11df-8820-001cc4c002e0.image.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryancpe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just heard it on CNN that it is confirmed of the shooter's name as mentioned above. –MuZemike 22:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Still not mentioned on their website, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this count as a reliable source then? [1] Its New York magazine, there are also 2 other sources in the article that say he did it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

YouTube videos

Loughner apparently has a YouTube video channel at [2], under the name of Classitup10. This is reminiscent of the Kauhajoki school shooting, prior to which Matti Saari had posted videos on YouTube. I've had a look at the three Loughner videos and there is nothing disturbing in them, although they are weird. Take a look quickly, YouTube may pull this channel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtube is already in the process of doing that the comments and rankings have been disbled and its only a matter of time out of respect for the victims to remove the channel. Anyways youtube can not count as a reliable source here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See above. We are not including it at this point. NW (Talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Same comment as above, news sources have continually referenced the Youtube videos, such as CNN: [3]. For this article, Youtube is (perhaps unfortunately) a primary source, most of the data about the shooter has come from there. danielkennedy74 (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The YouTube videos are still up, which is something of a surprise. The Myspace profile was pulled almost immediately. However, the YouTube channel is a primary source, which is not ideal as a citation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Reactions

The Reactions section is ridiculously long now, and there's a separate page for it that's linked.

Edit request due to protection: please cut out most of these. It makes sense to me to keep the following: Obama, Boehner, Pelosi, McCain, Governor Brewer. (Obama is obvious, Boehner as the speaker, Pelosi as the Democratic majority leader since Giffords is a Democrat, McCain and Brewer since they're the highest profile Arizonans to comment.) 99.55.199.47 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, now has a separate article for the reactions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Much better, but can we please get rid of Sarah Palin? Her only political connection, unlike the other folks who're there now, is that she targeted Giffords for defeat. I don't think she should be quoted prominently with the other folks there just because she likes to be on TV a lot these days. That does make her a notable figure somewhat, sure, but again...no real political connection unlike the others, nor is she a real politician anymore like the others. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone has untrimmed this. It is way too long, classic recentism and listcruft. However, Sarah Palin's reaction is notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was a call for merge/deletion of the reactions article, and I do guess that other article isn't notable on its own. (So I supported it, even though I agree it is excessive.) It'd be nice to see it trimmed again. I posted this CNN link as a way to keep a reference to some extra comments easily reachable. Some of the comments on there are from even more notable people than some of the ones listed. Should they all be added? By the precedent of what's already on the page...the answer would be yes, some should. But then we get an even longer list...so this does need to be trimmed. I agree, it's recentism, and I still don't see any reason to keep many more quotes than the ones I originally listed. (But just nuking them instantly when merging the reactions article seemed too quick.) Perhaps when this settles down the cruft can be cut out. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re this edit. Yes, seriously. This is an important news story, but listing every reaction is non-encyclopedic. This always happens when there is a major news story, things will quieten down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

← The current layout is needlessly crowded. Reference the volume of reactions and pointing out the noteables (including President Obama) is suffcient. We don't need something that looks like "List of people who have reacted to 2011 shooting". -- TRTX ^{T / C} 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The citation provided does not match the quote in the wiki that is attributed to Gov. Jan Brewer ["Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot: reaction". Azcentral.com. 2010-12-29. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/08/20110108arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-shot-reaction08-ON.html#ixzz1AU9Fxfsb]. In fact, it seems to be a misquote from "Rodney Glassman" from the same page. Retrieved 2011-01-08.]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Closewagon (talk • contribs) 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with how the reactions list has been trimmed but...Fidel Castro? How is he any more notable than other foreign dignitaries who have commented? The only possible link is some of the alleged suspect's supposed reading material, and that is tenuous at best. I move he be removed. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, on further reading, the Cubans semi-recently decried SB1070 and the purchase of Arizona from Mexico. But I still don't think that makes inclusion of Castro's reaction encyclopedic, unless a political motive is shown AND it's noted in the description of his reaction the Cuban opposition to related political moves (which would be overly long and out of line with the other reactions.) 99.55.199.47 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Title

Lots of people are shot in Tucson.

There needs to be discussion on the title. First, we need to decide what is important then decide on the title.

As we know more, it may make sense. Was the gunman mad at Safeway? Or Judge Roll? Or Rep. Giffords? Or mad at Tucson? Or just wanted to shoot at a crowd?

CNN poses this as the shooting of Giffords, not 2011 Tucson shooting as Wikipedia. If so, it is original research and wrong to make up a Wikipedia term. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Did not the shooting happen at an event called, Congress on Your Corner ? Would that not be needed in the title ? Just as a shooting at the Superbowl would have Superbowl in the title110.174.238.120 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not how we do things
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2011 Is this important. Don't assume that it is. Neutral 2011 is not a major feature of the event. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Tucson, AZ Oppose Reliable sources, like CNN, point to Gifford's shooting more prominently than Tucson. Besides, it may be Casas Adobes, AZ. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Safeway Neutral No reports of anti-Safeway yet but the Safeway shootings may become popularized as a term later. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Gabrielle Giffords Support Reliable sources, like CNN, point to this as the event. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

This is so poorly set up I dont even know where to post, I am fine with the current title as I feel it says enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is this? The page move should be undone. We don't even know Giffords was the target. It could have been Roll. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Per consensus? You were the only one to vote for a change! This needs to be undone.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 22:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change I feel that this should be move protected until this dispute can be resolved, there is anotehr way to present the information too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

I'd keep it at 2011 Tucson shooting for now. Year+place has often been the standard formula for names of articles about shootings. Nanobear (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping the move war. Do we need all 50 heading on this page. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed to keep it as 2011 Tucson shooting - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Support move-protection. The current title is not ideal, but Hakkapeliitta has twicerepeatedly moved this page to random-seeming titles, and the above is a textbook example of how not to conduct a move discussion. If there's no obvious new title, we discuss it, we do not force things to proceed through incomprehensible polls. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that this discussion shoul be removed too so there isnt 50 headings here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I cut as much of it as I could without altering Hakkapeliitta's comments and hid the rest. Again, let's discuss things. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose moves Current title is fine. I would support move protection as well. Yoenit (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose moves Agreed current title is fine, it sums up what the article is about without being overlly too detailed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Moves If this is moved again it needs to be locked in place. This wheel warring is crazy. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Can we at least get the article title to match the correct city (It was not in Tuscon) or reference one of the more significant victims (the Senator)? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 00:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Move protection

• Please move protect for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin has move protected the article, so it cannot be renamed without administrator intervention. 65.94.44.243 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Good idea to keep it where it is for now, the media may eventually come up with a standardized name for it, it's too soon to tell. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Time to change title, listen to the Governor

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said "Please join me in prayer for the health of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and several other individuals who were shot this morning in Tucson."[27]

Note that the governor did not use the term "2011 Tucson shootings". I looked at CNN, ABC, NBC, none of them use that term.

This is illegal Wikipedia Original Research.

One possibility is to use the term that that Governor used, i.e. Shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others. Or drop the others.

CNN says http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 a reference to "grocery store" so maybe "Tucson grocery store shootings (2011)". Hakkapeliitta (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please give it a rest. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rest period ended, current title is wrong

Reading over the news, NOBODY refers to it as the "2011 Tucson shootings". The title of the article needs to change. Discussion is useful to decide what to change it to.

Arizona: Most of the news organizations refer to Arizona.

Giffords: There are reports now that she was the target, not Judge Roll and certainly not the 9 year old kid. Note that the Reagan assassination attempt is not entitled "1981 Washington shootings". As more information becomes available, we will have more information from the gunman that the Congresswoman was the target.

grocery store or Safeway: This is fairly prominent into the story.

In a few days, if there is further confirmation of the gunman's motives, the title might be Giffords assassination attempt. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so I don't see any harm in waiting a few more days until the motives are clearer. The current title is good enough for now. Gbraing (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The current title is fine, leave it as is until the media dubs it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK with me to wait but the title is wrong. Just as the Reagan assassination attempt shouldn't be called "1981 Washington shooting" Hakkapeliitta (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think that the situations are a little different because there were additional civilian casualties in this instance, beyond Giffords herself. Gbraing (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no rush to change this title. There is so much media being produced about the event at the moment, that we have no idea what the established name will become. Once things settle down, we can have another look; in the interim, this title is fine. Trebor (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Other Congressional/Senate Assassination Attempts

Have there been any others? If so there should be links. Professor water (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Last one was Leo Ryan in Jonestown, Guyana. Also, Arkansas state chair Bill Gwatney. Not that these should be added to the article; I suggest List of assassinated American politicians be put in a see also section. Abductive (reasoning) 23:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need anything until we know more. She wasn't assassinated, we don't even know for sure it was an assassination attempt. Trebor (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The List of assassinated American politicians includes federal judges, so it is a nice workaround. Abductive (reasoning) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't know he was "assassinated" either - we don't know motives yet. Trebor (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Trebor beat me to it with the edit conflict, until we know and have a confirmed source saying that she or Judge Rolls was the target we can't really call it an assassination or assassination attempt. Cat-five - talk 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If we need them later the categories I removed a few hours ago right after the shooting was reported were Category:Assassination attempts and Category:Mass murder in 2011 although I think the second one is inaccurate and there's a better category out there for spree killings. Cat-five - talk

It is believed to be the first time that a woman politician has been the object of an assassination attempt in America. Given that the gunman approached and shot her first, it seems clear that she war targeted. But you can still leave it out if you wish. One role of a lead section is to make clear why the topic of the article is notable. Possibly being the first assassination attempt against a female politician in the US would therefore be one important thing to mention. Nanobear (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If I thought that the article needed a link to List of assassinated American politicians now, I would have added it to the article already. Abductive (reasoning) 23:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nanobear, most sources are not yet reporting it as that. Notability is hardly an issue (with regards to deletion), and we can afford to wait until more information becomes available. Trebor (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Assassination does not necessarily need motivation - see [4] Professor water (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Laughner

I noticed that Jared Laughner redirects here, shouldn't Jared Lee Laughner also redirect here? KVOA said that was his name. 65.94.44.243 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is Jared Lee Loughner with an o. Prodego ^talk 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As more information comes out I am sure Jared Lee Loughner will have his own article here on wikipedia as this is a major event (1) and (2) at least 5 people were killed and he was captured alive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if there is enough info to make it worthwhile. If everything important can be covered here, then that would be preferred. Trebor (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait and see. He's almost certainly in a "black bag" somewhere for at least the next 24 hours. Shooting a congressperson is not exactly a minor event and the Feds are sure to want to know if he acted alone or not. Why he did this will probably take a day or two to come out. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On a similar note, since he redirects here can people not make his name a link in the article. I've removed one already. Prokhorovka (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Given WP:ONEEVENT it seems unlikely he'll have a separate article unless and until it becomes useful just as a subarticle because this one is getting too long. SDY (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism alert and merging

Someone merged the reactions section. They tried to make it brief so they said Cantor, Pelosi, and .....said it was a sad day.

FALSE information. Cantor did NOT say that. Neither did many of the others use those words.

Please, you may want brevity but do NOT put false information! I will add a big text then work to make it smaller, ok? Hakkapeliitta (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. The current Reactions section is long enough in proportion to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It was my mistake in the parsing of unnecessarily detailed information and I fixed it. Simple. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So see below for 3 proposals. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No reactions section After all, no politician is going to say "great!" Most major politicians, like the President, Congressmen, Senators is going to express some sort of shock or sympathy. Encyclopedic section After all, an encyclopedia is information. So we should catalog it as years from now, we'll see who was notable enough that a reliable source reported on the reaction. Wikipedia editors should not do original research and decide who they like to be featured. Let the reliable sources decide and we report it. Cliff notes version Spoon feed people and force people to accept our idea on whose reaction is important. By golly, I deem Pelosi, Obama, and Boehner to be important and hell with the Governor and Palin (who some blame for the violent atmosphere). I support the encyclopedic section but can see the no reacions section viewpoint. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop creating polls (particularly horribly biased ones). We are not going to insert a vastly out-of-proportion 'reaction' section unless (somehow) there is consensus for it here. Consensus is formed through discussions, not polls. Trebor (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've closed this poll. Please discuss changes rather than just starting polls. Nakon 00:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hakkapeliitta please read up on Wikipedia:Consensus also Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Screed from shooter before Myspace page pulled

Myspace Qoute before yanked, need confirmation, might imply motive.

"Classitup10 writes --> Hello, and welcome my classified leak of information that's of the United States Military to the student body and you. Firstly, I want you to understand this from the start. Did you know grammar is double blind, listener? Secondly, if you want to understand the start of revelatory thoughts then listen to this video. I'll look at you mother fuckin Anarchists who have a problem with them illegal illiterate pigs. :-D If you're a citizen in the United States as of now, then your constitution is the United States. You're a citizen in the United States as of now. Thus, your constitution is the United States. Laugh. I'll let you in on their little cruel joke that's genocidal. They're argument is appeal to force on their jurisdiction with lack of proof of evidence. Each subject is in question for the location! The police don't quite get paid correctly with them dirty front runners under section 10? Their country's alliances are able to make illegal trades under section 10. Eh! I'm a Nihilist, not someone who put who put trust in god! What is section 10 you ask? If you make a purchase then it's illegal under section 10 and amendment 1 of the United States constitution. You make a purchase. Therefore, it's illegal under section 10 and amendment 1 of the United States constitution. We need a drum roll for those front runners in the election; those illegal teachers, pigs, and politicians of yours are under illegal authority of their constitution. Those dirty pigs think they know the damn year. Thirdly, tell them mother fuckers to count from 0 to whenever they feel a threat to stop their count. We can all hope they add new numbers and letters to their count down. Did you run out of breath around the trillions, listener? Well, B.C.E is yet to start for Ad to begin! What does this mean for a citizen in any country? Those illegal military personal are able to sign into a country that they can't find with an impossible date! How did you trust your child with them fraud teachers and front runners, listener? Did you now know that the teachers, pigs, and front runners are treasonous! You shouldn't jump to conclusion with your education plan. The constitution as of now, which is in use by the current power pigs, aren't able to protect the bill of rights! Do you now have enough information to know the two wars are illegal! What is your date of time, listener? Fourthly, those applications that are with background checks break the United States constitution! What's your riot name? I'll catch you! Top secret: Why don't people control the money system? Their Current Currency(1/1) / Your new infinite currency (1/~infinte) This is a selcte information of revoluntary thoughts! Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Each subject is unlocatible!" --Rarian rakista (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets wait for the media to announce it first. primary sources are discouraged. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's mandate to determine the motive. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Unabomber's page(s) should be taken as a guide for dealing with any manifesto this guy put out. Once a reliable source has reproduced what was on his myspace page, be it the above text or otherwise, it should be reproduced and referenced in the article. Good job so far with this article, fellas. - Gwopy 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Suspicious package

Not only are they investigating the package, but they are also preparing to detonate it, according to CNN. However, I couldn't find a textual source yet. Nanobear (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Check Tucson Sentinel, on-line news-site: Package has already been detonated by Sheriff's Dept.

Attack Type

In addition to shooting, should include assassination attempt, as the congresswoman was the target of the attack which was reported on fox news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.137.14 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That is unconfirmed at this time. If the investigation determines that this was indeed an assassination attempt, it will be added. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pima County Sheriff mentioned something to that effect. Trying to find a hyperlink. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

She was the target according to the Pima County Sheriff. Antandrus (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Or here it is on Yahoo news -- it's AP. Antandrus (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It says he "believes" she was the target. That's unconfirmed. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is still early days on the motive, so "shooting incident" is probably the best category per WP:BLP until more comes out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is absurd to imagine it was a Dick Cheney "hunting accident" or some other type of shooting when the sheriff and the Associated Press call it an attempted assassination. Edison (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

[5] YT video of pt 2 of Sheriff Dupnik's press conference. Towards the beginning he states he is unsure whether she was shot first but that yes, he "thinks" she was the target. Think is generally a bit stronger than believe, I think. -Kasreyn (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said Giffords was the target of a gunman whom he described as mentally unstable and possibly acting along with an accomplice." I don't see the word "believes" in there. (That's from the more recent AP item.) Antandrus (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said at a Saturday evening news conference that “I don’t have information about whether she was the first person shot, but yes, I believe she was the target.”[6] Let's not be certain about the motive, things are still confused.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The motive is not yet known, it's better to include just the facts. Trebor (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I second (or third) that. "Assassination" is a pretty loaded word that needs to be well sourced. That said, I believe there should be some discussion of the political implications of this event; I'm working on a paragraph to the reactions section for this.Erudy (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The AP, a reliable source, calls it an attempted assassination of the congresswoman. That is adequate sourcing. Wikipedia does not have to wait for months or years before calling it mainstream news media call it. The guy was not duck hunting. We have not waited for the conclusion of court proceedings in countless other similar stories, and no guideline or policy requires that. Edison (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There does seem to be a growing consensus that this was an assassination attempt --Guerillero | My Talk 04:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Motive doesn't matter for calling a shooting an assassination. Bobby Kennedy was killed by a crazy person, Reagan was shot by a crazy person. Assassins don't have to have political motives. This was clearly an assassination attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.168.136 (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, even though the word "assassin" has some overtones of a political motive. It may emerge that the shooter had a crazy motive, although it would still be best to wait for a few days to see what comes out about the motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above, and curious what others in this discussion who disagree believe would constitute "confirmation"? What if this kid turns out to be too crazy to give an interview or coherently explain his motivations? Not every terrorist or anarchist is as well-spoken as Ted Kaczynski. Most stories I'm seeing online today are either calling it an assassination attempt, or referencing Sheriff Dupnik's verbiage re: targeting. I think ultimately we will need to go with a standard of how many reliable sources are calling it an assassination attempt, not whether or not the kid believed that was what he was doing. -Kasreyn (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not speaking to this specific case so much, I note that while "motive" does not matter for an "assasination," targeting does. Someone who comes up to a crowd of a people and chooses to "whack" the speaker and then fire into the crowd, without knowing whom the victim was, is not, strictly speaking, an "assassin." Until it is clear that

1. Jared Loughner recognized Congresswoman Giffords
2. He knew who she was
3. She was his primary target

then we can not say that it was an "assasination." And I think that last point is also crucial. If, as seems possible from his warped writings and YouTube videos, he hated all members of the government (whether just the Fed or all levels,) and that he was interested in killing anyone associated with the government, then I don't think this would qualify as an "assasination" per se. It would just be a psycho killing government employees, like the Unabomber, and in such case the coincidental victim was the Congresswoman. That may well prove to be the case, if the only reason he knew she was "with the government" was because of some signs at the table outside the Safeway. In such an instant he hadn't gone looking for her, he just wanted to "whack a Fed," and that would not be an "assasination." -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 10:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See my comment above - assassination does not necessarily imply motivation. See [7] Professor water (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's now being reported that he has been charged with attempted assassination, and that he had a safe with messages about an assassination and naming Giffords. So I think it's reasonable to call this an assassination attempt, as the suspect himself described it as such, is charged with such, and it meets the criteria above. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Section on "other victims"

I think we should create a new section about the other victims. I just read that the nine-year-old girl had just been elected to her student council, and was brought to the event by a neighbor who thought she'd enjoy it. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/08/20110108arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-shooting-victims-brk08-ON.html Chadlupkes (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a list of known victims, in alphabetical order. Although there's little question that Giffords was the primary target, the article should not discriminate between her and "other" victims, particularly with others more severely injured (i.e. killed). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts on balance of article: If it becomes clear that Rep Giffords was indeed the target of this attack, I think that we should allow the listing of facts related to her inasmuch as they pertain to the attack be allowed to shift the balance in this article. Of course, a link to her own article should be listed immediately below the title of her subsection.

I came here, though, because I had been trying to find an encyclopaedia article about Christina Taylor Green. I have found some news reports about her, but nothing here at Wikipedia. I wrote a piece that has the feel of an obiot in which I have cited references. It is at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=495023359642. The image might not be public domain - I snagged it from a news article online. If anyone wants to grab it and use it, do feel free. I don't need to be listed as an author - I expect that the citations and references that I used should be sufficient. 174.124.171.153 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Pink Muslimah

Image of Judge Roll

Per WP:NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Best to find a free image or leave it for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He was a federal judge. Shouldn't there be an official image which is in the public domain because it's a work of the federal government? --Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

However this is resolved, we certainly should have an image of the judge in this article. bd2412 T 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If a copyright free image turns up, it can be used without a problem, the LIFE magazine image is unsuitable. As a judge, there may be a public domain image somewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

News overwhelmingly says "in Tucson"

Per a comment at Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords#In.2Fnear_Tucson, the news outlets are overwhelmingly calling the site of the shooting "in" as opposed to "near" Tucson. Relevant links include Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder. The address of the Safeway store is listed as Tucson, and the ZIP code of the area is 85704, Tucson. I edited the text, but again reliable sources are heavily in favor of "in Tucson". Sswonk (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A trend toward revising the location to "near" or just outside Tucson has been observed and discussed in great detail at the talk topic linked above and at the end here. The tragedy happened outside Tucson limits in an unincorporated area that, due to the discretion of the USPS, is nevertheless addressed as Tucson. However, "near" now seems to be more accurate and supported in my view. Please see Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords#In.2Fnear_Tucson. Sswonk (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Recentism

I am sorry but this article is full of recentism. I feel like half of things won't be relevant in 6 months. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC):Today's version is not the "final edition." Early on, an article about a current event grows by accretion from each subsequent news story. In a few days, a major rewrite would be desirable. What are you saying here? Do you claim that the shooting death of a federal judge, the killings of several other bystanders, and the attempted assassination of a US Representative are just of passing interest? What part of the article would you leave out? Edison (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Claiming recentism on an event that happened 12 hours ago? That's funny. I think most of this info will still be relevant, except that which is changed by further developments. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NTEMP. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Major news story per WP:GNG. Articles like this always get off to a shaky start, but things will settle down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

From my experiences working on similar breaking stories, I'd say this one has gone rather smoothly so far. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal from Main Page "In the news"

Should this event really be featured on the Main Page, seeing as it is a US-centric focus and not a world point-of-view, seeing as similar events happen all the time around the world but not featured? OOODDD (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course it should, I am in the UK and it is the top BBC news story at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tracking top on Deuschte Welle, ABC (AU), New Zealand Herald. It should stay. --Rarian rakista (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OOODDD, you could equally argue we shouldn't feature anything at all in the ITN section because "similar events happen all the time around the world but [are] not featured." wackywace 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AZCENTRAL.COM as a source

Citations to azcentral.com probably need to be deleted from the article, azcentral keeps changing the text, it's not static. They keep deleting material, many of the citations in our article can no longer be verified, the azcentral source no longer says what it's supposed to say. Previous editors have commented on this up-page. This is not a small problem because much of our article is sourced to azcentral.com, I think it's the most common source used in the article -- it should be banned as an unreliable. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Even CNN, BBC etc do this sometimes. Again, best to wait for things to settle down as this is breaking news. Using WebCite might lead to out of date information, better to update the links as required.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I view it as a good thing when a source tries to be more reliable by updating as new info comes in.--Guerillero | My Talk 04:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AZcentral contains content from the Arizona Republic, the Tucson Citizen, and KPNX-TV, among others. Those all meet WP:RS. Webcite if needed, but I don't see why the source should be considered unreliable. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And the specific piece used in this article was written by "The Arizona Republic/12News Breaking News Team". I don't think rapid updating is really an issue; other news sites also continously update their pages when information changes. Also, the page seems to have been stable for a long time now. Nanobear (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The NYTimes is doing that for this story, as well. I had a browser tab open to that page (an NYT article) and I just kept refreshing it every once in a while to get new details. First she was dead, then they changed the text that she may be alive, with a note about conflicting reports. Then they changed the note and said that she was definitely alive, in unknown condition. Then they added hospital comments about her condition. I think that this is a fairly common practice in the Internet news world. Otherwise, people would still run around linking to a page that said she was dead, for example, as "proof" of a report of her death that was an exaggeration. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 10:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably the best way for these types of breaking events, with dynamically changing content at a URL, is to quote the relevant fact in the citation. Here's a nicely done example from the article, whoever did this understood that YouTube videos don't stick around forever:

<ref name="ap-hospital-update">{{cite news | last = Rhee | first = Peter | date = 2011-01-08 | title = Hospital Update on Tucson Shooting | url = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olRzqPvcetI | language = English | publisher = YouTube | agency = [[Associated Press]] | location = [[Tuscon, Arizona]] | at = 01m0s | quote = "I'm very optimistic about [Giffords'] recovery. [...] The person that did die here at the hospital was a young child. [...] Gabrielle Gifford's condition was very optimistic and she was following commands. }} This press conference was also replayed on [[CNN]] in the United States, including at 23:00 [[UTC]]/6:02 p.m. [[Eastern time (United States)|EST]]/4:02 p.m. [[Mountain time|MST]].</ref>

Thus if for whatever reason the content at the URL changes or disappears, it can still be verified by Googleing the quoted sentence in the cite to find another source. Without the quoted sentence, it's much harder to verify and thus more likely, over time, to be deleted from the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Judge or judge?

Minor point, but I've seen both "Federal Judge" and "Federal judge" used in the article; which is correct? One should be picked and stuck with throughout the article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, "federal judge" would be best, unless it is part of a title. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Number wounded

The claim made by azcentral.com that 19 were wounded (though it's used to source the number 18) is erroneous and I've removed it. Other news agencies are saying that there were 18-19 people shot in total. The sheriff reported that 19 were shot, and his spokesman said it was at least 18[8], but that should be the only confusion. All other agencies are reporting six deaths. See below for further evidence.

List of the reported wounded from other major news agencies
CNN - 12 Fox News - 13+ ("more than a dozen") MSNBC - 13 ABC News - 13 Sky News - 13 NY Times - 13 Chicago Tribune - 13 Sydney Morning Herald - "at least 12" or 13 The Guardian - 13

I would put in the article that 13 were wounded then as that is what most sources agree on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would put a range until the final numbers come out. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The azcentral claim is consistent with the other ones. 19 victims = 6 deaths + 13 wounded. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see they reworded it, yet KPNX is saying 19 total. So somebody probably screwed up the last version of the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Pima County Sheriff

The article has it that Pima County Sheriff is Dave Alpert, but two separate CNN articles say that the sheriff is Clarence Dupnik. A google search on "dave alpert" "pima county" only yields this Wikipedia article and another, unrelated link. -Mardus (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's Dupnik. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

looks like someone else got to it before me. Its done nevertheless. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue at hand was that there was a reference titled "Press Conference CNN, 1829 EST 08January2011", which linked to Loughner's YouTube channel, but I couldn't find the press conference, where the Pima County Sheriff would actually name the YouTube account ClassItUp10. I understand the authorities divulged the detained suspect's name, after which it would have been relatively easy for everyone else to find the YouTube channel. (I added two other CNN sources citing both the Pima County Sheriff and Loughner's YouTube content.) -Mardus (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I still saw Dave Alpert (for some reason both when reloading and in later editions), I changed it to Clarence Dupnik, because this is the sheriff's name. -Mardus (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear if the Pima Country Sheriff actually stated the username of Loughner's YouTube account as the current wording says. The sources cited at that point do mention both the YouTube account name and statements by the sheriff, but not that the sheriff divulged the account name. -Mardus (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Who was shot first

I removed the claim that the gunman shot Giffords first because,

1. The source is this Telegraph article which itself merely quotes Gawker, which I don't think is a Reliable Source, quoting a witness.
2. This NY Times article quotes another witness who says that Judge Roll was shot first.

guanxi (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any definitive source right now for who was shot in what order. There probably will be eventually, but until we have sourcing that's beyond question, I agree that we can and should simply not address who was shot first. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction to my above post: The NY Times reports both Kimble, who describes Judge Roll being shot first (though it's not 100% clear) and Rayle, who is also Gawker's witness, saying it was Giffords. guanxi (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Target map

I know there is a discussion regarding the obvious relationship between Sarah Palin's map and the shooting. Here it is. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free image removed from talk page per WP:NFCC#9. Kelly ^hi! 06:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The source of the non-free image is here. -Mardus (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW here is similar map used by Democrats in 2004. Camilo, you don't want to go down that road.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Wikipedia editors think about roads to go down, if reliable secondary sources make a connection between this shooting and Sarah Palin's crosshairs, or Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies", it's fair game for the article. Abductive (reasoning) 08:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "similiar map", you desperate tea bagger. Gun crosshairs are VASTLY different than establishing which political candidate you are against and where their constituents are. On top of which no-one has used the ridiculous, disgusting display of "you think of the means" word play Palin used. A nine year old girl was killed and you're trying to disregard Palin's impact on this? This is as bad and pathetic as you conservatives trying to claim the kid was "hurr librals!". 124.169.190.97 (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

"Hey, a kid died, so my lying is justified and your truth-telling is disgusting!" 131.210.93.58 (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sutter, you may want to excuse yourself from any further discussion here. You've crossed the line into personal attacks and nonsensical bashing, and you're not contributing anything with your extreme hatred.Zenmastervex (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Yous lying cause I say so a durr". Strange since we can factually compare the map and they are not even remotely the same. Sorry moron, nobody (ever) is ripping into Palin for having the same political opponent map as every other politicians. Come back when Palins map doesn't contain gun crosshairs and doesn't repeatedly mention vague threats, including "you think of the means", you sad little right winger. No amount of crying is going to make a factual observation somehow, magically, a lie. 124.169.190.97 (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Please try to be civil, this is not a political blog. "Desperate tea-bagger", "moron", "you conservatives", and "sad little right winger" are all breaches of WP:CIVIL and probably WP:AGF. Wikipedia is filled with editors who have different political views and backgrounds, which is exactly what allows us to write NPOV articles. We can work together, here.

As for the map, as has been said elsewhere, it should only be mentioned if reliable sources mention it, and then only commesurate with how they weight its relevance. Arguing about similar maps produced by democrats is not terribly relevant -- if we bring up the map, it will be because reliable sources did it, not because we want to hurt Palin's reputation (politicians of all stripes get muddied by scandals their supporters think are unfair, this goes across political lines and can be considered an occupational hazard). Having said this, we must be mindful that precisely because bringing up the map could be construed as political mud-slinging, we should not do so unless there is strong support for such in reliable sources. Eniagrom (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas, writing on his website, the Daily Kos, in a June 25, 2008 posting titled "2010 will be primary season," placed Giffords on something he referred to as a "target list." The list includes the names of many Democrat congresspeople; however, the names of Blue Dog Democrats, including Giffords, have been bolded. Markos writes that these congresspeople have a "bulls eye" on them as a result of votes they have taken in Congress. An archived version of the Daily Kos posting is available. Pediawiki123 (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand how that's relevant in the least bit to this article. Are you trying to say that Democrats have created similar maps? No argument from me. Are you trying to say that Democrats have even "targetted" Representative Giffords on such maps? Sure, why not, I'd buy it. But if you're saying that because Democrats have made similar maps that Palin's cannot be relevant, you are engaging in WP:OR. We don't decide whether something is relevant, we let reliable sources decide if those things are relevant. So for example, you may be of the opinion that the mainstream media picking on Palin for a map that featured Giffords is unfair because liberals have produced similar maps in the past, and that's a perfectly defensible position. Unfortunately, it is not WP's job to enforce consistency on the mainstream media.

Having said that, I'm not sure that RS's are weighting Palin's map enough to justify inclusion at this juncture. That is what is important in this context, not what other people have done in the past. To use an example: many political figures, both Democrat and Republican, have had extramarital affairs. But Bill Clinton's was particularly publicized and reported on. Many Democrats felt this to be unfair, and politically motivated. Yet, despite this, if you go to Clinton's page, you will find a great deal of information on the Lewinsky scandal *because* it was widely reported on. Arguments from liberal Clinton-supporters about how that's unfair are rightfully ignored. Unfortunately, the other side of this coin is that if the press decides to drag Palin through the mud on this Giffords thing, it will also be reported in this article and maybe others. That's how WP works. Eniagrom (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is such an "obvious" relationship betweeen the map and the assault, how come that only Representative Giffords is the only one attacked and the rest of the people who is also targeted on the map is not? Guys, this relationship is unfair and far-fetched as it can be, an attempt to smear Sarah Palin. This relationship is as strong as trying to correlate child abuse to serial killes. While it is almost true that all serial killers have undergone child abuse, the inmense majory of those who had suffered from child abuse never become serial killers. Agcala (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, can we please just remove this speculative content? Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, having reviewed the sources referencing the para in question, I think this is an example of WP:UNDUE. The connection is mentioned in passing, and typically by simple juxtaposition rather than express implication. Furthermore, the most reliable of the sources listed, the NYT article, is currently referenced to "the picture is no longer on the site", rather than to the first sentence in the paragraph ("The New York Times reported that the shooting raised concerns that American politics had become too heated.").

I would personally support trimming or excising the section entirely, but I want to remind Palin supporters that even content you find completely "speculative and outlandish" is notable and attention-worthy if it is repeated by enough reliable sources. The way to attack this content is not to appeal to editors' better nature, because WP does not self-censor and to expect it should is to misunderstand the goals of the project. Rather, the best way to attack it is to attack the sources, which at the moment are weak and make the link far more tenuous sounding than the current article seems to.

If on the other hand, RSs begin to widely report on the implication, it will be in the article for good. You should prepare yourselves for that eventuality. Eniagrom (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mass murder"?

In the first sentence of the article, the event is described as a mass murder, but nobody has been convicted of a murder charge for these crimes in a U.S. court. It's homicide at the moment, and homicide isn't necessarily murder.fds^Talk 07:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, for all we know it could have been a targeted assassination attempt.--Novus Orator 07:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The "mass murder" phrase was removed from the WP:LEAD, as it makes an excessive judgment about the motive and verdict in any future court case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Victims

Anything wrong with putting a list up of names/ages of victims? --\/\/slack (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unless you have multiple reliable sources that have released that information. Personally, I think for privacy reasons, it would be wiser to wait for a few more days.--Novus Orator 07:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Such sources are already available for some victims. Abductive (reasoning) 08:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could name the victims, but there shouldn't be something like a bulleted list per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. wackywace 09:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Identifying the victims in an easy-to-read format is not a "memorial"; it's simply information about the incident. WP:NOTMEMORIAL contains no mention whatsoever of bullet lists. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Glock gun image

I removed the second crime scene image to avoid repetition. The style of the gun used is important, and although copyright free, the second image of the crime scene is not really adding anything new.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is OK to have both images as long as the text is not being crowded.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The image is likely not a Glock 19. A Glock 19 is the longest barrel pistol that Glock makes and the photo is of a standard length barrel.

Is it necessary to have an image of Glock 19? doesn't seem necessary to describe what a glock looks like on an article this size, especially since its a random one which is still different from the one used according to the image description. this is a very sad story, maybe considering the sentiments, it might be better to remove the image of a gun. Theo10011 (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the image of the Glock. It's okay to have information in the article about what sort of gun was used, and likewise the number of victims makes the high-capacity magazine relevant information, but per NPOV we shouldn't be doing anything that attempts to paint some particular model of handgun as having being particularly responsible for this incident. There was a similar issue historically with the Virginia Tech shooting that makes it clear we shouldn't go down that road. Again, I don't have a problem with noting the details of the handgun that was used, but I do have an issue with undue prominence. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I would be in favour of removing the image altogether, its still shows up after the lead section. Its probably not as relevant to have it in the story, and I suppose it would be removed as the story develops. Theo10011 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, while I was posting here and getting multiple edit conflicts, the image was restored to the article, but should now be removed again, and I've pointed the latest poster of the image here. Hopefully that's the end of it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Sorry about any edit conflicts. Theo10011 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Glock 19 is NOT the longest pistol Glock makes, it's just the "full size". The Glock 17L and 34 have longer barrels. http://www.glockfaq.com/content.aspx?ckey=glock_faq_glock_model_guide

The Glock 19 doesn't have the longest Glock production barrel nor is it the "full size" model. It's the compact (which is not to be confused with the smaller sub-compact models 26/27/33 etc.). Think of its dimensions as intermediate. Armandthecorsair (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Babies born on 9/11'. That is fake!

I have that book and that picture is not in the book. It looks like that is only a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.147.117 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been reported that Christina Green was born on September 11, 2001.[9] What does the "hoax" mean?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

She does seem to appear on page 41. Please re-check your copy. Kuru (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Unbalanced" tags

The addition of the {{unbalanced}} tags would be acceptable in good faith, except that the tagging editor had never participated in the editing nor discussion of the article. I have invited this editor to comment on here to make sure it is not a case of WP:DRIVEBY. KimChee (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You certainly have a point but I intended to participate in the discussion. Actually I am.Agcala (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As above, see WP:DRIVEBY. Please edit/discuss rather than tagging at the moment, this is a fast changing story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Assault or Assasination

Hi. What could this shooting be called so ? Is it an Assault or an Assasination ? Gary Dee (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See above sections. Most media reports are still calling this a shooting incident, judgments about the motive run into WP:BLP issues and could prejudice a future court case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thx. I do not know if you already read this, so if it should be that, the motivation, you could call it an Assassination, right ? --Gary Dee (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In situations like this, Wikipedia is guided by WP:BLP. There has been a torrent of media speculation about the motive, eg here suggesting her pro-abortion and health care stance as a possible motive. At the moment, the focus is on the shooter's mental health, let's leave it at that.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We should of course weigh up what the reliable sources (for instance, relevant government agencies, the local Sheriff's department, etc) say, but if the reports of a man approaching and firing a handgun at point blank range are accurate that is more of an assassination attempt than a mere "assault" or even an "aggravated assault." It isn't like walking up and slapping, kicking or punching someone. It's a clear demonstration of lethal intent. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the presumed intended target, Giffords, is alive, it could only be an 'attempted assassination anyway. For now, 'shooting' is best though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel so because of shooting hints on a comparability to any school schooting or other massacres committed in amok. Worse, the article's name wrongly states the location of being in Tuscon, what isn't true. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Shooting" is probably the best option to stay with, it might be compared to incidents at Virginia tech or Fortworth from an encyclopedic stand-point. It seems to fit the best under that term, especially since its a developing story and more info about motives might come out. Theo10011 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos at scene non-free?

Regarding File:Tucson_shoot.png used in the infobox and File:Tucson_Shooting.png which were both uploaded by User:Eugen_Simion_14 of Bucharest, Romania with the author listed as "Own work": how is that possible? They are both low-resolution images, and the user is over 10000 km away. Something is not right there, it is possible these are non-free images and not properly licensed. I am not sure how to approach that situation. Sswonk (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't find any TinEye matches at the moment [10], but it is a bit of a puzzle. One to watch.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged both the images (one has been moved to Commons already). They lack any kind of camera data that would indicate authenticity. I think pending any better proof of authorship (like the uploader sending originals to OTRS) we have to presume that they are copyright violations. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Kelly ^hi! 16:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the lack of EXIF data is a worry. Best do without these images.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Both of the images are from the same Flickr photostream - here and here. Recognized them both quickly as I had been going through Flickr looking for images for this article. License present on both is currently Copyrighted, so both will be deleted as copyvios. Tabercil (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

ATS Forums Posts

Not sure if this had been brought up or not, but the accused shooter seemed to have posted to the ATS forums; http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/eyqt8/looks_like_jared_laughner_giffords_shooter_was_no/ . Not sure if we can actually use the material, but it does give further insight into the state of mind of the shooter leading up to the events of yesterday. 109.70.68.114 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Material from reddit and the blogs usually fails WP:SPS. This would be unsuitable without more confirmation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not RS and, since it seems half the internet is busy faking this sort of stuff, we should take with a pinch of salt. Even though the posts appear to be old, someone with an admin account on the site (or the person with the Erad3 account) would likely have been able to fake it. And the style of the post seems too close to the style of the YouTube videos for us not to assume this is a hoax. --FormerIP (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page autoarchiving

I set up auto-archiving on the talk page, currently for 1 day until things have settled down. Feel free to adjust. Kelly ^hi! 17:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I felt free to adjust it to 3 days. I will give 3 reasons for why I think a 1 day archive time limit ill-serves the purpose of having a discussion page for this article. I think that:

• the discussion is not that long yet,
• many who visit this page may be unaware of the archiving or how to find archived posts, and
• the discussion of many issues will not and cannot be resolved within just 1 day. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, whatever folks here think is best. Kelly ^hi! 20:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fidel's reaction

Seeing that this is on the front poage of wikipedia under news I thought it was fitting to add the info to the article. Here are some sources to back it up: (Winnipedfreepress), (Metronews), (The telegram). Wouldnt this fall under an international reaction? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords was subscribed to Jared Lee Loughner's YouTube channel, classitup10

For real. http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.181.184 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is very interesting, and apparently correct, as it would be hard to fake. There are two subscriptions, "Classitup10" (apparently Loughner) and Ike Skelton.[11] Since there is some WP:OR here, there are problems with putting it in the article. Let's hope the media wakes up to this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this original research or was this reported somewhere? Theo10011 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be hard to fake, true, but that does not mean it is not fake. Why would the person running a congresswoman's YouTube account want the world to know she had subscribed to some borderline insane ramblings? --FormerIP (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As this article points out, the subscription may have occurred since the shooting. Some caution needed here, as Giffords' staff may well have access to the account.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"though it could very well be that this occurred since the shooting, not before." -from the above mentioned article. It doesn't suggest one thing over the other about the timing, but it seems to be subscribed nonetheless. in reply to FormerIP, the account might have been subscribed by a staff member doing outreach to local residents and might not have checked his activities, it might have been just a co-incidence looking for local supporters. Theo10011 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The news article has got the balance about right. It is unlikely that the subscription is a fake, but out of all her constituents, would she really have subscribed to an obscure loner? The likelihood is that this has been added since the shooting, but more information is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It could be that a staffer has subscribed today not realising that the fact would be publicly visible. I think it is far more likely that the account has been hacked. But we don't know and there are other sites on the internet that are better than WP at fomenting outlandish theories, so I say leave it to them. --FormerIP (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally regard the "staffer" explanation as the most likely, but the "hacker" theory also is plausible.

It's unfortunate that Google updates its cached snapshots so frequently nowadays. If it were outdated by just one day, it would be easy to check whether the subscription existed 24 hours ago.

I agree that such speculation doesn't belong in our article. The subscription would be noteworthy only if it existed before the shooting occurred (which is unlikely, in my opinion), and even then, we would need to know more than that. —David Levy 18:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tucsonarizona07, 9 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

 Done

THis line should be deleted: During the campaign, Kelly asked his supporters to help him remove Giffords from office by joining him at a fundraiser where attendees were given the chance to shoot a fully loaded M16 rifle.[13] The article referenced does not mention Kelly and there is no evidence that the shooter was at the particular fundraiser.

Tucsonarizona07 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the ref, and you are right. I've removed the information from the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed/ Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

the image was ....

The image was removed from the website after the shooting - if someone wants to add this please site it because this article currently supporting it does not suport it. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09capital.html - it says only that the image is no longer on the website. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's not supported by the source, just remove it. Kelly ^hi! 18:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Claim in the article the the picture remains on facebook

There is a claim that the picture of the crosshair remains on facebook but I can't see it in the link http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=373854973434 am I missing it? Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, that is it??? Wow, I was expecting something more. Those are not threatening they are just targeted states. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the Facebook link for now anyway per WP:PRIMARY. Kelly ^hi! 18:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a blue map of the USA, the target constituencies are white/grey crosshairs. As Geraldo Rivera pointed out, it may be a media fuss over nothing, as people have been reading things into the map that are not clear at first sight.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling Sarah Palin's crosshair map a fuss over nothing is untrue. Giffords complained about it months ago, and now she is shot in the head. I edited the entry to say that the crosshair map was removed after the shooting, as was reported on the news. My edit appears to still be up in the article, along with what looks like a unduely overlong list of rebuttals by right-wing pundits (compared to the number of left wing pundits). Not that I am saying those should be removed, as it shows what a game-changer this event has become. Abductive (reasoning) 19:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Stacy McCain could probably be removed, as he's less significant than Kurtz or York. I think it's fairly balanced between left-wing and right-wing barring that. Kelly ^hi! 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

When I saw for the first time the picture that people have been suggesting had some part of blame in the awful situation I couldn't believe my eyes. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that is because of your internal feelings, because there as plenty of reliable secondary sources that say exactly that. Abductive (reasoning) 19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the image is standard political nonsense, but when it came out last year there was debate about this being beyond the pale. That someone called out with crosshairs on the map has since been shot, and that Palin's team removed the image shortly after the shootings signals a tacit acknowledgement by the Palin camp that the image is inappropriate. That the Pima sheriff has also gone to lengths to point out the damaging effect or irresponsible political rhetoric, and that the media has picked up on this image as an example of such, make the map relevant to this event. Granted, this represents a bit of a sideshow since the motives and beliefs of the shooter are still unknown beyond "generally anti-government". Hiberniantears (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Its nothing more than a bigoted democratic partisan attack on Sarah Palin while a good woman lies fighting for her life and five others also and five dead, that is a disgusting political sickener. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To some extent, yes. However, the woman fighting for her life was "targeted" by a right wing politician who's use of gun imagery is well known. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

She who lives by the sword dies by the sword. Abductive (reasoning) 19:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above, but per the BLP noticeboard discussion, there is no direct link between the map and the shooting at present. Giffords' complaints about the image at the time are OK for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

On March 25, 2010 the congresswoman specifically made reference to SarahPAC/Palin's use of the map with crosshair sights icons followed by a list of candidates which included her. It is more than a bigoted attack for commentators to bring that to the conversation, it is repeating a concern expressed by someone who was later shot in the head that political rhetoric using gun imagery had gone too far, beyond what had ever occurred in her lifetime. She did not use the exact words but hinted that it was reckless and dangerously provocative. That is in so many words what Giffords said about the map imagery 10 months ago. Sswonk (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We have the wrong focus in the reactions section

Listing Obama's reaction is pandering. The President offers condolences on every major disaster. Obama has no real link to Tucson or Giffords.

What is notable is that so many people have offered condolences and shock. It is more encyclopedic to list the many people (even Castro!). Nobody has said anything notable.

Tim Russert of NBC died and lots and lots of people expressed sorrow. That section is not pandering as it doesn't list the comments of Bush or Obama.

In summary, the reaction section should be re-written with the emphasis on how many people and the breath of reaction. Quoting Obama or Boehner is not helpful to the article and actually is bias. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, even having the reactions section may not be needed. Look at the Reagan assassination attempt. The article is officially a "good article". It is well written and does not have a reactions section. One problem is that some Wikipedia articles are too cooking cutter....It's like "The 2011 Tucson shootings was a shooting in Arizona. Reactions." Hakkapeliitta (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Obama's response has been reported far more widely than any other - pretty much every news site has it. It is not pandering, it is a reflection of the coverage. If the news reports have commented heavily on the breadth of the reaction then we could include that (as far as I know, they haven't). Whatever your issue with Obama is, his response is very clearly more notable than that of some minor politician. Trebor (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Obama's reaction is not the most notable. The most notable is that so many, many people are commenting, like they did for Tim Russert. To just list Obama's reaction and want to cut out others is plain biased. I don't have so much beef about Obama unless we just list Obama's. More important is the wide, wide breath. Even judges, who generally try not to comment, are commenting.

Trebor, your assessment of "some minor politican" is wrong. News sources are reporting the outpouring of comments, even listing politicians who you don't know. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Trebor. Obama is the most notable person to release such a statement. I see no contradiction between mentioning the wide array of responses, and noting Obama's at the head of the list, just as we have in the article on John McCarthy Roll put the statement by Chief Justice John Roberts at the head of the many statements released on Roll's death. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hakkapeliitta, you are not responding to what I'm saying. We don't assess what is the most notable, we look to see what the reliable sources do. If you look at them, it's obvious that they all mention Obama's response, and overwhelmingly it is more prominent than any other. Trebor (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Obama is not notable. I am saying that it is more notable that many, many politicians are commenting. From mayors of other cities, to foreign dictators, to congressmen representating other states. It would be undue weight if we ignore this or just say "many" yet give so much weight to Obama. Instead, keeping Obama is fine but more importantly to show the overwhelming support by tons of politicians. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the statement issued by Chief Justice Roberts. It seems that the article does reflect a fairly wide swath of reactions. bd2412 T 21:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Assassination attempt

The FBI (according to its director) has said that Giffords was the attacker's intended target. Thus this would be an assassination attempt. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Seems likely. Best to wait for a consensus of secondary sources to come to that conclusion. Abductive (reasoning) 19:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Two news reports not involving the FBI, including one eyewitness said Giffords was the target (Gunman was screaming) Hakkapeliitta (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? I notice that the category has weaseled it's way back into the article despite there being a very noticeable lack of consensus and no confirmation that she, the judge, or any other single individual was the target. I'm going to remove it and suggest that a consensus be reached before re-adding it. Cat-five - talk 19:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords being the target does not make it an "assassination attempt". There's more to the normal definition than that. --FormerIP (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

From Dictionary.com

as·sas·si·nate

–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.

1. to kill suddenly or secretively, esp. a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.
2. to destroy or harm treacherously and viciously: to assassinate a person's character.

Cat-five - talk 19:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Really that's a broad definition that could apply to almost any premeditated murder but since we're arguing about what defines an assassination that's as good a definition as we'll get. Cat-five - talk 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That look's like it came from a pocket dictionary, so we could get a better definition by looking somewhere else. "Assassinate" is usually used to infer a political motive, or else what would you say distinguishes it from "murder"? --FormerIP (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely an assassination attempt, but I think the event speaks for itself. If there is resistance to including this in the article until more information is known about the shooter's motives, then this is a reasonable request. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My objection isn't so much calling it an assassination attempt it's putting the category in without being able to back it up in the article which we can't do until we have more verifiable information saying that it was an assassination attempt. If the FBI director (see above) angle pans out and his comments are added into the article and sourced well I could definitely see that as being verifiable proof of an assassination attempt. Although it isn't required to call it an assassination I think it would be more credible to be able to have in the article who the target was too before we say this was the gunman trying to assassinate __blank__ person.

Sirhan Sirhan did not have any identifiable motive, yet we still call Bobby Kennedy's assassination an assassination. Motive doesn't matter: See James Fallows:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/the-nuances-of-political-violence.html

The FBI Director and the Sheriff have indicated now that the Congresswoman was the target.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/01/fbis_mueller_charges_today.php?ref=fpblg

Why this strange resistance on WP to calling it an assassination attempt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.168.136 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not verified. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. Whatever the media says (and it has said plenty in the last 24 hours), articles must be verifiable and not prejudice any future trial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to wait for all the informtion to come in --Guerillero | My Talk 19:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability issues aside, I just want to note that I've always understood "assassination" (in common usage) to refer to the premeditated killing of a public figure (typically limited to prominent politicians/activists/religious leaders, high-ranking government officials, royalty or similar). Beyond that, I've never heard of a perpetrator's motive being a factor in determining whether the term "assassination" applies. If the gunman intentionally targeted Giffords, this was an assassination attempt (irrespective of whether he did so because he disliked her politics, because he suffered from paranoid delusions or for some other reason). —David Levy 20:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He is charged with "attempted assassination of a member of congress," "two counts of killing an employee of the federal government and two counts of attempting to killing a federal employee" per the New York Times. The article should state what the suspect is charged with, but should not label him as guilty. Call him "accused" etc. Edison (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of victims

The article currently claims both 12 wounded 6 dead - and 20 shot in total. 12 + 6 is not 20. CNN in three articles I checked has 12 wounded, BBC has 12 wounded in two articles and 20 total in a third. The links above seem to mention 19 total reported yesterday. We need to find one correct number here. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the section "Number wounded" above here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I even said that I had. How does that comment help solve the error in the article? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's 14 wounded & 6 killed. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the number. Thanks for pointing it out. Gbraing (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Left Wing Radical?

I removed the characterization of him as a "left wing radical," first because it does not precisely reflect the quote in the source. Second, because a reading of his rantings from various sources does not align him with any left- or right-wing axis. For example, he seems to be particularly upset about the US's move away from the gold standard, which is a right-wing position. Generally, his writings as available so far do not appear to reflect any coherent political position at all. Cmichael (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That seem good under BLP. He had a wide variety of ratical books he was a fan of that were lost in the shuffle --Guerillero | My Talk 19:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There are clearly differing opinions of Loughner's politics - headlines from a Guardian article: "Jared Lee Loughner: erratic, disturbed and prone to rightwing rants". "Loughner echoes concerns of Tea Party movement in videos that reveal fears about government brainwashing". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/jared-lee-loughner-rightwing-rants. Amongst the books he'd read were Mein Kampf and Plato's Republic - not exactly leftist tracts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

??? Mein Kampf is a Socialist work. Kelly ^hi! 20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, not that bit of revisionist historical garbage about 'National Socialists' being left wing. It is utter nonsense. The Nazis murdered socialists. The Nazis were supported by right-wingers abroad (do you need a list? - it might make uncomfortable reading). If you want to engage in historical denialism, this isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Mein Kampf was not a socialist work - it was fascist. That is right wing. But Kelly's disagreement underscores the necessity of leaving out the right wind -left wing designation for now, pending further revelations about the shooter. But on the question of whether he was a liberal, let's not forget that he wrote about going on the gold or silver standard -- currently right wing thing, and let's not forget that anti-government is widely felt to be a right wing stance.KeptSouth (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a good deal of debate on where fascism, national socialism in general, and Nazism in particular fall within the traditional left to right political spectrum, both in absolute terms and as these ideologies evolved over time. It's a bit one-dimensional to assert that the philosophy IS or IS NOT right or left; it fuses a little of both. The Nazis largely opposed socialism as it existed for its internationalism, not its economics, as the NAZI state adopted a centralized command economy. (Contrast this with Italian Fascism with its corporatism, guilds, and cartels) Cmichael is right that the phrase doesn't accurately reflect the quote's content; however, the original Tweet sourced says the following: "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy". This isn't enough to establish that the suspect is presently left wing, or that he was then a radical, but it at least indicates that at some point in his political life he was left of center. Armandthecorsair (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? You are advocating using an Twitter comment by a former classmate (or someone who claimed to be?) to assess Loughner's politics? That is ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Has the claim been picked up by reliable sources? Kelly ^hi! 21:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not advocating anything, but the Tweet was the media's original source for the "left-wing" statement. Armandthecorsair (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See:http://twitter.com/caitieparker/status/23853016876589057 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandthecorsair (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Later analysis seems to be based on Loughner's YouTube postings etc, which may or may not be reliable, but at least can be studied by people who understand politics. Has it been confirmed that the Twitter writer was actually a classmate? Has it been confirmed that this Twitter account is from the person it claims to be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on whether reliable sources are reporting on the Twitter writer. As you argued earlier, the mention of Palin's "Take back the 20" campaign had to be included despite any lack of a connection, because RS's were reporting it. Or is it different here? Kelly ^hi! 21:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

* If the Nazis were right wing, then Why were they called the National Socialist Party????--Subman758 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So that people could ask that question on a Wikipedia talk page instead of reading a book or even just looking at the Nazism page. --FormerIP (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

North Korea calls itself a "people's democratic republic" but is it either democratic or a republic? Guys, this is all irrelevant anyway. I suggest not trying to place this person on the political spectrum unless we have a wide consensus of mainstream news media doing so. Crazy people are notoriously difficult to classify logically. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence style

Moved from User talk:Gyrobo#2011 Tucson shooting

Regarding your reversion:
1. Please see WP:SBE. How does repeating our arbitrary article title in bold increase understanding of the subject?
2. I didn't start a sentence with a number. I replaced "eighteen" with "18" because it no longer fell at the beginning of a sentence. —David Levy 14:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You and Tvoz are insisting 18 but news reports a day later say 20. A ref is provided in the artilce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkapeliitta (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1.WP:SBE is an unofficial essay representing personal preference; WP:BOLDTITLE allows bold text for descriptive titles. I prefer bold text for article titles because, in my view, while the entire lead my describe an overview of the subject, the sentence with bold text defines what the subject is – in this case, an event.

2.Other numbers in a similar context are spelled out.

3.I think SBE relies on some pretty flimsy logic. Articles already have a rather large title at the top of the page. Nothing in the lead could have more weight than that. I think it also misrepresents WP:DICTIONARY by conflating style with semantics.

--Gyrobo (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, WP:SBE is an essay. I'm citing it as an explanation of the reasoning behind my edit.

The aforementioned WP:BOLDTITLE states that "if the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." Based upon the examples, the optional exception for "simple descriptions" appears to refer to instances in which the article's title can be used in a manner maintaining its purely descriptive context (e.g. "The history of the United States traditionally starts...").

How, in your opinion, does repeating the article's arbitrary title help to define its subject? As you point out, the same phrase, word-for-word, is displayed as a large heading at the top of the page. How does duplication in the lead improve readers' understanding?

2. Per the Manual of Style, we usually render numbers lower than 10 as words and render all other numbers (except those appearing at the beginnings of sentences) as figures. Alternatively, we can spell out all one-word numbers, but that style hasn't been applied to this article.

Why did you imply that I started a sentence with a number (when in fact, I eliminated such an instance)?

3. Every article requires a title, and it's widely understood that this isn't necessarily the subject's official name. For example, no one would assume that David Healy (footballer) is the man's name. It's obvious that "David Healy" is a combination of his first name and surname, while "footballer" is a description of his profession (included to distinguish him from other persons known as "David Healy"). The lead contains the bold phrase "David Jonathan Healy," the man's full name. Wouldn't it be rather silly to replace this with "David Healy (footballer)"?

In the case of yesterday's shooting, unlike Healy's case, there is no official name. But that doesn't mean that it makes sense to substitute the title that we've arbitrarily selected for our article, thereby falsely implying that it carries formal significance.

I've implemented a compromise that includes a similar description in bold without implying that it's the subject's official name. I hope that this is mutually acceptable. —David Levy 15:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1. The phrase isn't exactly duplicated, the first instance is the standalone title of the article, the second is in the context of a definition. Like I said earlier, bold text helps a reader visually determine the location of the subject's definition.

2. I didn't notice that the period had been replaced by a comma, sorry. I thought it was awkward to use 19 as a numeral while "six" was spelled out in the same sentence, and WP:ORDINAL allows either "19" or "nineteen" in this case.

Your compromise solution works for me, but I still think that SBE suffers from several logical flaws and shouldn't be relied upon.

--Gyrobo (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1. I agree with your point about bold text in general. I just don't regard text as helpful when it appears to refer to a formal designation that doesn't actually exist (irrespective of whether the text is displayed in bold). I'm glad that the compromise version addresses both your concern and mine.

2. Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining.

3. In my opinion, no essay (and few policies or guidelines, for that matter) should be blindly relied upon. This one elaborates on the relevant aspect of WP:BOLDTITLE, so I cited it as a means of explaining the general reasoning behind my edits. While I often link to policies, guidelines and essays, I would never argue that we should do anything "because [x page] says so." Such pages are descriptive (not prescriptive), sometimes contain flaws and usually have exceptions.

Anyway, thanks very much for taking the time to discuss this with me.  :) —David Levy 16:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox info

The infobox should list the 7110 N. Oracle Rd. address. This is encyclopedic.

We aren't listing someone's home address, which is a no-no. But don't get confused and think we should do the same here.

Reagan was shot in 1981. That WP article has a subarticle about the Washington Hilton and the exact address is listed.

If there is no address, we are just being general. We are even fighting to say only Tucson. Let's not dumb down to people.

Hakkapeliitta (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Reagan article and this article are handled THE EXACT SAME WAY. Reagan assassination attempt doesn't list the address. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Reagan shooting or the Kennedy assassination for that matter took place outside a building so in those cases the location of the shooter does matter in the articles' context. In Tucson though the spree happened inside a random supermarket, so there's no need here for detailed addresses and locations. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Very nonsensical. Reagan and JFK outside a building so notable? Inside a building not notable? Well look here http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/09/arizona.shooting.wrestled.gunman/index.html?hpt=T2 the shooting was outside. Therefore, De728631 favors inclusion of the location based on his reasoning of an outside shooting. If he changes then he is just giving excuses. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The address is notable to the structure, not the event. The address of the Washington Hilton is listed at the page for the Washington Hilton and not the assassination attempt. If this Safeway were to become notable enough for a page, the address would be listed there, and not here. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

People come here for info. Why is the exact time of 10;11 am listed...for info. If you don't want the exact street adress then at least teh intersection. Also De728631's criteria supports me. He said that addresses are improtant if it happened outside. This shooting was outside according to CNN. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, no fake info

Tvoz just changed the article to say 18 people injuried. Sources say 20 were shot. OK, 2 had graze wounds but sources say 20, not me. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Second suspect

"Police said they were also looking for a second suspect, a white male approximately 40-50 years old with dark hair. On the morning of January 9, they released a security-camera photo in which he appears.[30]"

I believe this should be removed entirely as the media are reporting that "authorities ruled out any involvement by a man described earlier as a "person of interest.""

If not removed, it should at least be reworded to state that they were looking for a person of interest, who has been ruled out as a suspect.

We should include an image of this "person of interest" if possible. bd2412 T 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that really necessary if authorities now think he's not involved? Gbraing (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? It's no longer relevant to the investigation, and when looking back on this in the future, there will be plenty of other extraneous evidence, investigative records, etc that don't belong here. I believe the "second suspect" falls into that group; he was never a suspect as far as I can tell, just a "person of interest" who has now been cleared. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleared based on what? Has he been found and interviewed? I was under the impression that he was still being searched for, in which case, we should include the picture in order to reflect upon the target of the ongoing investigation. bd2412 T 21:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Er look at the article since 20:56 [12] Nil Einne (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Authorities say he was just a cab driver. Edison (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That settles that, then. bd2412 T 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Charges?

Loughner has been charged, and this has been reported in the media for the past hour or so, and at a press conference... This should be updated.

Summary of charges as reported by MSNBC: "...one count of attempted assassination of member of Congress, two counts of killing an employee of the federal government and two counts of attempting to killing a federal employee." 99.55.199.47 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Done --Guerillero | My Talk 21:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

people being unreasonable

Some people want the shooting to say 10:11 am. Ok, they like details. But some violently oppose putting the address (7110 N. Oracle) even though other WP articles do it. I can understand not putting a home address but you can find the exact address, including number and street, on Wikipedia where Reagan was shot. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Give it up. We've been over this in many section of this talk page. Creating a new section isn't going to change anything. Your edits are becoming disruptive. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You are disruptive because I never proposed starting a new section. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Put down the stick--Guerillero | My Talk 21:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose having a street address or a street intersection (which is tantamount to a street address) listed for the Safeway. It isn't relevant information for an encyclopedia article. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It was an Assassination Attempt!

Per the Criminal Complaint filed in United States District Court. Jared Lee Loughner did attempt to Assassinate United States Representative Gabrielle Giffords on or about 8 January 2011.[13] The article should state this was an Assassination Attempt on Mrs. Giffords life.--Subman758 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Criminal complaints reflect what the government is attempting to convict someone of, not what was going on inside the head of the indicted person. I think it is enough to say that this is what he has been charged with. bd2412 T 22:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a "statement of probable cause" in the document which would meet WP:ALLEGED as long as it was made clearly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)