Talk:2011 Tucson shooting

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)

The maps, etc. were ill-conceived, but regardless aren't notable for inclusion in the article. If this were an article purely about the use of political rhetoric and the increasingly heated political climate, then maybe. If however, it comes out that the suspect was specifically motivated by Palin and/or her maps, then perhaps inclusion would be appropriate. Jb 007clone (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is specific evidence linking the shooter and Palin, any mention of Palin in this article should be removed.Philipmj24 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I am advocating. I don't think any or every mention of Palin should be removed. I only think that the map shouldn't be included unless it can be shown that it was a direct motivating factor in the incident. Giffords herself has mentioned Palin by name in discussing rhetoric and the political climate and I think that is definitely fair game. Jb 007clone (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why no mention of how the Daily Kos twice portrayed Giffords as someone who needed to go, first with its own bullseye metaphor in 2008, and again a few days before the shooting? http://hillbuzz.org/2011/01/08/my-congresswoman-voted-against-nancy-pelosi-and-is-now-dead-to-me-eerie-daily-kos-hit-piece-on-gabrielle-giffords-just-two-days-before-assassination-attempt-on-her/ and http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/screen-shot-2011-01-08-at-3-05-33-pm.png

If you can prove a direct link between those items and the shootings, then put them in. Jb 007clone (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no direct link between the crosshair map and the shootings either. Saying that news outlets are reporting on them and that makes them notable is weak tea; news outlets do not necessarily follow NPOV, so this would provide an easy way to circumvent NPOV.Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The map is being talked about in regards to the shooting, though. Clearly people are reacting by discussing the map, and whether that's right or wrong, it is relevant. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

People are discussing all kinds of things. That doesn't make them encyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 19:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

When they're discussed enough it does. Jb 007clone (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion not long ago that maybe Palin had a boob job. Would that belong in her BLP here at Wikipedia? Everything about Palin is discussed endlessly, she has higher Google traffic in the US than the President. That doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How very facetious. Obviously, that wouldn't be relevant. A map with crosshairs over a targeted congresswoman, which the congresswoman discussed, and has frequently been discussed by the media is relevant. No one has said that there is a direct link to Palin, but both Palin and the map have been referenced too much to not be noted. Should there be an image of the map in the article? Probably not. Should it be referenced? Absolutely. --Jb 007clone (talk) 21:16, 10 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 Celtic cross. 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 and "target" those she opposes with a Celtic cross. 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)

Sun cross or Stormfront_(website)#Services ? In the Crosshairs » Blog Archive » Sarah Palin puts Dems in the crosshairs --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

YouTube videos

Loughner apparently has a YouTube video channel at [1], 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: [2]. 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)

Giffords was apparently subscribed to him, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.76.118 (talk) 02:33, 10 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)

Tucson Massacre or Arizona Massacre

Most media sources are referring to it as those titles. The current title of the article is a joke, and as someone said earlier, nowhere outside of this page refers to the event as such. Do people believe the page should be moved to one of those titles?Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. The proposed titles are far to vague. This is an encyclopedia, and titles need to be valid in the future, not just for the next few days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To differentiate from the other massacres that have happened inside Tucson? Furthermore by what you're saying shouldn't the current title be 2011 Tucson Massacre, as shooting is a lot vaguer?

I agree with you that Arizona Massacre is too broad to use but I was just throwing it out because it seems to be what CNN and other sources are currently using.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Broad or not Arizona Massacre is what the media is currently dubbing it, I feel wikipedia should do the same. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The media operate on a different timescale than Wikipedia. In any case, I've seen no evidence that people are finding the article hard to locate. Endless tinkering with titles achieves little. Content is more significant AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 10 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)

Hakkapeliitta (talk · contribs) was blocked for editwarring, has multiple UW-3 warnings. So was Hakkapeliitta warning against himself? 184.144.161.119 (talk) 05:22, 10 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)

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)

[3] 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.”[4] 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 [5] 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)

Could the death of John Roll be considered an assassination? Even though he may not have been a primary target, he was a prominent political figure who was killed. Or is that too far of a stretch? Janers0217 ^(talk) 09:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that reliable sources are reporting that the suspect is being charged with an assassination attempt, what are thoughts of others here on whether "assassination attempt" or "attempted assassination" merit inclusion in the article title? I understand that it would increase the length and complexity of the title a great deal so, on that basis alone, I'm concerned the information gain might not be worth it. I'd still like to hear other opinions. -Kasreyn (talk) 10:39, 10 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)

FTA : Giffords had said; "We're in Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list, but the thing is that the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action." Audio clip broadcast by BBC ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To be clear -I don't know what you have been reading but Sarah Palin had nothing to do with this shooting, her campaign picture also is not involved in this sad story, there is no connection between this shooting and Sarah Palin. Perhaps in an article entitled - Press speculation and titillation regarding the shooting in Tuscon - but its not very encyclopedic is it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't state unequivocally that there is 'no connection'. We just don't know what motivated the shooting, and if, as seems entirely possible, the gunman was mentally unstable, he may have seen a connection himself, even if nobody else does. Even that is untrue however. There were already numerous comments being made about the risks of inflammatory rhetoric (including Palin's) being made before the shooting, based on the argument that this could lead to somebody carrying out just such an act. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 10 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)

In any case there doesn't seem be an image on Wikimedia Commons of a Glock 19 with a 33-round magazine, and the high-capacity magazine would be the salient element. That said, the Virginia Tech precedent is I think a good one. kencf0618 (talk) 04:08, 10 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)

image from Myspace/fallenasleep Copyright Jared ? Glock 19 ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 23:04, 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.[6] 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)

Yea, she's on page 41, but only her first and middle names are listed.

http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=VayUKdTuI7kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Faces+of+Hope:+Babies+Born+on+9-11&hl=zh-CN&ei=nJMqTey8MoHKvQPj3OSJAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Green&f=false

David Straub (talk) 05:09, 10 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 [7], 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)

And speaking of images, I've gotten consent for a pair of them from the Flickr copyright holder and have added them to the article. Tabercil (talk) 03:15, 10 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)

Any evidence that these are hoaxes ? CNN is RS, no ? Interesting that he seems to think on the basis that Begging the question is valid logic ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC) He also seems to use 'however', 'nevertheless' and 'nonetheless' as though they mean the same as 'therefore', 'hence' and 'thus' ! Meaning inversion ? Use of 'conscience dreaming' instead of 'conscious dreaming' (aka 'lucid dreaming') might point to a hearing difficulty ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:12, 10 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.[8] 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)

Screen cap posted 9 Jan shows Giffords' last login on Youtube as "two days ago" (7 Jan) and already subscribed to Loughner's channel. Her channel was subscribed to Loughner's before the shooting. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1316755/pg1 68.62.3.43 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Kelly

Google giffords site:votejessekelly.com.
Google's cache of votejessekelly.com ... kelly-places-crosshairs-squarely-rep-giffords Unfortunately the content was deleted when cached (8 Jan 2011 22:21:21 GMT), but the URL itself is interesting. Not stored on archive.org. "Material typically becomes available here 6 months after collection" try later ?
Or was that just a headline ?
and another ... which has a screenshot of the page linking to SVHerald.com
another blog ...

"Upcoming Events - Sat, 6/12/10 - Get on target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly"

Was blogged at the time - Pointing a 'Page Freshness Bookmarklet' at the image URL gives an http header 'last modified 06/12/2010 22:06:14' - Both June ! Screenshot on a blog ?
I suppose he gets away with deleting the content ?
Or is a local paper a reliable source ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:27, 10 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)

Yes, wide swath, but how the reactions are excerpted matters too. I often see, for example that when Obama's statements are boiled down on Wikipedia, they don't include his references to prayer or God. KeptSouth (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with bd2412. There's nothing wrong with giving an example (The President of the country being the most notable example I can think of in terms of an assault on a US Congresswoman)that helps demonstrate the wide breadth of reaction. They are not mutually exclusive things. This is the standard format on many articles...referring to the general, and then demonstrating it through specific example. To me there's not reason not to have example(s). Jbower47 (talk) 19:10, 10 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)

At best you could argue that Nazism and Fascism described a Third Position, between capitalism and socialism, but quickly devolved into right wing xenophobic nationalists with extremely conservative ideologies. Anything else is revisionism. --Rarian rakista (talk) 15:09, 10 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)

Having Ayn Rand and Animal Farm in your favorite book list doesn't exactly sound like an endorcement of communism.-Freepsbane (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, George Orwell was a socialist. His critique of the orthodox communists were based on their authoritarianism, and abandonment of their political ideals, as any sensible reading of Animal Farm should indicate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets' reign in a little on the speculation in any event. It's making an assumption to suppose that he ever read or understood any of these books in any case. --FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

True enough. Certainly a lot of the people who claim to have read Animal Farm can't have been paying much attention if they did. And Mein Kampf is notoriously unreadable for anyone but diehard fanatics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 10 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)

Zing!

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)

Yeah, early reports seem to make him out as more of a John Hinckley than a Lee Harvey Oswald. Kelly ^hi! 22:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's made it's way back into the body. You'll have to watch this, I expect people will try and paint him with either left or right brushes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.177.129 (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that, as much as both sides would love to paint him as the other, he was neither traditional red nor blue. He was nuts. Nuts doesn't have a color. Lets leave the politics out of it. That drive to pin it on the other guy is part of the divisive atmosphere that fuels this sort of thing. Unless there is a source that directly links his "politics" and his actions, then I think we simply describe him as deranged. Where he falls on the political spectrum is a job for the pundits, not an encyclopedia, unless it is directly relevant to his action.Jbower47 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"That drive to pin it on the other guy is part of the divisive atmosphere that fuels this sort of thing." Divisive politics causes paranoid schizophrenia? Who knew?

Otherwise, yeah. Crazy has no party affiliation. Yaush (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

left wing liberal

Does a random comment from someone who knew him four years ago belong in the body? Maybe as more biographical information becomes available we can document the history of the guy. Seems like a WP:BLP vio to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.177.129 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It says "politically radical loner" right now. I agree that we shouldn't make left/right assumptions about his political leanings, but radical seems safe. Gbraing (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've edited this to indicate that the source (the Telegraph) are reporting the claims of a supposed classmate, not that they are accepting them as necessarily true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Before it gets around to this article, there is a fake and debunked image circulating on the web purporting to show that Loughner is a registered Republican (apparently the Pima County registrar has confirmed that he has been registered as an independent since 2006). bd2412 T 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can this be verified either way? Not that it matters at this point, since political motivation has yet to be established as a causative factor for the incident, but if we have something we can directly cite and reference, we can pull the plug on some of the potential NPOV arguments. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Time to archive?

I have just noticed that the talk page here is 166,510 bytes and growing, is now a good time to archive some of the things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

can we tell the bot to archive every 30 hours or something like that? --Guerillero | My Talk 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We should. I just tried and for some reason it didn't work. At this point, 3 days is too long. Soon enough it'll be too short and it can be changed again. I'll try again now. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's best to under stand how archiving bots work - setting the archive time to 30 hours doesn't meant that the bot will archive every 30 hours, or that it will immediately archive every thread over 30 hours. Instead, the bot typically visits about once every 24 hours, and will then archive every thread that's gone over 30 hours without additional comments. In other words, setting archiving to 30 hours will result in a lot of material being archived in the next few days, but probably very little being archived immediately. If this page becomes completely unmanageable in the meantime, we could always manually archive some inactive threads where there's a more recent and active discussion, but it's probably best to just wait for the page to be cleared by the bot. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant to have it done that way, with inactive threads being archived sooner rather than later. If it indeed will run on 30 hours and not 3 days, as it currently says, the page should be fine when the archive bot comes. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do --Guerillero | My Talk 00:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to 30 hour archiving, since it will eliminate ongoing discussions in which no resolution has bee reached, There should be no archiving of any thread which has had any comment in the previous 5 days. Why the rush to hide ongoing discussions? Edison (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So undo the last round of archiving? A talk page of over 50 headings is far too long. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

30 hours is fine for a rapidly developing article. Realisticly most issues which haven't had any replies in 30 hours are usually no longer relevant (e.g. stuff about the second suspect). For any which are really still relevant but haven't been addressed since then, they can be brought back from the archive or started again. Note that reducing the talk page size of such very long pages such as this often increases not decreases discussion because with such long pages, most people just look at the few most recent posts and the few discussions which are ongoing but unresolved are usually lost in the mire of resolved discussions so most people don't see them and in fact there are often multiple discussions about the same thing because of that. Manually archiving may be an option but tends to lead to pointless arguments about whether something should have been archived/was resolved (and is anyone even volunteering?). As interest dies down, archiving time should be increased. P.S. I actually think 30 hours is probably too long, 24 hours should be fine. I expect the talk page will still be very long after the first round. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Threads should not be archived unless there has been no comment in five days. What motivates the desperation to conceal? Edison (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How about the fact that this is over 215,000 bytes, and loads slow for some people? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That does not create a problem for most editors, compared to the image of censorship of comment on this talk page by overzealous "archiving." Edison (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that archiving doesn't delete talk page comments? Nothing is censored. Pages as active as this one need frequent archiving until things slow down. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The desperation to make the page usable? As I've already explained, I'm not just referring to load times (which can be a problem) but that an unwieldy talk page where people end up having the same discussion in 3 different places and most people don't really read any of the active topics because they're buried in a mire of long dead issues is pretty useless. I guess the obvious question is it more important that we use the talk page for what it was intended, to improve the wikipedia article or is it more important we ignore its purpose and instead allow it to basically become unusable because a few wack jobs/trolls are going to scream 'censorship' when we try to keep things under control? Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Image of the crosshairs map

Should the crosshairs map be added to the article? I say yes but I'd like to see if there's been 1)a previous discussion 2)if not, what's the consensus here. Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 22:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

please See the two previous discussions --Guerillero | My Talk 22:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no conclusive consensus in either discussion, that's why I am bringing the issue here. Discussions seem also more pertinent to the map issue in general. If I missed something, please link me the relevant threads. Perhaps better if I open a RfC? --Cyclopia^talk 23:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would add it, it is is being talked about widespread in the media then it could have it's own section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is almost certainly a copyright issue with using the map. This has already been pointed out several times. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the WP:NFCC concerns. Using the image in the article also raises its profile, and goes against the BLP noticeboard consensus not to state or imply a link to the shooter. However, a reliable source with the image could be used as a citation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, the map is copyrighted but it could be used under fair use -there is quite clearly a case for FU. What specific concerns are there? About the BLP noticeboard consensus, I agree with it, absolutely, but since there is a blurb about the media involving the map into the issue, the map itself sounds like a reasonably useful illustration. --Cyclopia^talk 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The map has all kinds of issues with the WP:NFCC criteria, and it's not really necessary for understanding here. And it gives undue weight to the media's implication that Palin was somehow involved, which is problematic BLP-wise. Anyone who really wants to see it can follow the links to the sources. Kelly ^hi! 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the image itself, but I personally don't see much a problem with including a short blurb about Palin's tangential involvement with this incident. –MuZemike 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There already is one in the "Reactions" section. Kelly ^hi! 23:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I still don't accept that this deserves mention at all (I hate Palin but I also hate premature POV-pushing). Including the image is ridiculously undue. --FormerIP (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• At a news conference in Washington, Hoyer said people have yelled that Democratic lawmakers should be put on firing lines and posters have appeared with the faces of lawmakers in the crosshairs of a target. While not directly criticizing Republicans, Hoyer said that "any show of appreciation for such actions encourages such action." Gun imagery was used in a posting on the Facebook page of Sarah Palin urging people to organize against 20 House Democrats who voted for the health care bill and whose districts went for the John McCain-Palin ticket two years ago. Palin's post featured a U.S. map with circles and cross-hairs over the 20 districts. [..] In Tucson, Ariz., someone either kicked in or shot out a glass door and a side window at the congressional office of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords early Monday, a few hours after the House health care vote. Giffords voted for the bill.
  • Physical threats in aftermath of health vote Anonymous. Bennington Banner. Bennington, Vt.: Mar 24, 2010.
  • Associated Press writers David N. Goodman in Detroit, Dena Potter in Richmond, Va., Ben Dobbin in Rochester, N.Y., Mark Carlson in Phoenix and Laurie Kellman in Washington contributed to this report.
• Democrats also raised questions about some of the imagery and phrases being employed by Republicans against the Democratic architects and backers of the measure, noting that a Republican National Committee Web site urging supporters to fire Ms. Pelosi has her surrounded by flames. A Facebook page of Sarah Palin singling out Democratic members for defeat because of their votes defines their districts by the crosshairs of a weapon's sight.
  • After Health Vote, Democrats Are Threatened With Violence; [National Desk] Carl Hulse. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 25, 2010. pg. A.18
• It was Sarah Palin, the Eva Peron of the tea party crowd, who used Facebook to target 20 Democrats who voted for health care reform, indicating their districts' locations on a map with the crosshairs of a rifle scope. It was Palin who wrote on Twitter: "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead -- RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page."
  • Will the grown-ups please step up? Eugene Robinson. The Herald. Everett, Wash.: Mar 26, 2010.
• But who will tell Sarah Palin that it is not helpful, especially in light of recent events, to post a map on her Facebook page that puts crosshairs on 20 House Democrats in heavily Republican districts? Elisabeth Hasselbeck, conservative co-host on The View, called the imagery "despicable." Good for her. But she's not running for office.
  • Clarence Page: The right's anger could backfire San Gabriel Valley Tribune. West Covina, Calif.: Mar 29, 2010.
• Soon after, Sarah Palin came to town, stumping for John McCain. Her demagogic simplicity drove the crowd wild. Forget the "lame-stream" press, she said. Go with your gut. Palin did not call for blood. She is probably as careful with her weaponry as, say, Dick Cheney. But her gun imagery and raw appeal to ugly emotions are hair-raising. When she says her political adversaries are in her "crosshairs" and tells supporters to reload, not retreat, you have to wonder about whoever buys those .50 calibers.
  • Opinion: In America, "terror" is more than Al Qaeda Mort Rosenblum Global Post. Chatham: Apr 4, 2010.
• GOP candidates are outdoing themselves trying to woo the gun lobby these days, particularly over in Congressional District 8. Republican hopefuls Andy Goss and Brian Miller have raffled off weapons to raise money. Jonathan Paton is boasting the support of Tucson attorney and gun-rights activist Sandy Froman. District 26 House candidate Terri Proud posed with a group of women holding firearms. Jesse Kelly, meanwhile, doesn't seem to be bothered in the least by the Sarah Palin controversy earlier this year, when she released a list of targeted races in crosshairs, urging followers to "reload" and "aim" for Democrats. Critics said she was inciting violence. He seems to be embracing his fellow tea partier's idea. Kelly's campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." The event costs $50.
  • Her plot will unfold at council meetings Andrea Kelly, Rhonda Bodfield. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Jun 9, 2010.

The map was controversial well before the shootings, and some warned that it, and similar rhetoric, might lead to violence.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • I wonder if therefore it makes more sense to add it (and the sources/quotes you found) to the SarahPAC article. --Cyclopia^talk 01:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The old concerns and warnings might belong there. Note that these are all from before the shooting. There are dozens of references to the map after the shooting so it's clearly relevant here too. Getting back to the topic of the thread, I don't think we need to post the image so long as some of the cited sources have copies.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
      • • There already is a sourced mention of the controversy in the article - are you advocating expansion with even more opinion pieces on the controversy? And should we also expand with all the opinion journalists we can locate who call the map "controversy" partisan gamesmanship and exploitation of a tragedy? Kelly ^hi! 02:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm not advocating anything that I didn't write above. However, I think that all significant points of view should be included, with weight proportional to their prominence.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
            • It appears the article already does that. Kelly ^hi! 03:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
              • As the story evolves it's an ongoing process.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a historical image now that it is trying to be scrubbed by its original creators. Words and images have consequences and it must be shown that this was freely up and being promoted by SarahPAC until minutes after the attack. It deserves a place on this page. Even Giffords expressed concern about Palin's rhetoric and her using of cross-hairs on her district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonanaggie (talk • contribs) 03:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Jasonanaggie, Wikipedia's role is to consolidate information from other sources, not to teach lessons on responsibility. For the record, I do support inclusion of the image, as it has been heavily discussed in the wake of this incident and is decidedly relevant to any description of its media coverage, but only because it enhances comprehension of the topic, not because it "deserves" to be vilified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.120.5 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've once again removed the image of the map from the article. Kelly ^hi! 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Clearly there is no connection between the picture and the shooting so unless any connection is made there is no place for it in this article , it would be undue and against NPOV. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict) (Coming from the image for deletion discussion). What is this about "it could cause violence" and stuff, this map is already spread over the internet by newspaper websites, with journalists commenting on it. Clearly we shou

• • • What we have to discuss is whether the map has encyclopedic relevance, and if it there is critical commentary about it. Plenty of newpapers have covered the removal of the map and the usage of the type of crosshairs that are used in gun sights google news search. It's already sourced to the New York Times and the CNN, and it was also covered in places like Daily Mail[9], Sydney Morning Herald[10], Msnbc [11]. Slate magazine is reporting that Bob Brady wants to create new legislation for the specific purpose of forbiding stuff like this map[12] brady google search. A Palin's aide has claimed that they were surveyor symbols, and newspapers are reporting on a tweet made by Palin the same day that the map was posted [13] (The Atlantic). If the problem is the lack of critical commentary, then there are sources to write up at least a couple or three sentences, almost a whole paragraph. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• - not here - totally undue, there is nothing at all to say the picture has anything to do with the shooting, which is what this article is actually about - I suggest if users want to write about this they create an article for it - Aggression and violent rhetoric in American partisan politics - Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There are lots of newspapers articles commenting on the map in relationship to the shooting, that's the basis for including it here. And nobody is saying that the map caused or influenced the shootings, that's just a straw man argument. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Hey, guess what, today I bought the paper edition of Spanish El País because of a promotion they are making, and it shows the crosshair map in page 3 in the middle of the article about the shooting. The caption says "THE TARGETS OF PALIN. Sarah Palin published in 2010 a list of democrat congressists who voted the reform of Sanity and whose legislative seats [she] considered easily recoverable. Gabrielle Giffords appears in the list, the forth by the left". --Enric Naval (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what has it got to do with the this shooting? Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a primary, explicit focus of the reactions to the shooting. That is all the connection it needs to be included in that section. I'm not experienced at introducing images to Wiki articles, but would someone please do that, pending an actual rebuttal to my and others' arguments in favor of its inclusion? Thanks. - Drlight11 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have consensus to add it to this article at this time. I'm leaning towards saying it should be shown, but I understand the POV of those who want to keep it out. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a legitimate BLP or NFCC issue here. Although weight and relevance are reasonable concerns with any factual content, the arguments in favor of excluding it seem to rest on misguided applications BLP and POV, and I think can be fairly discounted when considering consensus. This article, like all articles about events, addresses not only the causal chain of events leading to and emanating from the events, but their cultural and political impact, wider context, and so on. There is no reasonable doubt that the shooting has lead to a lot of public discussion of the image in the context of incivility and inflammatory rhetoric in politics, and the sourcing on that is rock solid. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't agree that the BLP and POV arguments can be "discounted", they've been contended here, on WP:BLPN and elsewhere. Kelly ^hi! 22:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And found inapplicable. Certainly the image could be included in a POV or BLP-violating way, but covering well-reported facts that are the subject of an enormous amount of public discourse in a neutral, responsible way is what the encyclopedia is all about. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Found inapplicable by whom? Kelly ^hi! 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The community. I haven't followed the POV discussions, but certainly the prevailing sentiment on the BLP board is that mentioning Palin's map is not a BLP violation against Palin. That's pretty obvious. The POV concern is just as obvious. It's clear that Palin's map is a significant though not overriding issue in the coverage of the shootings. Assessing that for its POV implications is itself an exercise in setting POV. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Um yeah - there's some kind of consensus for mentioning the media criticism of Palin, which now exists in the article, and is pretty much NPOV as it exists right now. There's absolutely not a consensus for making any kind of explicit connection or giving undue weight to the conspiracy theory, which including the image would do. Kelly ^hi! 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who's suggesting that. What's relevant is that the media discussion of the crosshairs map is a significant part of the overall reaction to the shooting. Indeed, there have been some who criticized her as helping to create the environment of intolerance that they speculate enabled the shooter, and some angry renunciations of that. Going into that much detail in this article is probably undue weight, but merely mentioning that the map has been discussed in the aftermath of the video is not. One further note, my comment about discounting inapplicable opinions is intended to apply to our long-range decision on whether to include the image. In the short run, there are enough voices of disagreement that repeatedly inserting and deleting it is just plain edit warring... there's no rush here. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also many sources that suggest people are exploiting the incident to score political points and silence opposition, some of which are included in the article now. And no, your assertion of consensus about including/not including the image is incorrect, as is discussed in multiple threads (!) on this page. However, I do agree there is no rush - there should be a wait until the true motives of the alleged killer are better known and the speculation/political gamesmanship is put behind us. In the meantime, we don't need to be reinforcing media feedback loops or causing potential harm to the subject of a Wikipedia BLP. Kelly ^hi! 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the media stirred a debate about that image, and we ought to report that. That the image has actually a connection is irrelevant to the point, what is relevant is that sources are talking about that, in one way or the other. --Cyclopia^talk 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The media talks about Palin endlessly, it doesn't make it encyclopedic. Not long ago, normally respectable outlets were blathering about whether or not she had breast augmentation. I remember an incident from 2009 where the New York Times actually claimed in a straight news story that her hair was falling out, which was famously disputed by her Wasilla hairdresser. The otherwise reputable Atlantic Monthly employs a guy, Andrew Sullivan, who endlessly spins out theories that Palin's youngest son is actually Bristol Palin's child. Just because the media blathers about something Palin doesn't mean it has to be given any weight in our encyclopedia. Kelly ^hi! 00:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

While true, the crosshairs map and those examples are not directly comparable. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but it was intended as an example of that, just because sources talk about Palin, it doesn't automatically make it encyclopedic. There's a reason Talk:Sarah Palin has over 60 archive pages. I imagine the Barack Obama editors have the same issues with Birthers and other POV-pushers. Kelly ^hi! 00:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a big difference between people decrying the use of violent imagery and metaphors in political speech, and those subscribing to the fringe birther theory. Indeed, the media has commented that anti-tea partiers, anti-Palinites, and others are taking the shooting as a political opportunity, and/or using inflammatory rhetoric and incivility to complain about inflammatory rhetoric and incivility in the political process. And they have also reported that commentators and politicians are making those comments. All of this is part of the political discourse. We shouldn't let Wikipedia be a step in that feedback loop, but if there is a media feedback loop and it's noteworthy, then it's something we can cover like anything else we cover. True, some of that stuff is a short little whirlwind that dies down and gets forgotten soon after the event. Other types of heated debate get remembered. The farther we go in that direction, the less it has to do with this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from - if there is Wikipedia coverage to be had here, it's likely in an article about the American media, not a particular criminal act. Kelly ^hi! 01:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of reaction section with blockquotes

Is there a reason that particular reactions are being expanded with blockquotes in the reaction section? This should be trimmed down to brief summaries, as it stood until recently, since there are reactions from so many people. Kelly ^hi! 00:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the whole section should be reduced to 3-4 sentences, do we really need to confirm that every Congressman thinks it is criminal and wishes a speedy recovery? January82011 (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A teacher's review

I primarily review articles. If I comment, I don't try to edit them to avoid a conflict of interest.

Several points.

1. Consider NOT naming the victims, except the judge and the congresswoman. There was a lengthy debate about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2009_Washington_Metro_train_collision where it was decided that the nine dead would not be named. You have to be consistent in Wikipedia. Inconsistency is very bad.

2. There is debate about mentioning the location. See the Bartow, Florida article where addresses are permitted. However, I would not name the addresses but rather the intersection since it did not happen in Safeway. Walgreens was in the same area. Adding the intersection is a good addition to the article.

3. Be very careful with comments like "Giffords was placed into a medically induced coma to allow her brain to rest." Doctors should help write this or we risk sounding like uninformed laymen. Brain to rest? Similarly, "Since the shooting took place in Casas Adobes, an unincorporated area outside of Tucson city limits, the city police do not have jurisdiction" is commentary and be very careful not to have original research (a Wikipedia jargon term).

4. The big thing about the reactions is that there is literally multi-state and international comments. This should be emphasized, not the specific quotes of politician A or B.

5. Careful not to overdo Palin. This is hot news but may not be encyclopedic.

6. According to Dr. Peter M. Rhee of the medical center needs to be fixed. It's not quite right.

Good luck. TeacherA (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However, I see little point in attaching any particular significance to them. If you wish to argue for changes to an article, you should base your arguments on Wikipedia policy, not on subjective judgements, regardless of who makes them. This is a rapidly-evolving article, and as such is unlikely to be as well-constructed as one might like. The best way to improve such articles is via active participation, not 'reviews'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the grump. Things will get ironed out when the situation stabilizes. For now we're keeping up with the evolving situation. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Map of Arizona

Can anyone come up with a map that shows Tucson as a city in the U.S.? The article is for English speakers, but many English speakers from the U.K., Australia or elsewhere may not recognize the shape of the state of Arizona or it's counties. It would be good to also have a map of where Tucson is in the U.S. or in the world. WriterHound (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I will try to accommodate that request in a few minutes. Sswonk (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool!

WriterHound (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Title discussion renewed

From my perspective of having followed this story for a day and half from the U.S. east coast, I feel that it is time to start a new discussion about the title. I find the current title was "good enough" for the time period prior to charges being brought today. But, since federal charges were announced today, it is clear that the event is characterized as more than a shooting. It has been firmly established to have happened in Casas Adobes, outside Tucson. It happened in 2011 and it is customary to use such a style, as in 1993 shootings at CIA Headquarters or 7 July 2005 London bombings. However, I believe reliable sources are now focusing on the true nature of the shootings: a hybrid of an attempted political assassination similar to the Reagan assassination attempt and a massacre of innocents similar to the Dunblane massacre but closer in some respects to the United States Capitol shooting incident (1954) and the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre because it seems unlikely the gunman intended to kill himself as in Dunblane, but was both politically motivated and deranged.

Before readers of the above start to immediately find any dissimilarities from this event to each of those tragedies and begin to argue against what I have written, please stop: I am only suggesting that the current title is now obviously geographically inaccurate and not clear enough and should be revised. I am not offering any one of those listed as a model. But I do feel that the charges and what reliable sources are now focusing on suggests a move toward mentioning Gabrielle Giffords in the title as she was the first target of the shooter who then targeted other people at an event she was hosting. As I write this, the focus in news sources is on the attack being on Giffords. That is also what the evidence disclosed so far points to, although that released is subject to the focus of the people prosecuting the case being brought. It is not however up to us to dig further than what the reliable sources are all saying, and that is that this was an attempted assassination of Giffords and an attack on her event, combined.

So, I am leaving this here not to look for an immediate new title but to try to start the search for one with the goal of changing from the geographic to a motive-based focus in the title as are the reliable sources. What comes to mind are titles such as Gabrielle Giffords shooting or Giffords assassination attempt. Sswonk (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is still only supposition that Giffords was the intended target. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• According to court documents filed in the United States District Court in Phoenix, the authorities seized evidence from Mr. Loughner’s home showing that he had planned to kill Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was in critical condition on Sunday with a gunshot wound to the head. Tony M. Tayler Jr., an F.B.I. special agent, said in an affidavit supporting the charges that an envelope was found there with the handwritten words “I planned ahead,” ”My assassination” and “Giffords.”Other details about the envelope were not disclosed.[14]

It looks like evidence is piling up that Gifford was the intended target.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is supposition, I won't argue that but I am referring to the shift in focus of news sources from geographic titles, it is obvious this was an attack on her. At any rate, there is no deadline, but our current title is not entirely accurate: the shooting occurred outside Tucson[15]. We should at least start thinking about changing the title. Sswonk (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think an obvious title for the article will become clear eventually. There's no need to have constant to discussions and no need to jump from imperfect title to imperfect title until then. --FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The geographic indicator is slightly incorrect. Perhaps 2011 Tucson area shooting would be slightly more accurate, but there is no pressing need to address this. People around the country have heard this described as a Tucson event. bd2412 T 02:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The more common name, even if it contains a technical error, is preferred. I agree with FormerIP that we shouldn't move the article from a usable name until we know we have a better one.   Will Beback  talk  02:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How to keep that from happening though? I agree, and that is what I meant by WP:TIND and my last paragraph initially, "try to start the search for one…" I think though that new title sections such as this one are going to start reappearing from time to time anyway, maybe keep all the discussion here in this section, in one place. Maybe some sort of {{Editnotice}} or other. The TOC here is getting lengthy with all the topics. No worries, just seeing an inaccuracy and a chance to work on fixing it. Sswonk (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, though, I definitely think the focus of any new title should not be tweaking the location which is slightly inaccurate but since it is any change in the title should focus on the attempt on the life of Gabrielle Giffords and/or her event. Sswonk (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If and when it's confirmed she was the target, beyond any reasonable doubt, I support moving this page to Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt. Until then, this is fine and I don't see a need to parse the location as "Tucson area". --Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree I have heard the name 2011 Arizona massacre being used, with respect to the other victims the title should not be just about one person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia hardly ever titles recent incidents as "massacres". (The only recent example I can think of is the Virginia Tech massacre, with 33 dead.) Even the Fort Hood shooting, where 13 people were killed and 30 were injured, is currently titled a "shooting," and there were more dead there than here. Same with the Hartford Distributors shooting, with nine dead. Of course, we should title the article based on how the media report on it, but "massacre" is reserved for only the most horrific of events. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Giffords assassination attempt works best. Every media story I've seen refers to her as the target, and that's the standard we should use. Capt. Colonel (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes but the media is not referring it to that and what do you mean by not horrific enough? how horrific does it have to be by wiki's standards to be called a massacre? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The standard we should use is whatever will be the enduring common name. Until then... --FormerIP (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, just my current two cents on the matter though. I am all for keeping the title as is until a new title comes into the light. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Within Arizona, the area where the incident occurred is referred to as North Tucson, even though it is not in the jurisdiction of Tucson proper. The area is part of the Tucson metropolitan area, and in fact, the Tucson, Arizona article refers to the intersection of Oracle and Ina (which is where the attack happened) as North Tucson. That said, the media is shifting more and more to calling this an assassination attempt, so I would too support a move to Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt, as the congresswoman was the target of the attack per the FBI. (Reagan was not the only victim of his attempted murder, so I do not consider that name to be disrespectful to the other victims, who were targeted because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a move of not engaging in nit-picking arguments about article titles every few hours. It doesn't matter, people can find the Wikipedia article anyway. Please ignore the label, and concentrate on the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As trite as the topic has become, that doesn't mean that potential names cannot be discussed. It just means there is no hurry to make any moves. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I was one of the first to say that the title is bad and should be changed. I did not advocate my choice but mentioned possible key points, like assassination attempt, maybe Safeway, etc. However, some (like Titoxd and Knowledgekid87) were loudly opposed. There is now ample evidence that the suspect did not target Judge Roll. It seems that "Giffords assassination attempt" is the most likely good title, far better than 2011 Tucson shootings. There are many possibilities far better than the current title. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Supposed American Renaissance connection

American Renaissance specifically denies that Loughner ever had anything to do with them; see [16] [17]. They also say the supposed "leaked Homeland Security memo" is actually by local law enforcement. Given the denials, it is not appropriate to try to link them with Loughner, any more than it is appropriate to try to link Loughner to Palin, or call him a "left-winger", "right-winger", etc. If there's a connection, it will come out in plain terms eventually. Until then, that material needs to stay out of the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Every big investigation has leads that aren't productive. This may be one of those cases. Since there are so many more relevant issues this should be minimized or left out until there is actual evidence of a connection.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the difference between this and the Palin case is that here the memo (or, more to the point, the secondary sources - various major news sources now) make the explicit suggestion of a link, not mere speculation as in the Palin case (and the Palin stuff went in anyhow). So it is appropriate. Denials may also be appropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

American Renaissance is not considered a reliable source, so if multiple sources say the link there is no reason why it shouldn't belong. Freepsbane (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there are multiple sources asserting a connection, only a purported memo uncovered by Fox News. We can leave it in now and delete it later if nothing more comes to light.   Will Beback  talk  02:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No that's wrong. It's all over the place now. Do a Google news search. --FormerIP (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources state that a possible connection between Loughner and American Renaissance has been suggested, we can report this. If reliable sources state that American Renaissance have denied any connection between Loughner and themselves, we can report that too. Id say for this purpose, the Fox News article was a sufficiently reliable source (if there aren't others) - we don't need to link the American Renaissance site, as a primary source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pure speculation that's found everywhere is still pure speculation, and we have at least a credible suggestion that the reporting gets basic facts wrong. If there's a clearer link established, I have no issue with that link being mentioned in the article, but the material as currently presented shouldn't be there. Having said that, I removed the material three times already and will not remove it a fourth. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pure speculation found everywhere is verifiable and noteworthy speculation. In any case, the substantive fact here is that a memo suggests a link. That doesn't appear to be speculation of any kind. --FormerIP (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think what American Renaissance claims is more reliable than the DHS and myriad of news groups that have reported on it that’s fine. But it doesn’t mean you can just treat is as if their denial somehow makes what the DHS and media have said not exist; there is no justification for blanking the sources. If you believe their denial is relevant then you can just find a source for it and write it in. - Freepsbane (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Check my work please --Guerillero | My Talk 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The text looks just fine to me. Freepsbane (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, the longest article I've seen on this is at the Christian Science Monitor American Renaissance: Was Jared Lee Loughner tied to anti-immigrant group?.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just an update on this: DHS confirms that they never wrote any such memo or made this supposed connection [18]. Again, I will not be removing that section any more - but it ought to be removed. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That source also says: The official cautions it's conceivable that a law enforcement official got unofficial info from a DHS official somewhere along the lines of what Fox reported. So this doesn't seem to be an outright denial, just a denial that this is their official position. --FormerIP (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of alleged perpetrator

I feel the article deserves a picture of the alleged perpetrator of the attack as well as freely available pictures of the victims of the shooting.

The most appropriate picture freely available of the alleged perpretrator is here: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_91db5db4-1b74-11e0-ba23-001cc4c002e0.html

That site also gives about the best background on him of any out there.

Those of the victims are touchier. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a copyvio from a Tucson newspaper. Do not object to a photo of him, but there are a couple of social media photos which would be legally less problematic. --FormerIP (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Westroads Mall shooting, a non-free photo would be problematic because he is alive and a free image could be eventually obtained. Especially since he's apparently in federal custody, which means his eventual mug shot will be in the public domain. Kelly ^hi! 03:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you post links? This picture is from social media that the Tuscon newspaper used, I just gave the article to prove that the picture is indeed the individual in question.

It would be good to get consensus of which picture is the most appropriate, since it seems that people are very protective of images posted to this page. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, a non-free image would likely be challenged/deleted as a violation of WP:NFCC#1. Kelly ^hi! 03:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone that nobody has been tried and convicted yet? I've taken the liberty of adding 'alleged' to other peoples' posts, per WP:BLP and common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work, you're absolutely right. Kelly ^hi! 04:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I've just had to do this again. Can I remind people that talk pages are bound by the same Wikipedia rules (and libel laws etc) as article pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

...And yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

References and citation tags

I have been trying to add citation tags (__cite news__) to various URL-only and bot-generated references that already exist (while at the same time being careful to avoid edit conflicts), but my revisions have been undone twice. What gives? -Mardus (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably the answer is just edit/revert conflicts on a heavily-edited page. For bare URL references, please do replace them with a formatted citation. We seem to mostly be using the {{cite foo}} style of template, so I'd go ahead with that. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There was one case where there was an intenational revert with a nonsensical explanation of "We're not going to proceed by pinning the blame on various contradictory vague political labels suggested on the internet. Okay, most probably we are, but let's try not to for as long as we can.", so I became confused. I guess some people push through their changes despite an editing conflict. -Mardus (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

the more careful editors will work in the changes with edit conflicts. More impatient people will just copy-paste "Your text" and paste it into the new version, essentially a revert if someone else edited between that time. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mardus - that edit summary was me objecting to inclusion in the article of "he was left wing" "no he was right wing" POV-pushing, rather than anything about the style of citation. --FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't include Loughner's political views, just added a citation tag to the reference. -Mardus (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Understand that, and not accusing you of POV pushing. But, obviously, if I'm going to remove the POV content, I also need to remove the citation, that's all. --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

---

In addition I hope for the article to be protected again from newly-registered users, because there was at least one user reworking some references, where one ugly example of style is not separating |parameters=values and |next_parameters=values from each other with a space, which does not help usability both in the textarea (depending on browser used) and when comparing revisions, where such use yields too many horizontal scrollbars. -Mardus (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

High school dropout or not?

The article says Jared is a HS graduate, and provides a reference that seems to imply this, but this article http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/09/arizona.shooting.investigation/index.html?hpt=T1 explicitly says that not only did he drop out, but that he was only in college because of a program targeting dropouts. Clearly our sources themselves are not perfectly reliable this quickly (a lesson we should all remember for this and future events), but in the meantime, does anyone have a source with more concrete proof? - DrLight11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.120.5 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All sources I have heard and read have cited that he is a high school dropout and then tried junior college.Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner article reopened

For those who do not know the article has been reopened: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 10 After only 4 comments and 2 or so hours passing by. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation of assassination attempt of giffords specifically

NYtimes confirms that loughner acted in an attempt to assassinate giffords specifically (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/politics/10giffords.html?_r=1&hp), I think that the title should be changed to reflect this, possibly "2011 assassination attempt of Senator Gabrielle Giffords" or maybe something a little shorter, especially because the "tuscon shooting" aspect of the title now seems really uninformative. Although there were other victims of great significance, the occurrence of this attack at her rally by a person specifically targeting the senator makes her the focus of the news regarding this event. Attwell (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be extremely erroneous, in that she isn't a senator!! Giffords is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. And that title would belittle the deaths of the five other people - best to leave it under the more general heading. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I feel that when trhe time is right a few new title suggestions are going to come in, when they do I suggest a consensus discussion on the matter as there will more than likely be more than one suggestion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite all the media reports, this - along with the question of who was shot first - is still a matter of some debate and WP:ALLEGED becomes involved. The authorities seem to believe that Giffords was the primary target, but at the moment the article's title is suitable, as many other people were shot and killed, including a senior judge.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary measurement (distance)

Right now miles is used as the main form of distance. The International Standard for measurement is kilometers which is now the secondary unit of measurement on this article. I would propose that these two be switched. Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not use both? here in America people are not used to KM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are templates that do automatic conversions based on user preferences but I don't have experience in using them. Kelly ^hi! 05:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that it is an English wiki I feel both should be used if KM is to be included. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is America, and we use miles. KM should be presented as secondary. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• See the template {{convert}}. Kelly ^hi! 05:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It was a simple question because the IU standard for distance is KM. If everyone wants to keep miles as the main unit, I guess it can stay technically unstandard for readers sake. Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The primary unit for the article should be the mile. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Which units to use. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Titoxd, Thanks for clarifying which unit standard is preferred. I truly appreciate it! Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder, why was this discussion begun? There was only one trivial mention of miles/kilometers in the entire article, and the convert template was already being used.KeptSouth (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh because the question was not about the convert template? The original question was from someone apparently unfamiliar with policy (and very likely the convert template if even templates at all) who acknowledged that both were presented but felt that km should be the preferred/main unit. Now that the reasoning/guidelines has been pointed out to them, they have agreed that it should be kept the way it is. In articles of high interest like this, it isn't uncommon to get well meaning editors fairly unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines who are confused by stuff we do because it seems odd to them. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Shooter's Attorney

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/09/Federal-charges-filed-in-Giffords-shooting/UPI-71351294553135/ The Shooter is going to be represented during the arraignment by Judy Clarke. Clarke is known for representing the Unabomber, among other things. It is unknown if she's going to represent him after the arraignment. Zenmastervex (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this information, what is being questioned to be added? All media, Conservative, Liberal and Neutral is in agreement that Judy Clarke is going to be the public defender appointed to the defendant. I agree from all sources so far that it is unknown whether or not she will be present at the at the principal arraignment of guilt(It is almost unquestionable that the position of the defendant will be non-guilty to all charges; federal and state). She, however, is a supreme defence attorney, and will be shielding the defendant against the death penalty as she has done in the past for other high profile defendants. Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

and yet again, I've had to add 'alleged' to talk page comments. What part of 'trial before conviction' do people not understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to courts, not to encyclopedias. That said, the accused is still a living person and BLP applies.   Will Beback  talk  08:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm just saying he hasn't been found guilty. Or even appeared in court. This has little to do with legal niceties, and a great deal to do with facts. Even the most corrupt and arbitrary legal systems hold the trial first, and then convict. It isn't Wikipedias job to get there first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's going to be incredibly awkward and stifling if we have to keep adding "alleged" whenever we talk about the man. Besides that, from a legal standpoint, that's not even enough to cover ourselves. We would probably be saying "The attorney for the man who police say killed six people." Anyhow, I'm here because smoeone already added his name to List of mass murderers by number of victims. Someone please watch that article and various related ones. Link only to this article, do not put his name down. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry i wasn't very clear, I was merely passing along information. I try not to edit so much, since I'm relatively new to WP articles and edits. My actual question is this: Since the arraignment is part of the trial, shouldn't we now add a topic labeled Trial and begin with the arraignment information? Or is it too soon to get to that? Thanks. Zenmastervex (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there word of his insanity out yet

Checking out this guy's videos and whatnot... this guy definitely was bat**** crazy. Any word of this in the media yet? 65.95.106.242 (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article. In March 2010, a man was arrested for making a death threat against Eric Cantor in a YouTube video.[19][20]. The problem is that if the police had to arrest everyone who posted videos with crazy political views on YouTube, they might soon find they had little time left for anything else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

He was removed from community college for being a disturbance and refused the mental wellness check that would've let him return. His mental health is going to be a big point of contention during the trial. Don't expect a widely accepted diagnosis anytime soon. Jb 007clone (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Globe and Mail quote

The Globe and Mail quote is accurately cited [21], but somewhat vague and inaccurate itself. There have been other political shootings in the USA since the attack on Reagan in 1981 [22], but the attack on Giffords is the first on a national politician and the first on a woman. The article should reflect this, or it might be better to remove the GAM quote altogether.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to be WP:BOLD and remove this quote, because it is not accurate enough. The shooting of Giffords is the first attack to receive massive worldwide media coverage since the Reagan attack in 1981. Would anyone object to removing this quote, or going back to the previous more accurate wording that she was the first national politician to be shot since 1981?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Because of the shock this event has generated, lots of people are going to try to be the first ones to write about it. This allows inaccurate points, theories based on opinion, and contradiction between sources. One problem, is the way this article explains so clearly she survived, but did not make it apparent the bullet damaged her brain until you read further. I have not idea why this could be so, but for the many Wikipedia readers who don't read the whole article, this is completely misleading. Another is the motive, the shooter, apparently supporting communism and possibly anarchy, gave a huge reason for sources to write about possible motives. Sources stated the shooting was directly related to his ideology, which is completely understandable, as even I would claim that if I wrote about it without evidence for it. However, many sources state that Gabrielle Giffords was in no way known to be notably against communism, and some sources state she was merely know for supporting abortion and being in favor of the health plan. Also, the part about Sarah Palin needs to be less confusing, less any reader picks it up that she was responsible.173.180.214.13 (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a saying about too many chefs spoiling the broth. In addition, the news is contradicting itself on many cases. We're doing the best we can to keep things accurate, but with confusion in the sources, that's getting difficult. If you see anything that can be fixed, fix it. Otherwise, when things settle down the news sources will iron out their mistakes. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

...And if one wants to see an example of "inaccurate points, theories based on opinion, and contradiction between sources", read what '173.180.214.13' has just written, and compare to the evidence from multiple sources on what the alleged shooter's politics were - i.e. all over the place, rather than specifically left-wing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Murder

As an attorney, I find it absurd that some editors are contending that this can not be categorized as "murder" absent a legal finding. If that were the case, then we would have to say that John F. Kennedy, Richard J. Daronco (a federal judge who was shot to death in his yard, after which the shooter immediately committed suicide), Nicole Brown Simpson, and all of the victims of the Zodiac Killer were not murdered, because no person has been convicted of murder in any of those cases. The victims of this incident are dead, and reliable sources inform us that this was not by accident. That is enough to call this murder under the law, whether a conviction is obtained for the crime or not. bd2412 T 15:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed I think that the category murder applies here, the people who died were not accidently shot, they were murdered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but WP:ALLEGED is an important guideline. The main body of the article should report on the specific charges that have been filed against Loughner in order to comply with this policy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My issue is with this edit - removing "murder" categories on the basis that there has been no legal finding. Compare Nicole Brown Simpson, in a "murder" category, despite the fact that no one has ever been convicted of a crime in relation to her death. bd2412 T 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree: Wikipedia is neutral, which is not a requirement for, nor desirable for attorneys. We need some external source to claim it while adhering to the WP:ALLEGED pinpointed by ♦IanMacM♦. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

BD2412, I am not a lawyer, but I know that your definition of murder (in a legal sense) is very much incorrect. Killings in war are not murder. Suicide is not murder. Euthanasia is not murder. And, most importantly for this case (and again, IANAL, and my understanding of US law is limited), the insanity defense can as fas as I know prevent a homicide from being legally called a murder.
In my opinion, we should not ever anticipate any court findings as long as a court session is pending. If judicial proceedings aren't to be expected (since e.g. the suspect is dead) then it might be appropriate to see how current reliable sources are labeling an event, but I'd still prefer to keep it as neutral as possible. To solve the problem of categorization I'd propose to rename/broaden the categories to collect all homicides (there already are a couple of homicide articles in that category).
Amalthea 17:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Loughner is a "murderer", the issue is whether the six people who were shot to death were "murdered" - if the killer is acquited by reason of insanity, we don't say, well it turns out the victim wasn't murdered after all. If it's sources we need, " Tucson tragedy: Jared Lee Loughner charged in Rep. Giffords shooting, docs reveal he planned ahead, stating: "Jared Lee Loughner will be in court Monday in Arizona to face attempted assassination and homicide charges, but his motive for the mass murder in Tucson remains elusive"; and Murdered Judge Sought to Talk With Giffords About Court Caseload. bd2412 T 17:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

De-Wikipedia has the following rule for categorization as "murder victim": people, where a court of law found their killing to be an act of murder, or whose killing is recognized as an act of murder in historical or legal literature. This allows to call the killing of Nicole Brown Simpson or the killings of Jack the Ripper "murders".

A rule like the above would not find the case at hand a murder: we have only a very few reliable sources calling it murder, while most reliable sources seem to make sure to avoid any such legal terms at this point; the great majority call it "Tucson Shooting", some say "Tucson Tragedy", and a few "Tucson attack" or "Tucson massacre". Sources need to be judged, and the few that call the act "assassination" or "murder" are in light of that not enough to source such a claim. Calling it murder now is thus, at this point, not verifiable, even though it almost certainly will be in the future (WP:CRYSTAL). At least that's my interpretation. :) Amalthea 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

War casualties and suicides are edge cases specifically recognized by law as that. Euthanasia is in a very murky gray area, and several convictions for murder have occurred due to that (see Jack Kevorkian). The deaths in this case are nowhere near those edge cases. These are murders. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The victims were undoubtedly murdered. Loughner is typically listed as the alleged murderer, though, because he has not been convicted. Reywas92^Talk 17:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bullet direction?

"Daniel Hernandez Jr., an intern for Giffords, applied pressure to the entrance wound on Giffords's forehead..." "The entry wound was at the back of Giffords' head and the bullet had exited through the front..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Doctors so far have all stated that the direction was back to front. Hernandez could be mistaken as, and correct me if I'm wrong, he didn't actually see her get shot, but rushed to her in the aftermath. Jb 007clone (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have listened to the ABC interview described in the Sydney newspaper. I heard no mention by Hernandez of an "entry wound". I think the newspaper made an unwarranted assumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help posting photo

I want to post a photo that I shot at the crime scene. How can I do that? The article seems to be locked. Steve Karp (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Steve!
You need to upload your picture first. Go to commons:Special:Upload to upload it to the central media repository. Once you've done that feel free to write another message here so that someone can insert it in an appropriate spot.
Oh, and make sure that you fill out all those copyright questions the upload form will ask. If you have taken it yourself then that will be very easy.
Cheers, Amalthea 17:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Go here for the photo: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gabrielle_Giffords_shooting_scene_A.jpg

Suggested caption: Crime scene about two hours after the attack, showing the tables and "Gabrielle Giffords, United States Congress" banner used for the constituent meeting. Photo by Steve Karp. Steve Karp (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Added. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reactions/political commentary.

I've noticed that the reactions section seems to be expanding/devolving into accusations from both sides. What I mean is that while people have been making speculations as to motives behind/influencing the shooter and also to the current heated rhetoric, we've also been seeing knee jerk reactions from those being accused accusing the opposite side for being worse. My thinking is to both split all that off from the reactions section and then possibly write a neutral section that highlights the situation in general without pointing out one side or another. I recommend this because if you single out statements, say for example: against Palin, then Palin supporters will knee jerk react by pointing to the left, and so on and so on until it dissolves into a nasty fight. I feel that is the only way to treat it neutrally. Brothejr (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but the quote from Giffords about Palin is relevant in so far as reactions at this point have involved a discussion on the heated political climate and the Giffords quote has been cited by many news outlets in their reactions. Not including it for fear of some 'political retribution' would be irresponsible. Jb 007clone (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

But Sarah Palin represents a very specific type of the "heated rhetoric", that present on the conservative side of the spectrum. Including the reference to Palin's "crosshairs" but not to Kos' "bullseyes" makes it seem as if the possibly problematic rhetoric was only coming from one side of the spectrum, and smacks of POV. Wikipedia content should not be dictated by the editorial decisions of news outlets. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's about context. Palin's crosshairs are referenced specifically because Giffords referenced them and the media has discussed this in their reactions. Including Kos' 'bullseyes' simply to 'balance' things out, even though they have not widely been referenced by the media or by Giffords specifically is irresponsible and unnecessary. --Jb 007clone (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Brotherj's point. Split off into "political debate" section or whatever. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree on splitting. Make it shorter instead. Use WP:UNDUE to weight the number of arguments, reduce the use of names and newpapers associated with each comment. Abductive (reasoning) 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I tentatively agree but that should be probably hashed out on the talk page rather than direct edits to the article, since the current version seems relatively stable (or as much as it can be). But it should definitely reference the arguments from both sides. Kelly ^hi! 21:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that too, and disagree with splitting this off. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

More statements

Joe Pitts released a statement at:

• "Pitts Statement on Congresswoman Giffords." Joe Pitts. January 8, 2011

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reaction: References

To improve legibility, I removed some superfluous superscript references that were placed after every name of a U.S. politician and positoned a superscript reference after a group of people, where instead of

person's name,^[xx] person's name,^[xx] person's name,^[xx] person's name,^[xx] person's name,^[1x] person's name,^[1x] person's name,^[1x]

to this:

person's name, person's name, person's name, person's name;^[xx] person's name, person's name, person's name, person's name;^[1x]

and so on. -Mardus (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reaction area

It says "In 2010 her office was vandlized.."

I do not understand if it was 2010 or 2011. --Hinata talk 18:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Fixed, specified its contents. --Hinata talk 18:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Gun Crosshairs"

Someone needs to fix this as guns don't have crosshairs. Gun scopes have crosshairs but not guns themselves. So in our effects not to look ignorant can we please update this? (Savagemic (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

A bit pedantic here, true, it is the scope that has the crosshairs, but there is nothing substantially wrong with the phrase "gun crosshairs".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gun's crosshairs would be more accurate, but I think most people understand the meaning.Jb 007clone (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm wondering if the section should contain some mention that the images weren't intended as crosshairs at all, according to the Palin camp.[23] Kelly ^hi! 18:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's highly unlikely that they really were supposed to be 'surveyor's sights' given Palin's motto of 'Don't retreat, reload'. Chalk the link up to damage control/spin. 18:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, but it constitutes original research on your part. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords herself called them gun crosshairs.[24] So has everybody, except of course the Palin people since Saturday. It's not OR to refer to them as crosshairs. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Had the Palin camp suggested they weren't crosshairs when the issue was first raised by Giffords, they might have a valid case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying to remove references calling them crosshairs, just that perhaps the Palin camp's response deserves inclusion due to WP:NPOV. Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I already edited it to say they are "icons resembling gun scope crosshairs", which I think communicates the point without requiring the inclusion of multiple viewpoints on this minor point. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in Reactions

A significant amount of the Reactions section is now devoted to discussing Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map. While the "heated rhetoric" aspect of the possible motivations behind the shooting is noteworthy, multiple attempts to add examples of weapons-related imagery being used by the liberal side of the spectrum, in specific reference to Rep. Giffords, have been deleted as "he said she said" while the Palin accusations have been allowed to stand, which to my mind smacks of POV. I agree with an earlier suggestion that the Reaction section be split into a "neutral reaction" section and another section where notable reactions of sources from various political viewpoints are represented. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• - If users are insisting on adding all these partisan POV comments about raised retoric from politicians , actually you should write as seperate article about it, Aggression and violent rhetoric in American partisan politics you should add the one from obhama - “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.htmlOff2riorob (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• A lot of this is partisan gamesmanship that's used anytime there's a tragedy like this. Not really about this shooting event and not encyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 18:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Approximately 20% of the article is devoted to Palin, longer than the section about the shooting! To avoid undue weight, shrink the Palin and increase the shooting section. Surely, a good writer can do that. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Then we need to delete or move the discussion of the crosshairs map as well. Miraculouschaos (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The british press have started to mention this one from Obama I have heard it a couple of times now on news reports and discussions related to the shooting. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin's map has been cited by many in their reaction as an example of the heated rhetoric, and as such, is noteworthy. It also relates to target of the shootings as they themselves spoke about the political climate and the map specifically. Obama's knife-gun quote has not been cited by anyone in the wake of the tragedy and does not connect as directly to Giffords as Palin's map, which again, Giffords specifically spoke about. Jb 007clone (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any proof though that the two are connected? It is all rumors and talk there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be my question. Have any of the reliable sources connected the map to the shooting, or only mentioned it as a coincidence or in passing? Kelly ^hi! 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that Giffords complained about the 'target' map before the shooting. That can hardly be portrayed as 'heated rhetoric'. As for what reliable sources are saying about it's relevance, I think this is quite evident - it has sparked a debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As I just said in another section (this talk page is a mess), the reactions of people to this shooting include Sarah Palin's map. We can't just ignore that, whether or not it actually played a role in the shooting. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

But as it reads now, the viewpoint that the crosshairs were related to the shooting is unopposed. Miraculouschaos (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not read that way. 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb 007clone (talk • contribs)

(ec) I disagree. Right wing pundits commenting on this are right there. Plus from my reading, I don't see it stated that the crosshairs were related to the shooting, just that it's a consideration, more or less. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The text says they opposed the effort to connect Palin to the shooting. It does not specify that the effect of the crosshairs map is disputed. 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miraculouschaos (talk • contribs)

I think it should stay. Many RS are talking about the shooting and the picture. Even if no connection if found it is still notable due to the press coverage --Guerillero | My Talk 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Since the victim complained about the Sarah Palin gunsights trained on her before she was shot in the head, this material must remain in the article. Other examples of such imagery are just that--examples given after the fact, and have no place in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Examples given after the fact" can still be important in our reactions. After all, the word "reaction" implies "after the fact". --Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole reaction title and section is actually a POV and NPOV and trivia and undue waiting to happen , actually it is happening already. The fact that the victim commented on the picture is totally irrelevant in this article this article is about the shooting not what she said last year, unless there is any connection to the actual shooting its undue to add it and associate it to the shooting, actually in this article its just trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the over-the-top rhetoric in the political landscape is highly relevant here, especially her own words. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Not per WP:UNDUE. In fact, there is so many secondary sources about the effect of the image on Palin's career it could have its own page. (Not that it should.) I suggest that User:Off2riorob internal biases are preventing him/her from understanding the situation. Abductive (reasoning) 19:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk about improving the article, not about other editors. Kelly ^hi! 19:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Which internal biases are you talking about? Actually I haven't got any as regards democrat or republican - to me this is a simple partisan attack on Palin without any basis in fact. The picture had no effect on the shooting at all, and until it is proved to have - which it won't as the crazed guy is not going to say - I did it because of Palin's picture - it is a shame on the sections in America that are using this shooting as a partisan political attack tool. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The reaction to the shootings has included discussion of the Palin campaign ad, I think the article would be better with it there, - it has nothing at all to do with saying the picture effected the shooting, , pat buchanan said tonight this man had apparently obsessed about the congresswoman for three years since he got an answer to a question that he found unsatisfactory, - but to then try and deny that in the reaction to the shootings the palin map etc has not been mentioned and the event become the moment for reflection of the political rhetoric etc - just asinine. Sayerslle (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, there had been lots of talk before this happened that the violent rhetoric could lead to something like this.[25] If you want to make it less Palin-specific, that makes some sense, but I don't think it's undue weight to mention the map, especially since Giffords raised her concern over it. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If the shooter mentioned the map as motivation, that would make it relevant. Speculation by the eventual victim is no more relevant than speculation by anyone else. Miraculouschaos (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And really, Dupnik and Mueller's comments about the rhetoric are relevant too. I don't think they're included at present. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all speculation at this point. I notice you said in the section below that speculation doesn't belong. And there have been multiple reactions by RS's (some mentioned already in the article) that the effort to connect Palin is political gamesmanship. Kelly ^hi! 19:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not speculation that people have talked about the rhetoric both before this event and after in relation to this event. I agree that we have to be careful in how we comment on it so as not to insinuate that the rhetoric caused this assassination attempt, because that is speculation. It is important to keep in mind how these things will play out in the coming days. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can definitely agree with that. I do think it's important giving undue weight to the speculation about Palin, or allowing it to creep into POV territory without providing the viewpoints of sources who differ. As it stands now it seems OK, honestly. Kelly ^hi! 20:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I do disagree with the removal of the Hernden reference, I hadn't realized someone had done that. Kelly ^hi! 20:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, it should stay here as balance. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There's another issue with the source for Giffords' quote; it's a Guardian article from 2011-01-09 which gives no source for the supposed interview immediately after the acts of vandalism in May 2010. It's not plausible that the interview was done by the Guardian, as I doubt UK newspapers routinely interview obscure US politicians about petty crimes committed at their offices. Miraculouschaos (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

She gave an interview on MSNBC, perhaps the guardian got the quote off youtube. Sayerslle (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's good...perhaps we can find a transcript somewhere on the web rather than depending on the Guardian's hearsay. It might be interesting to look at the quote in context, too. Miraculouschaos (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The same quote appears in the NYT, with a link to a youtube video of the MSBNC report. I added this source to the quote. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe this doesn't attributes to anything, but as I have watched both the Dutch and the Belgian (Flemish, to be specific) news the past few days, I have to say that NOS Journaal (Dutch public broadcaster) and RTL Nieuws (Dutch commercial broadcaster) in the Netherlands, and Het Journaal on Flemish public channel 'één' all have made a connection with the whole 'Tea Party movement'. If needed, I can back it up by sources. My point is: even international media suggest that there might be a connection between the Tea Party, and this incident. In fact, even if the Tea Party turns out not to have anything to do with it at all, the fact that American politics is turned into something that sometimes even is extremely hostile, is talked about a lot. And whether you like it or not, Sarah Palin ís part of that entire discussion. So it would be ridiculous even to think about removing that section. Robster1983 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the crosshairs map reference should be deleted either, but it needs to be balanced by other points of view. A rumor being widespread may make the rumor notable, but in that case points of view that dispute the rumor must be included. This whole problem arose from my attempts to include such points of view (with references) being deleted this morning because they were deemed to be "he said she said". Miraculouschaos (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm wondering why Keith Olbermann is given so much weight in the reactions section - almost an entire para. He's notable, but certainly not neutral. Kelly ^hi! 22:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I tried to expand on York and Harnden's articles to counterbalance that. As it stood before, we had 3 quotes in the text implying a link between conservative rhetoric and the shootings, while the opposite POV was buried in the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miraculouschaos (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a brief clause to include the claim from the SarahPAC official. Kelly ^hi! 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

More than a day ago, I was one of the first to say that the reactions section is bad. It should mention that there was widespread reaction, including foreign officials and those from other states and even list them.

The Palin thing also risks being undue weight. The Wall Street Journal had a big editorial saying basically that it is unfair to drag her in. A comment that some have complained about Palin is sufficient. The only exception is if this article were allowed to have many subarticles, like the reactions, the Palin thing, etc. However, an AFD has already speedily killed the idea of sub-articles, especially the reactions sub-article. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Suspect allegedly a left-wing liberal

I removed that part because the Telegraph article used to back up that sentence says nothing about him being a 'left-wing liberal'. If there's a reliable source indicating that, please post it and feel free to revert me. Likeminas (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right to take it out. For the time being, his political views seem all over the map and we can't pin him down as being "left-wing" or "right-wing" without further information. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather keep any mention of political affiliation out of the article, because no matter which way such a mention leans, someone else is going to scream "NPOV" about it. Better to avoid such a potential flamewar, IMO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This 'left-wing' business seems all to ultimately come from one source - a Twitter comment from classmate of four years ago. More recent evidence (his YouTube etc) seem to show a much less clearcut political perspective - if anything, using right-wing rhetoric. I think it is therefore wrong to use the 'left-wing' quote at all, unless it is balanced by other sources. Frankly though, trying to figure out Loughner's politics probably comes down to OR, and we shouldn't try to draw conclusions at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It belongs in the article if it's definitively determined as part of the motive. For now it doesn't belong because it's speculation. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

His love for the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf do suggest left-wing leaning thro.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is not left wing. It supports facism, which is right wing. His literary interests are all over the map and impossible to deduce any intent from at this point. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. "Suggests" does not in any way equate with determining a motive. Right now, all any such inclusion does is support guesswork with more guesswork. Let the investigators do their jobs and release their findings, and then include those findings in the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The writer of Mein Kampf was a Socialist, and therefore the book is left-wing.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Untrue. This is a talking point for right wingers, but the Nazis were right wing according to reliable sources. Rewriting history so that communists and Nazis are left wing is untrue.

There are some sources that talk about suspect not being really right or left wing but just anti-government of the conspiracy theorist type.

Sheriff: Loughner targeted Giffords, but not over politics

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/10/106546/sheriff-loughner-targeted-giffords.html#ixzz1AgCYtYxg

Jared Lee Loughner: Left-Wing, Right-Wing, or Just Plain Nutcase?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110109/tr_ac/7569322_jared_lee_loughner_leftwing_rightwing_or_just_plain_nutcase

Likeminas (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You do realize the book, Nazi party, and Anti-Comintern Pact they helped craft referred to Marxism as their ideological archenemy. Domestically Hitler despised the Social Democrats who he saw as having undermined Germany while under Ebert. The party name itself was like with Mussolini, an attempt to brand themselves as a populist alternative to the left; hence the reason Hindenburg and Emanuel valued them as a bulwark against leftist radicalism and brought them on to their conservative coalition. Only someone who hasn't familiarized themselves with the political climate of that time could make your mistake.Freepsbane (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This page isn't a place for you to soapbox about your political beliefs or comment on other editors. Please take that elsewhere, preferably off-wiki. Kelly ^hi! 01:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so there's no point in citing Mein Kampf as an example of the shooter somehow advocating socialism. Especially when there's information on this site that indicates that such a link is a contradiction in itself.Freepsbane (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo: officers investigate crime scene

Here is another photo for the article: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gabrielle_Giffords_shooting_scene_B.jpg

Suggested caption: Law enforcement officers investigate the crime scene on January 8. Photo by Steve Karp. Steve Karp (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Interview with close friend

I found this link earlier, it contains an extensive background on the shooter throughout his schooling and such; http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message. Also it appears Loughner wanted attention, and wanted a media frenzy over this shooting. His friend also mentioned he was rejected by the Army for failing a drug test. Just thought I would post this here if it hasn't been already..--FrankieG123 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

One more thing pulled from this article, Loughner was angry with the Congresswoman over her failing to answer one of his nonsensical questions back in 2007. He apparently developed an obsession with her, but there are no claims of stalking. This seems to be his motivation, and his political leanings appear irrelevant to his motive.--FrankieG123 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mfherman, 10 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} please change name of victim listed as Dorothy Scheck to Dorothy Schneck - per: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/09/us/20110109-arizona-shooting-victims.html?hp Mfherman (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Assuming you meant Phyllis Scheck --> Phyllis Schneck. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

This edit says that it is removing a claim of left-wingedness, but it is instead removing a sourced claim that the shooter was a "political radical", with no leaning stated whatsoever. It should be reverted.12.53.10.226 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Good eye. - Drlight11 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That was my edit. Apologies, I thought I'd edited out 'left-wing'. From looking at the diff [26], I think what must have happened is that I made the edit in the wrong place - further down is the following '...a longtime classmate of Loughner describes him as "left wing", "quite liberal" and as a "political radical."', and I think that is what I'd intended to amend. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

911 calls and response times

{{edit semi-protected}} Sources are reporting (including during a press conference) that the first 911 call was at 10:12am; minor quibble, but the reference for 10:11am was from an early report based on initial information, whereas the newer report is based on a press conference by the sheriff's office. The referenced source also has info on the response times, which I think ought to be added. So I request changing "The first 9-1-1 call was made at 10:11 a.m." to "The first 9-1-1 call was received at 10:12 a.m.", and adding "Police arrived on the scene at 10:15 a.m., with paramedics arriving at 10:16 a.m." to the end of the paragraph. (And the reference above added for both.)

If it makes more sense to compound the 911 call with the authorities arriving, that whole bit should be moved to the END of the paragraph, as having information about police/medics arriving where the 911 info is right now would seem out of place. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Arizona sheriff's comments

I don't see the comments from the sheriff, his comments appear to have been quite important in starting the whole reaction issue, his comments are being commented on in the reports in the UK and the original source for this opinion that it is the politicians using aggressive and partisan symbolism and commentary that is responsible for this killing spree .. County Sheriff's quote - "Arizona is the capital - the mecca of prejudice and bigotry" - people that are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol and rhetoric" http://www.therightscoop.com/az-pima-county-sheriff-blames-political-rhetoric-for-shooting Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The full quote is "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry." This is notable, and the full quote should be added as it is well articulated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Dupnik's comments should be included. They are highly relevant, moreso than the other comments about the Tea Party's role. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the full quote, I was just typing it out. This is being reported as I have watched as the first comment to throw weight of responsibility for the killings on the political rhetoric issue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)