Jump to content

Talk:Jared Lee Loughner: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Beades (talk | contribs)
194 edits
Beades (talk | contribs)
194 edits
Line 556: Line 556:


2. 'Judiciary' is normally a collective singular noun and should take 'itself' as the pronoun. Analagous to, e.g., 'executive'.
2. 'Judiciary' is normally a collective singular noun and should take 'itself' as the pronoun. Analagous to, e.g., 'executive'.

[[User:Beades|Beades]] ([[User talk:Beades|talk]]) 23:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:38, 19 January 2011

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was No Consensus By a strict headcount there are clearly more users in favor of keeping this as a stand-alone article. Weighing the strength of argument, both sides appear to have a policy and a certain amount of logic on their side. The discussion has gotten longer and longer without any new game-changing arguments coming to light. Therefore it seems appropriate to close this as no consensus. I would strongly advise all parties to let this matter rest for a while. Information is coming out on a daily basis that may clarify the situation. Give it some time before re-opening this debate. I would also ask my fellow admins to be very careful what actions they take here as there has already been some ill-advised admin action and we don't want a wheel war on our hands here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I propose that this article's content be merged to 2011 Tucson shooting. There isn't anything of substance in the current version of this article. The media has successfully rooted out this individual's past history, but almost none of it seems relevant to the reason he's getting a mention on Wikipedia. He's notable for a single act, an act that already has an article. A redirect seems appropriate here; a separate article does not. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E supports the sustaining of this article. It states: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Event is extremely significant with this person having a substantial role. --Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. As of now, Loughner is only ALLEGED involvement. Until conviction or admission, that reading of BLP1E does CANNOT be applied to this situation. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E states "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial..." It says nothing about being "alleged" or needing to be "convicted." Already even without conviction, this person's role in this very significant event has been substantial. Under your criteria, there could be no John Hinckley, Jr. article until over a year after Reagan's assassination attempt because it took that long for him to be convicted. --Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CORRECTION: Hinckley wasn't even convicted and yet WP:BLP1E specifically uses him as an example of when its appropriate to have an article. --Oakshade (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of the afd? You mean your preferred outcome, considering your reaction when I closed it the other way. --slakr\ talk / 09:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the AfD runs its full 8 day course, I have no issue with that. --Oakshade (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That means that anybody can demand to keep open a WP:POLICY-violating BLP for 8 days by merely initiating an AFD. This is Wikilawyering of the worst sort. The proper course of action is to redirect this article first, then debate. Abductive (reasoning) 14:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is there very strong contention against the claim that this article is a violation of BLP, but there's strong contention that WP:BLP1E supports the sustaining of this article. --Oakshade (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Abductive. It's especially a perk for prosecutors wanting to paint a suspect as the villain before it even goes to trial. --slakr\ talk / 23:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reading of BLP1E that would support the stand alone article is ONLY applicable if Laughner is proven to have a connection to the event and right now it is only allegations, not proof. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "must have been convicted" clause in WP:BLP1E. As a matter of fact it states the person can have an article "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial..." Even with no conviction, the person's role is already very substantial. You are simply inventing words in BLP1E that don't exist. --Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with the cost of tea in China? Most of the recent comments at the AFD have leaned toward keep, and this merge proposal appears to be a forum for many of the deflationists to vote again. One voice one vote. Let the AFD take its course, rather than attempting to exhaust all other means.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. Even if there was only one person correctly pointing out that WP:BLP is a policy, that person is correct and the page must be redirected. Abductive (reasoning) 14:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per MZMcBride (and also to protest the cost of tea in China).  --Lambiam 13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support These sort of pages glorify the perpetrators of horrendous acts of violence and give them the notoriety they seek. Time and again articles appear which are tantamount to fan pages dressed up as objective reportage. Like the other articles giving undue attention to lunatics which have since been deleted, so should this one. Any unique content should be transferred to the main wiki and in a minimalist style.James Frankcom (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a suspect; he did it. This is what people in the AFD were discussing when you closed it without reading their comments. The difference is that right now he's a suspect and thus should be redirected. --slakr\ talk / 23:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
insult notwithstanding, he did it. He may or may not be criminally liable, but we don't need to pretend that there is any doubt as to whether he did it. -- Y not? 03:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, there was talk about redirects or keeping the article in the AfD no place was there a discussion of a merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. This is WP:GAME the system. Your AfD didn't work, and so you want it to be in your way. Well, this is not how it works. --Hinata talk 20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was made after someone had closed the AfD though, it was reopened soon after. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't matter, we should respect the AfD's outcome. --Hinata talk 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD and a merge discussion are two diffrent things, both discussions should be respected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But not when the exact same editors make comments on its contents on here, and at the AfD. This is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue --Hinata talk 20:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the editors are not voting on the same thing, a redirect and a merge are two diffrent things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... but look at the top. That was similar when the AfD appeared... and ended. So my point remains valid. --Hinata talk 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what if he's innocent? "Oops, our bad?" --slakr\ talk / 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, he's a suspect—not a convict. --slakr\ talk / 23:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge It is not the quantity of activities an individual is notable for that merits their own Wikipedia page, but how profound their actions are. Congresswomen Giffords might not have been as internationally famous as John F. Kennedy or John Lennon, but that doesn't mean the shooting is any less significant. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, and John Allen Muhammad never even killed anyone of any degree of fame nore are they known for anything notable outside of their murders yet they each get their own pages, albeit the Columbine shooters have to share a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.17.116 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mergeThis man's murders have already generated articles connecting the lack of effective mental health care with violence[1] which, along with the Sheriff's assertions that Lochner is mentally deranged, are connecting mental illness,mental health treatment and violence in a way that makes him, as a person, more notable, I think. Usually,like with John Hinckley, Jr., the mental health stuff does not come out for quite awhile; with Louchner it was almost immediate. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, he's a suspect—not a convict. --slakr\ talk / 23:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge (weakly) - but why the hurry? I agree that this would be a BLP1E issue but for the Hinkley rule (not just as a rule for its own sake, but the logic of why we follow the sources' lead in profiling high profile assassins). Is the nearly-successful assassinations of a US member of congress that prominent? Usually not, I think, but in this case perhaps because of the nature of the event. Mr. Grantevans2, above, has a very good argument regarding the mental health concern and the focus of the media on the person as an individual with his own issues to report, but I think the question of poor mental health care leading to violence could also be treated in the article on the shootings as one of the wider concerns. Anyway, whatever the result is here, it might bear revisiting in another two or three months once this is out of the current events news cycle. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge: Hinckley, this guy aint. At the moment, this is a BLP1E case, as all coverage of Loughner is in regards to this shooting. Maybe in a few weeks or months, once it drops off the news cycles, we can examine to see if there's any long-lasting notability. Sceptre (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge This falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe he will go down in history (for what I will choose not to speculate, lest I be attacked by various sides of the political spectrum or whatever). But we don't know that now. I doubt there is enough information on him to write a sufficiently decent article anyway. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - I believe that since the 1 noted exception to BLP1E is a political assassin this should be given a lot more thought. As Sceptre states above he isn't Hinckley, but just because he doesn't have an unbelievably elaborate back story as to his reasons for attempting to kill a political leader, it doesn't make him any less of a assassin. Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 23:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giffords wasn't assassinated though so that does not make him an assassin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and he's still a suspect—not a convicted assassin. --slakr\ talk / 23:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - So he is only notable for one act. So what? How about Hinkley? Bradley Manning? Right now, events are still ongoing, this article is still developing quickly, and the encyclopedia would be best served if this article were allowed to develop, rather than smothering it out and forcing all material into the parent, while inevitably losing other supplementary biographical information. - hahnchen 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here, we can only go with what is out there right now saying that this will quickly develop is WP:CRYSTAL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's still a suspect, and our policies state that since he's just a suspect, he's not yet notable enough to have his own article. --slakr\ talk / 23:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, we're now putting random letters together instead of arguments. Yes, other articles exist, and with good reason, reasons which apply to this one. It's not crystal ball when it's actually happening right now, its not hypothetical development, it's happening as we speak. Compare where it is now, to where it was when I made my original comment. And our policies mean that even though he's still a suspect, he is notable for an article, given the nature of the crime. Oh, and had our policies said something else? Then the policy would have to change, we're an encyclopedia. - hahnchen 19:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE Perhaps in a few weeks if nothing of interest has been added to his article then we can talk merge, but for now, I wouldn't want additions to HIM cluttering up the article about THE EVENT. Plus, in time we will need to add info about his trial etc which may not fit nicely into the event's article or which would be more appropriately placed in his. Thmazing (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per WP:BLP1E. The article on the incident will suffice. Before this isolated incident (i.e. single event, i.e. BLP1E), Loughner wasn't even remotely notable. I'd suggest merging, redirecting, and then fully protecting the article for a few months. SnottyWong confabulate 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. MZM, sorry, but I think this one's got legs. See my post on Talk:Sarah Palin, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge He is not a household name, nor should he be turned into one. Another way to view this: If this were an encyclopedia in book form, would he actually have his on article? No he wouldn't; he would be mentioned under the event itself. A section can simply be set aside in 2011 Tucson shooting referring to him, and it can be updated with any relevant information about his upcoming trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put on hold Let's wait until this story calms down, and then it'll be more obvious what is appropriate to do. At the moment, a discussion like this will remain a stalemate. It'll also be an eyesore to those wanting to discuss other improvements to this article (or the content that could be merged). In another week or so, it may produce a different result. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge The craigslist killer was not merged. We cannot act arbitarily and capriciously. The suspect is along the same lines as Hinckley, who qualifies almost as a matter of policy. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per WP:BLP1E. Perhaps in the future, if Loughner becomes and remains well known, this page should be created. But for now, BLP1E. Prodego talk 02:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge let's face it sooner or later the guy will get his own article, might as well be now. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge , meets (WP:BLP1E) and (WP:BIO1E);
Comment: there is too much public information available to be covered in a user friendly way in one long article on the shootings. We need a separate bio page for the criminal to both name and shame AND have somewhere to add in the extra information that keeps coming up, like the emails about this guy that fellow students sent which probably is not related to the "shootings" but is critical to his biography. The notoriety of both the crime and the extensive coverage of the biography of the criminal meets the criteria for "Criteria for spinning-out" listed elsewhere and meets standard for (WP:BLP1E) and (WP:BIO1E; Wombat24 (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article on Nidal Malik Hasan shows the standard to follow here in this very well known case since a politician was targeted Wombat24 (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Details regarding the "suspect charged" and not related to the 2011 Tucson shooting will add unnecessary length to the shooting article, and those details wouldn't really fit that article. The "suspect charged" will be a person of note for some time. The two articles should stay separate. Basileias (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per the reasons others have given already, especially prior precedents of the many mass murderers and serial killers with articles on Wikipedia. —Lowellian (reply) 06:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per reasons given, and how much fleshing out has happened on this article just today alone. It already has far more relevant information on Loughner than would fit into the 2011 Tucson shooting article, and it will likely continue to accumulate information of the type that would be much more relevant to him than to the shooting itself. The Loughner section on the 2011 Tucson article can be pared down a bit now, too. Flodded (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those who are finding validity in this argument which is an example of begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point"), please ask yourselves the question, "Why do Wikipedia readers have a reason to read about Jared Lee Loughner?" You will find the answer, "because he attempted to murder a congresswoman and did kill or injure nearly two dozen people near Tuscon in 2011". Argument that this article "will likely continue to accumulate information of the type that would be much more relevant to him than to the shooting itself" assumes that "him" is a topic of importance worthy of something that can trump BLP1E. It is most definitely not, this article is an example of a biography of a person known for one event and would not exist except for that single event. Sswonk (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ugh, stop making me side with the inclusionists; I feel dirty. :) Sometimes the event is of such magnitude that a person connected to it as a perpetrator is can become a noted exception to BLP1E. I support a standalone article as this/he is right now, for the simple fact of allegedly assassinating a federal judge and nearly a Congresswoman. No assumptions or concerns on what may or many not accumulate down the road. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not a deletionist, but I get your smiling comment. I have to be away from the keyboard for a few hours, so I can't respond after this, I am still however interested in how you see what you have just written as not also begging the question. You are saying what I am saying but simply putting your statement of belief as conclusion without support: "He deserves an article because he is known for this event, which trumps BLP1E." I don't see how that makes sense, honestly. Sswonk (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You gave your opinion twice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - as per the reasons stated above and because it is too soon to make this decision. This article will only grow as more details emerge as on tonight's news.DocOfSoc (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just wanted to point out that of the two arguments for keeping the argument separate, one of them is "wait since this is way too early for such decisions." Perhaps instead of rushing this it would be wise to simply postpone this discussion for a few days and pick it up then? Logically that would seem most wise. 24.13.209.23 (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Loughner is notable. While he is notable only for one event, due to similarities with the explicit counterexample of John Hinckley, Jr. he is not a clear case of WP:BLP1E. It is hard to evaluate at this point how persistent the coverage of the event in reliable sources will be, and whether it will shift focus. This depends on many factors, such as possible copycat crimes.
Therefore merging or not is a purely editorial decision. Given the size of this article I would say merging is appropriate. Given the size of the event article, I would say not merging is also appropriate. Personally, with Herostratus in mind, I tend towards merging. Hans Adler 09:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment. John Hinckley, Jr. is a rather poor example since he wasn't just notable for trying to assassinate Ronald Reagan, but also mimicking Taxi Driver in the process. That’s two things he’s notable for and instead of including that in the Reagan article, the Taxi Driver article, the Jodi Foster article and the assassination article, it's easier that he has his own page. That's not the case with Loughner who can simply only be linked to notable victims. Loughner being inspired for whacked views is nothing new, in fact it’s common among those who decide to go on a shooting spree; being inspired by a film, as Hinckley was, is unordinary and notable in itself. It’s different. Geeky Randy (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - the subject is noteworthy and the individual is notable, having receiving a significant amount of in-depth coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. In addition, there is a good case study model at the article Seung-Hui Cho, which is of WP:GA quality. -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my AfD rationale based on WP:BLP1E, which also applies here: I quote, "If that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Loughner is going to be highly profiled, much like Seung-Hui Cho was. In addition, WP:BLP1E says, "Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit" into the category of having a separate biography. Loughner is on even ground with Hinckley as the would-be assassin of a U.S. national politician. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - for NOW. I may well vote to merge this article into the event article in time (in fact, if I had to guess, I would guess that I will vote merge once the dust has settled), but this fight seems to be driven by emotion and is really premature. Just as Wikipedia isn't a news site and shouldn't be driven by deadlines as a news site, we should always step carefully when considering merges/deletions. Please, everyone, let's let the entire news story play out first in the news media, where it belongs, and then revisit this once we feel most of the relevant info is available. We aren't even CLOSE to that point yet.ArchieOof (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, currently Loughner is notable for a single event, meaning we have two articles covering one event. That makes no sense. Loughner is only relevant to the 2011 Tucson shooting, therefore his article should be merged to that. John Hinckley, Jr. is a rather poor example since he wasn't just notable for trying to assassinate Ronald Reagan, but also mimicking Taxi Driver in the process. That’s two things he’s notable for and instead of including that in the Reagan article, the Taxi Driver article, the Jodi Foster article and the assassination article, it's easier that he has his own page. That's not the case with Loughner who can simply only be linked to notable victims. Loughner being inspired for whacked views is nothing new, in fact it’s common among those who decide to go on a shooting spree; being inspired by a film, as Hinckley was, is unordinary and notable in itself. It’s different. Merge. Geeky Randy (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Per those who have opposed it thus. Alex (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - the shooter is, at this point, notable, and placing his biography on the shooting page seems regressive at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE This guy is certainly notable- Chapman, Hinkley Jr., Wilkes Booth, Sirhan, Oswald, and Guiteau all have articles, so give this maniac one. He will be notable in the near future. Soxrock24 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge strongly. As time goes by and the criminal investigation and the juristic battle goes ahead more and more details will be known and that for the assassination attempt as well as on the life of the perpretator of the crime. I think that the trial against Loughner should rather be handled in this article than the article on the assassination attempt. Therefor a merging now would be contraproductive. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Some people are important enough to merit exceptions to WP:BLP1E, as the policy itself acknowledges, and as the presence of numerous articles such as Nidal Malik Hasan, Seung-Hui_Cho, Charles J. Guiteau, and Charles Whitman attests. If someone can provide a distinction between those people, who are only notable for mass killings, and Loughner, I would be happy to consider it; I am not interested in hearing an argument as to why none of those articles should exist either. SS451 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge; looking at the criteria under BLP1E, this qualifies for a separate article. The event is significant; the individual's ALLEGED (get to that in a minute) role in it is substantial, indeed, it is central; he is notable for a well-documented event, just as is John Hinkley, Jr., the example used in the policy -- not to mention James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, Byron De La Beckwith, Sara Jane Moore, Giuseppe Zangara, and many others who are known for the single event in which they killed, or tried to kill, a famous person. The coverage of this person in reliable sources seems "persistent", at least for now, which is the only time-perspective we have. The one thing that does give me some pause is that he is at this point, a suspect who has not been tried, and as far as the sources know, has not confessed. But we do not have a "No article until proven guilty" rule on Wikipedia, just as the reliable sources (i.e. newspapers, magazines, reputable web sites) have no such rule. Obviously we have to be careful with how we refer to people who have not been convicted, but I think this article is careful in that regard; it has all the necessary qualifiers, i.e. "charged", "allegedly", "suspect" etc. Neutron (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge If this were a guy that had had a history of being a criminal, that would be one thing, but besides doing some drugs and being a weirdo, this guy is basically a new criminal. He has only been charged with something minor, being drug possession. He is only really known for the shooting, so it SHOULD be merged with the article about the shooting... --BluWik (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, put on hold I feel this is not a good time to discuss whether to keep, delete, or merge this page when the event surrounding is person is current, and forming is consensus is not easy. Better wait a week or so until this story has calmed down, then re-open such a discussion. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE This guy is certainly notable- Chapman, Hinkley Jr., Wilkes Booth, Sirhan, Oswald, and Guiteau all have articles, so give this maniac one. He will be notable in the near future. Soxrock24 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC
You gave your opinion twice Soxrock. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My bad Soxrock24 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also to the people above listing other articles please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Guerillero | My Talk 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So does this pass WP:BLP1E or not? I feel as if this merge discussion has gotton huge and I wonder who is going to be the person who does close it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge And if people are seeking consensus, my comments make it 32 in support and 40 opposed. No consensus. They should be merged -for now-, as we don't know how Loughner is going to affect history, not yet anyway. He'll likely be "deserving" of his own article soon enough, but for now let's let the timeline proceed. Fate and events spread out like the ripples in the pond caused by the stone being thrown in... let the ripples get far enough out to allow us some perspective on this. Most logical road to take, and you won't be losing info... Cesium 133 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Jack the Ripper is more interesting than any of the murders he committed. This is why he has his own article on Wikipedia. The same rationale applies to Jared Lee Loughner. Fi11222 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to not merge this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not to mention the Fill222 is comparing apples to oranges. Geeky Randy (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge To anyone who has not checked out the news in the last few hours, this guy is being covered extensively. This article qualifies as a separate article under BLP1E and time will only strengthen the argument to keep the articles separate. Plenty of reliable sources support the claim of independent notability; he has gotten a lot of coverage in several newspapers this morning for anyone who is not current on this situation. 69.68.27.101 (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seem to be people who think that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (part of an essay, which also has other shortcuts) means that in supporting a "keep" (or in this case, a non-merge), it's never valid to refer to another article by way of comparison. This is not the case. That essay includes the following: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.... While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." (Bolding added.) So this essay does not justify disregarding any comments just because they include comparisons as part of their argument. This is especially important in this case because many of the "don't merge" comments are responding to the invocation of WP:BLP1E, which itself uses a particular article (John Hinckley, Jr.)as an example of an article about a person known for a single event which should not be deleted. BLP1E (which is a policy, not an essay) could also use many other examples, some of which have been mentioned in this discussion, and there is nothing wrong with mentioning them. Neutron (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nuetron on this argument. I never understood the Other Stuff Exists argument, as it pertains to deleting articles, or in this case merging one. Obviously if an article exists on a certain topic, then its valid to have another article on a similar topic.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Each article needs to be delt with individual because they are different. Take Hinckley for example: he isn't just notable for trying to assassinate Ronald Reagan, but also notable for mimicking Taxi Driver in the process. That’s two things he’s notable for and instead of including that in the Reagan article, the Taxi Driver article, the Jodi Foster article and the assassination article, it's easier that he has his own page. That's not the case with Loughner who can simply only be linked to the event and the notable victims affected. Loughner being inspired for whacked views is nothing new, in fact it’s common among those who decide to go on a shooting spree; being inspired by a film, as Hinckley was, is unordinary and notable in itself. It’s different. Loughner is notable for nothing except the shooting. All the coverage is given to him because of the shooting. Nothing else. Hinckley was given coverage for the attempted assassination, but also the strange circumstances that inspired him to attempt it--which, arguable, may have meritted him an article even if he tried to assassinate someone not notable. Geeky Randy (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geeky Randy, John Hinckley is notable for one thing and one thing only: He shot and almost killed a president of the United States (and three others.) It was a single incident, that's what he's known for and that's why he has an article. Even if we didn't know what actresses or films he was obsessed with, he would still have an article. On the other hand, regardless of who or what he was obsessed with, if he never tried to kill anybody, he wouldn't have an article. And why does Mark David Chapman have an article? Because he was obsessed with Catcher in the Rye? No. He has an article because he killed someone famous. Why does Arthur Bremer have an article? Because he shot someone famous. Why does John Patler have an article? (I'll admit I had to look this one up.) Because he killed someone famous. There are dozens of other examples, and those are just the living ones, otherwise I could ask the same questions about Ramón Mercader, Gavrilo Princip, Leon Czolgosz, Nathuram Godse, and on and on. They have articles because they killed famous people. That's it. After awhile, you begin to see a pattern here, don't you? Neutron (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Careful In your attempt to demonstrate a pattern to me--which I must say, you made a valid point--you're beginning to dip your feet in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Simply put, Loughner is notable for the 2011 Tucson shooting and that's it. If you want to ignore policy (which if you do, you'll just waste your time because you won't win) let's just use common sense: You have two articles about one thing. I could reverse the conversation and argue that much of what Loughner has done is done by many people who don't have an article, therefore we should merge. At the end of the day, Loughner is notable for one thing and we wouldn't be talking right now if that tragic event didn't happen. So if you want to use Hinckley, Chapman, Bremer, etc. to support your argue, perhaps you should review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and consider if they merit their own article. Whether they do or don't is irrelivant since we're talking specifically (and should only be) Loughner, and policy leans more toward merging. Geeky Randy (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read this sub-thread's parent comment (also written by Neutron)? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not automatically invalidate any comparison to other articles' existence or nonexistence. Such an argument is weak when it's based solely on what other articles do or don't exist. In this instance, people have explained why such articles exist (and why this benefits the encyclopedia) and pointed out that the matter has been discussed (and consensus established) to the extent that it's explicitly mentioned in the policy that various users have cited in an attempt to justify the proposed merger.
Your attempt to reverse Neutron's argument about Loughner's background fallaciously ignores the simple reality that his alleged perpetration of the shooting causes his background to be noteworthy. —David Levy 14:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unaware that a consensus has been established. Perhaps you're right in your stance of opposing the merge. I don't see it, so I'm going to maintain my stance on supporting the merge. You are wrong to accuse me of reversing the argument as I'm simply just pointing out where I stand and why I think it should be that way. Using words like "fallaciously" is uncalled for and while I sympathize with this tragedy and understand that it's very emotional, it really doesn't belong here. If you're taking this debate personal, you need to step back. I'm trying to debate in good faith and Neutron and I were doing just that. There is no room here, nor do I have the patience for, accusations. If you think I'm wrong, we'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps upon reflecting, I'll change my stance, but until then, we disagree and you need to chill. Geeky Randy (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. You misunderstood. My reference to "consensus established" pertains to the fact that convicted/accused assassins and attempted assassins often receive dedicated Wikipedia articles (as noted within BLP 1E). My point is that people aren't merely arguing that "other stuff exists." They're also explaining why this makes sense and pointing out that it reflects discussion/consensus.
2. I'm "wrong to accuse [you] of reversing the argument"? Your exact words were "I could reverse the conversation..." I'm referring to that.
3. I don't know why you interpreted "fallaciously" as some sort of personal attack or accusation of wrongdoing. It means that I regard your logic as flawed. That's all. I haven't taken anything personally, nor have I asserted that you aren't acting in good faith. So please chill.  :) —David Levy 00:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge There seems to be a considerable amoung of material on Loughner that would be specific to an article on him, and this will presumably only grow as his case makes its way through the legal system. As for being notable for only one event, well, so are Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, and a lot of other people with unchallenged articles on Wikipedia, articles whose existence, IMO, are perfectly legitimate. Nightscream (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. When this proposal was introduced, I considered supporting it, but I decided to wait and see how the article developed. It now contains far more encyclopedic information than could reasonably be included in 2011 Tucson shooting.
    BLP 1E explicitly does not apply to high-profile persons (with assassins and attempted assassins cited as examples). It's intended to protect the privacy of low-profile individuals involved in a single event (e.g. the shooting's victims other than Gabrielle Giffords and John Roll), not to weed out articles about high-profile individuals whose notability happens to arise through such an occurrence. Provided that we base the article's content upon statements from reliable sources and clearly indicate that Loughner's role in the shooting is alleged, the article's existence is entirely appropriate. —David Levy 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the first part is your opinion David. Far more? The merger would remove much duplicated material. Right now this is <28KB and 2011 Tucson shooting is <84KB. I repeat again, this person is the 2011 Tucson shooter and he is the reason for the 2011 Tucson shooting article, this is really a type of content fork if you want my opinion. I see it as too early for an article, no I can't give you a way to know when it will be not too early and yes I know the merger is unlikely based on no consensus. But, I don't think it is fair to say that this could not reasonably be included in the 2011 Tucson article, they are really one and the same for what is presently known. No one has found Loughner was also notable for x or y any other thing, unless painting graffiti on signs and being unqualified for the Army are notable. Sswonk (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, it's my opinion that the article contains far more encyclopedic information than could reasonably be included in 2011 Tucson shooting. I base my position on this opinion, just as I previously leaned toward favoring a merger when the article was relatively short.
2. There is no requirement that a high-profile person be notable for more than one "thing" before an article is written about him/her. As noted above, BLP 1E explicitly applies to low-profile individuals.
3. You appear to have confused splitting with content forking. I suggest that you read those pages. —David Levy 22:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I was trying to be kind and friendly about this. I still will, don't think I am dissing you with the following. However, I don't need to read either of those, I meant exactly what I said, in my opinion this is a type of content fork. Not going to argue why, you have been sprinkled with sysop magic so must know better :), but I wouldn't write it if I didn't mean it and I know exactly what I meant. As for your other argument, about low vs. high, all that does to mine is ignore it, not answer it. My position is that current BLP treatment of these folks should be changed, I wrote about that in my !vote. I think, yes David my opinion, just like yours, that these articles should default to redirect immediately after such terrible events. I think that if down the road, if some other lunatic fanatic flies a plane full of travelers into a building full of thousands of workers on a busy day or pathetic reject kills a well-liked peace advocate in front of his devoted wife, the event should be written about, and editors who want to write an article about the future piece of shit perpetrator should wait. Those editors should be forced to state their case for an article, and consensus for one should be established at a high threshold, and several days should be taken to establish that consensus. Well, if you think that is a good idea I would be happy. Right now you just repeat what the policy says to back up your opinion. All I can do is express mine, and am left knowing I was true to my principles. Have a nice day. Sswonk (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. I made no mention of the fact that I'm a sysop, and I never would imply that this adds weight to my arguments.
2. I'm sorry, but if you perceive this article as a content fork rather than a split, you don't correctly understand how those terms are used at Wikipedia. This, of course, has no bearing on whether the split is an appropriate one; splits can be ill-advised, and that's why we're having this discussion.
3. Your opinion that the policy should be modified is reasonable, but this is not the forum in which to propose such a change. Also note that I didn't introduce BLP 1E to the debate; I'm merely responding to claims regarding its content/purpose.
For the record, I happen to agree with the current policy. When a person attains a high profile via mainstream media, nothing that we do or don't do will change that. Our obligation is to present a neutral article whose statements are attributable to reliable sources, not to ignore her/her notability. —David Levy 23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David makes an excellent point about BLP1E and the difference between high-profile and low-profile individuals, using the victims of this tragedy as examples. The only two victims who have articles, Rep. Gifford and Judge Roll, had articles before this event ever took place. They are/were high-profile individuals. On the other hand, I have not seen anyone try to create articles about Christina Taylor-Green, Gabriel Zimmerman or any of the other victims. Christina is an interesting case, having appeared in a book as a baby (because she was born on 9-11), having a famous grandfather, and now this, but none of it adds up to notability, and if there was any doubt about whether her murder makes her notable, WP:1E answers the question (not BLP1E since she is no longer living). It is very difficult to become notable for one event or incident, but it can be done. The examples that come most readily to mind (and are sprinkled throughout the discussion above) are those who killed or tried to kill, or (in this case) are accused of killing, someone(s) famous. That's why Jared Loughner gets his own article. (And on the point that he has not been convicted, there are cases where someone is notable simply for having been tried for killing someone famous -- Clay Shaw being the example that comes to mind most easily. If, in the future, it is found that Loughner actually had nothing to do with any of this, we can deal with it then.) Neutron (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution This is a tough one. I absolutely cannot stand this would-be assassin either, but one thing you have to consider aside from the emotion of this, is that all would-be and successful assassins of U.S. presidents have their own web pages. On the other side of it, Leo Ryan was an assassinated congressman, but Larry Layton does not have his own article. It was merged into the article about Jonestown, which could easily be argued was a more relevant place to put the information about Leo Ryan's assassination. In this case, it really seems like a toss-up because this event was completely owned by one person (and not as in the case of Jonestown, shared among several responsible parties -- namely Jim Jones). I tend to side 51% with the logic that the infamous person probably should NOT have their own Wikipedia entry (but it may just be my emotion getting the best of me). However that seems to create a tricky precedent for the future, where it depends on how powerful the person is as to whether the assassin is 'awarded' (really not an award of which any sane person would be proud) their own Wikipedia article.Ssybesma (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge! As per WP:PERPETRATOR, this guy is clearly not notable beyond the single event. This article contains a lot of extraneous information (he worked at Quizno's, etc) that can be dropped, and the important stuff can fit in the main article. Please, let's not have an overly-detailed article for every idiot with a gun. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One could just as easily argue that WP:PERPETRATOR supports keeping this as a separate article -- specifically points 2 and 3 of that guideline. (You only have to meet one criterion, and actually you don't necessarily have to meet any of them, but let's assume for the moment that you have to meet one.) Point 2 says: "The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities. A good test for this (but not a necessary prerequisite) would be if the victim has an uncontested Wikipedia article that predates the alleged crime or death." The kicker here is the word "world." If that word weren't there, it would be obvious that the involvement of both Rep. Giffords and Judge Roll make their alleged assailant/killer notable. What does "world" mean here? I think the second sentence (basically a pre-existing article test) suggests that "world" should be construed very broadly. (Though I think this guideline needs to be clarified.) Both of the above-mentioned victims have "an uncontested Wikipedia article that predates the alleged crime or death." Point 3 says: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime." That point is satisfied in this case as well, for the same reason that WP:BLP1E is satisfied, which has been discussed at length in this discussion. While we don't really know the motivation for the crime (especially since nobody's been convicted of it yet) we do know that its "execution" was "unusual" and "noteworthy" "such that it is a well-document historic event." Now I already hear people saying, how can we know it's "historic" only a day or two or five after the event? We can only do the best we can. It seems "historic." This was not a "mere" murder or even a "mere" assassination, it was really a "massacre" as well, given that six people were killed, not to mention the many others who were injured. It was also an attempted assassination of a congresswoman (someone notable enough to have had a pre-existing article.) It was also a murder of a federal judge (whether one chooses to call it an "assassination" of him or not -- I probably wouldn't since there is no suggestion that the shooter knew that the judge was was a judge.) This event has not only dominated the news for several days, it has basically brought the U.S. legislative process to a halt for several days, not mention prompting what has to be considered a "major speech" by the president. "Historic" does not mean it has to be more historic than World War II, it just has to be an event that will be noted in history, and I'm pretty sure this qualifies. Neutron (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively oppose - I've bounced back and forth on this one, especially after seeing all the good information in this article. For the time being, the wealth of information in this article leads me to tentatively oppose the merger. I say leave it as is for now, and then let's see how things are once we know more about him and the shooting.--Witan (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whether Loughner killed before or not is irrelevant, and should not affect the decision to merge. Consider Seung-Hui Cho, the man who committed the Virginia Tech shootings and suicide in 2007; he did not commit murder prior to the shootings and yet his biography and actions are described in an article on Wikipedia. There is precedent to keep the Loughner page as it's own article as it is relevant as to who committed the crime and the story behind the person.Rubinkaman (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportWeak Support merge - Seems to be a shining example of WP:BLP1E. NickCT (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection I think this guy might meet WP:BLP1E's "event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial," exemption. I therefore move from Support to Weak Support. NickCT (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the invovlement is still "alleged". Active Banana (bananaphone 18:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleged" doesn't matter in this case. Even if Loughner had been killed during the attack, the amount of rock-solid documentation existing up to now would be enough to justify a separate article on him, even if he forever remained the "alleged" shooter.Shirtwaist (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it has been established under WP:BLP1E that a separate biography is appropriate for Hinckley, why would it not be so for Loughner? The two cases seem strikingly similar to me.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, contrary to the Sections below, I feel barely 5 days (so-far) isn't enough time passed to call for no more comments. I just now saw the "hat notice" about this discussion on the main article space. I am happy to be able to contribute to the consensus. — DennisDallas (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That first line of WP:BLP1E links to WP:NOTNEWS which is meant for routine news coverage of people and events. It even states it's for "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities... " The extremely in-depth coverage of this person by practically every major news outlet on earth is nothing even close to "routine" coverage. It would be a valid argument to say "Oppose merge per the first line of WP:BLP1E." --Oakshade (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Oppose merge per the first line of WP:BLP1E -- and many other WP:BLP1E arguments made here. The similarity to Hinckley, as mentioned there, seems very clear to me.Shirtwaist (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose merge. The tucson shooting is a separate topic to this biography.Someone65 (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge I'm sympathetic to the feeling that Loughner does not DESERVE the claim on permanent notoriety represented by a separate Wikipedia page, but nevertheless, I think some reasonable anticipations about the future course of events surrounding this case indicates that one is, or will shortly become, necessary. As the trial progresses, information about Loughner's life will inevitably enter into the court records and be covered by the media. I imagine it'll be a copious amount of information; too much to include it all on the page for the shooting. There are subtle and persuasive arguments that cut against Loughner being given a separate page, but I think it's all over-ridden by the necessity to organize the information so that it's useful. Leoniceno (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge I think this is a rare case where it meets the BLP1E criteria of a significant event, where the individual is well-documented (as shown by the article currently), and so think a separate article is merited. As others have pointed out there is enough material for a article on him, which would not be merited on an article on the shooting itself. Davewild (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge I think we should keep the Jared Lougher article separated. It gives us a better understanding about him and people like him and why they commit such crimes. It's important to know about their personal background. M4rilyn (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is comprehensive enough now. —Siddharth Patil (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There seems to be quite a lot of information in the article already, and without trying to wp:crystalball anything, I think the it is safe to say that once some sort of trial gets going the amount of content on this person will only increase. I think it is pretty likely that if these articles were to get merged, they would pretty soon have to get split again as both this article and the Tucson shooting article are getting quite extensive.TheFreeloader (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. We're going to have more and more information on Loughner as he moves through the legal system. This article is only going to get bigger. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE ERASE THIS PAGE. THERE ARE MORE NOTORIOUS PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THAT DESERVE A PAGE. LETS NOT GLORIFY SCUMBAGS LIKE THIS ONE! BECAUSE HE IS WINNING THIS WAY, HE IS GETTING THE FAME HE SEEKS!!! HIS NAME SHOULD BE FORGOTTEN AND HE SHOULD BE ONLY KNOWN TO MENTAL CARE PROFESSIONALS FOR A CASE STUDY!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.188.98 (talk • contribs)
I don't think anyone is glorifying him by supporting having a separate article about him. Wikipedia has many articles about "bad guys" (or in this case, an alleged bad guy.) Neutron (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Jared Lee Loughner will become a cult classic. There will be someone out there who will do a biography on him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.7.46 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose Merge Individual is notable enough to have own articles. There are probably hundreds of articles about murderers, rapists, and terrorist on Wikipedia. Why should Loughner be an exemption? Philipmj24 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion needs to be closed

Although I believe this subject is not worthy of a stand alone article because of his one event identity, and because I believe it is best to give such individuals the least amount of attention possible, my initial response was this this article should be merged. However, I think the consensus to not merge is now very clear and that an uninvolved ed or sysop should close this discussion and remove the tag. KeptSouth (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think consensus is "very clear". I did a rough count and got 33 merge and 43 no merge. Frankly though, I wouldn't oppose a "close as no merge" decision here, even though I think it's the wrong choice, and I think this entire debate is driven by WP:RECENTISM. In a year we will look back at this, and recognize that we should have merged.... unless of course Loughner becomes significantly more notable in the mean time. NickCT (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, consensus is based on the weight of the arguements not on how many people chose to go for x. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You want it your way, but read it and you'll see it's a no-no to do... --Hinata talk 19:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if this article exists or not. However, I don't think there is a reason to close the above active discussion now if there isn't a consensus either way. Simply closing as no consensus will not solve anything and the discussion will need to be had again anyway. -Atmoz (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Loughner is convicted of the assassination attempt, then it's possible his article may remain. I believe he would be the first person in US history, to attempt an assassination on a female member of the United States government. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just underscoring what I said (just now) in the Merge discussion Section, I think your calling for an end to the dialog after 4 days (and it's barely been 5 now) is a bit premature. None of the Giffords/2011_Tucson/Loughner stuff was on my Watchlist, so I hadn't taken notice of discussions until today. (Some of us Wikipedians do have real lives Monday-Friday.) Let the Weekend Warriors on here have their say. — DennisDallas (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I voted for merge, it is pretty clear by now that this is a case of no consensus. The discussion is not going to serve as anything more than a distraction from here on in, so I think it is time to close now. --FormerIP (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I think its 53 opposed and 38 support, relatively close in total, but in the past 4 days its been 34 opposed to 11 support which is a 3-1 ratio. against redirect. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure if you're objecting to what I said or not, Grant, but you are right in pointing out that this is not going to end in a merge, so there's no need to continue it. --FormerIP (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was just trying to reinforce/support(with some numbers) your suggestion for closure. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protection

Just noting here that I've reverted a redirect and full protection by David Fuchs, because there's clearly no consensus to merge, either here or at the AfD. If people think a consensus to merge might evolve, the discussion should be left open longer and closed by an uninvolved admin. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am reading the logs incorrectly, did David Fuchs just redirect against consensus then protect the page so non-admins would have been unable to reverse that? That is a cause for concern/scrutiny if so, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per BLP we do not leave contentious information in place "while we discuss". We err on the side of protecting the individual while disucssion is underway. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are just Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. --Hinata talk 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we (and the news media for that matter) sprinkle the word "alleged" throughout the article. I think we can talk about Loughner's possible involvement in the subject matter while being mindful of BLP. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Since when is action suggested by the straightfowards reading and intent of multiple rules and guidelines Wikilawyering? It appears to me that those who are saying "nothing should be done until the process has been completed" are the wikilawyers. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as "alleged criminal" "Note: Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." Active Banana (bananaphone 19:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said at ANI a few minutes ago, "serious consideration" has been given, and the consideration is that this person warrants a separate article. You appear to be interpreting WP:PERP as "Thou shalt not", when what it actually says is "Thou shall usually not, but there are exceptions". Tarc (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as I replied there, the above discussion is the "serious consideration" being given. The results of the serious consideration have not yet determined that we should have the article. And per BLP, while such discussions are underway, we err on the side of protecting individuals. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, in case you didn't notice, someone already created it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just my thoughts but this is quickly getting out of hand and impacting wiki admin and editors alike. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe it's just me, but the last 2 sections here - "Discussion needs to be closed" and "Redirect and protection" seem to be a series of nearly random comments, with each subsequent comment mainly non-responsive to prior comments. For what it's worth, I withdraw my suggestion to close the merge discussion KeptSouth (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just you and its a huge development in communication(non?) here and elsewhere; likely a product of Human multitasking or what my mother called "scatterbrained". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can there be no consensus to merge this? It's a clear case of WP:1E if there ever was any. If this isn't merged we can as well scrap that guideline because it is obviously not being honoured. --dab (𒁳) 18:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually BLP1E supports keeping this article. If you read the entire section, it states this very clearly. Significant event+ Significant person in the event= Own article.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I (just now) stated in the "Merge" discussion above, several editors (you included) citing WP:BLP1E conveniently leave out the qualifying "a separate article MAY be appropriate"; it's not a fait accompli. — DennisDallas (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request from Kerka1jb, 13 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} This section of the "Views" section is incorrect and misleading: The film promotes a number of debunked ideas and conspiracy theories, including the idea that Christianity is a myth used for political control, that the United States Government was responsible for the September 11 attacks, that international bankers from the Federal Reserve forced President George W. Bush into starting the War on Terror, and that bankers manipulate the international monetary system and the media in order to consolidate power.

1. Zeitgeist: the Movie has never been "debunked." 2. Does not say "christianity is a myth used for political control 3. Does not say that "international bankers from the Federal Reserve forced President George W. Bush into starting the War on Terror" 4. This film has nothing to do with the shooting this person perpetrated Kerka1jb (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the movie review and made this explanation for deletion in the edit summary; "Unsourced pov; reach consensus on talk before reinserting a clearly pov movie review." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, we now have a statement by a 'best friend' saying the movie influenced Loughner, and a statement from its creator calling this 'irresponsible' and 'disingenuous'. Frankly, the 'best friend's' comment can only be speculation, and link tenuous at best. Is there any good reason not to delete the lot, rather than get into a to-and-fro argument about a marginal issue? Without evidence for external reliable sources giving any weight to the issue, it seems of marginal significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andy that the statement by the movie maker that someone added is not a reliable source. I'm removing it. The one thing useful that statement did do was point out that there has been substantial RS reporting by ABC,Fox and NBC about the best friend's comment that the movie influenced Loughner and a google check [2] does confirm that to be the case. So that part will stay in. I'll add another source or 2 for that. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slant in Article

Clearly there is a biased slant in this article, like much of the mainstream media on this subject. It focuses on aspects of his personality, work and social life which cast him in a negative light. As well as making him sound strange and usual. What about the other side of the story? Quoting from a source already used on the page, his ex-girlfriend said:

“I’ve always known him as the sweet, caring Jared,” says Hawkes, 21, a junior at the University of Arizona. She recalls him as being shy and having low self-esteem. “It’s sad knowing the person he was and the person who he could have become — and who he is now.”

And:

“He was a great sax player, a great musician,” says Jes Gundy, 22, who played in the school jazz band with him. “The band director was always trying to get him to play more solos. … He was reserved, quiet, but not like scary, anti-social quiet. I got nothing but good vibes from him.”

Source: http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2011/01/10/friends-co-workers-loughner-had-curious-dark-change/

It’s important to have the whole story in order to better understand the full reality of what happened; what might turn someone into a killer. It seems obvious to me that failures in his job and a volunteer position caused something to snap in him. But it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else here thinks, this information should just be put out there to let readers decide for themselves. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of facts and so it should give all the key facts, which tell the whole story and not just the ‘light’ that some people would like to cast him in. Neurolanis (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see merit in your argument, we have to reflect what sources say - and when they are about someone alleged to have been responsible for multiple killings, it is going to be negative. As for what 'caused something to snap in him', this may well be discussed in greater detail later, but we can't include our own theories on this: see WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What Neurolanis presented is a source, Andy. Why can't we reflect that? --FormerIP (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, what the girlfriend said should be included in the article if the source is valid. The only problem (?) is that it will interfere with the almost perfect negative flow of the article. Saji Loupgarou (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it should be included. I'll put it in. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If its sourced, it may offer a perfect juxtaposition to the other information.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, because most assassins are perfectly fine people. Some would even say they're awesome. I mean, Sirhan Sirhan was a great dude. Capt. Colonel (edits) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, this man has not been convicted of anything concerning the shooting. Besides, refusal to include a legit perspective because you have formed your own opinions to the contrary puts you in violation of NPOV. Saji Loupgarou (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your NPOV and raise UNDUE. Capt. Colonel (edits) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NPOV issue here is not just about being nice or nasty to Loughner. It's also whether we explain Loughner (and, by extension, the phenomenon of people who commit murder) to our readers via our own confirmation bias that only reporting unmitigated negative information is appropriate. Wikipedia should attempt to communicate the shading of the picture, not just paint it all one colour. --FormerIP (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we sneak the term "conspiracy theory" about a dozen more times into this article? ;) Actually, a single use of that term smacks of POV and has no place in an encyclopedia.--Hutcher (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I might agree, but in this case, RSs and people who knew him are using the term a lot and in this BLP it seems to be appropriate for usage. I've also come to the opinion that the term is rapidly losing its pov status, aided by former governor Jesse Ventura's TV show, Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura as well as the sheer volume of people who now doubt Government versions of some events (like 75% do not believe Oswald acted alone[3]). Right now the term is only used in a pov way,typically by politicians or talk show people, to support an otherwise weak argument or cast aspersions on an otherwise valid argument. Its also still used by pre-teens povishly (as well as the "tin foil hat" phrase) to appear intellectually sophisticated. But in terms of this BLP; its multiple usage is quite valid(many RSs) and not povish within the "views" section, I think. I do not think it needs its own section header as it once had. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Genocide school' video

School releases YouTube post from Loughner


<copyrighted material removed, for the same reason as on Talk:2011 Tucson shooting Risker (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC) >[reply]

(hopefully I transcribed the text correctly, not sure what to do with it, might help for quotations in certain sections) -- Avanu (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

To all. I just read the entire BLP. Imo it is absolutely stunning in its information content, visual appearance, NPOV, understandability,conciseness and flow. I'm amazed that it could be at such a state after only 1 week. Its also amazing how many different Editors who have contributed thus far. Obviously it will keep changing, but right now, for this date in time, I give it 10 out of 10. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wish I could share your enthusiasm. I read a biography full of vague, dubiously sourced irrelevant detail - a focus on the nasty parts of his life and a distinc ant-Loughner bent (despite the work of BLP editors). It's a WP:RECENTISM travesty :) --Errant (chat!) 14:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vive la difference (in our opinions) Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube

The youtube content regarding the books is sourced to a primary source - the youtube channel. This is a big BLP problem and it should stay out until a third party source is available. There is also vague OR problems with using this primary source. Even were a secondary source provided I still have concerns due to the fact that the article even identifies it as speculative that this is his Youube channel - I think we need more careful discussion of this. I have removed the content again because it is a BLP issue and should stay out until agreement is reached (as opposed to the usual BRD process) --Errant (chat!) 14:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, Wikipedia is limited to reporting material that has appeared in reliable secondary sources. Things may change over time, but that is what the "edit" button is for.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you are saying there? It is completely unrelated to the issue I am raising. the material removed is primary sourced, please provide a secondary source for the material. Primary sourced material must be treated extremely cautiously in the case of a BLP and it is not acceptable for the content you are reverting back in to be primary sourced. I strongly encourage you to self revert or provide a secondary source to use! --Errant (chat!) 14:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been extensive media coverage of Classitup10. Clarence Dupnik stated his belief that the material was posted by Loughner, as have multiple media sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Please provide those sources; ones discussing the Youtuve channel, and ones discussing his fav books. The content in the article is primary sourced as it is and that is not appropriate. If there are secondary sources, please use those. This is the basis of WP:V and BLP policy --Errant (chat!) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody from the media was sat next to Loughner at the computer while the Classitup10 material was posted. However, it has been generally reported that he was the source of this material. According to the Los Angeles Times, Loughner was suspended from school after posting the "Genocide school" video, which was removed from YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is NOT the material I am discussing. --Errant (chat!) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the policy doesn't forbid primary sources.

-- Avanu (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY has more specific advice for BLP's. Certainly contentious material (and the material I removed is reasonably contentious) cannot be primary sourced very easily - and in this case it is incorrectly done. The issue here is that this text in paraphrase says:
  • "he had a youtube channel"; source is the purported Youtuve channel
  • "his profile lists these books as favourites"; source is above purported Youtube channel

This is inappropriate sourcing because it a) does not include a secondary source identifying it as possibly his youtube channel (hence we have a verification problem and a possible OR issue) and b) we do not have anything identifying the significance of the books listed, or a secondary source discussing them (they are tangentially mentioned in the other Youtube source but that source does not draw specific attention to the ones highlighted here...). This is why it is tentative. I am told there are sources available for this material - I reviewed the articles that mention youtube and none of them sufficiently support this specific material. Please provide the RS's mentioned. --Errant (chat!) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm And now we have the following new text: ima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik stated his belief that the suspect had a YouTube channel under an account called "Classitup10". - fine , no huge issue there. BUT it is sourced to the Youtube channel, which fails verification entirely. Please provide the source in which Dupnik is listed as stating this is his Youtube channel. --Errant (chat!) 15:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to edit the article to match the sourcing more closely. Instead of being an armchair critic on the talk page, please edit the article if you consider it to be wrong in some way.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, *sigh*, I will try and find a source for you. But the aim was to try and explain to you a piece of policy more than anything... do you understand the issue with this content? --Errant (chat!) 15:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this demonstrates the entire point I was making. I can find a source enough to say this may have been his Youtube channel, but nothing that sources Dupnik saying this directly (as the article states); what is your source. It would be really helpful if you could list it. --Errant (chat!) 16:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As explained, nobody knows for a 100% fact that Loughner is Classitup10. However, this has been in reliable sources since within a few hours of the shooting, eg the CNN source in the article (Dupnik was removed).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that source didn't name the account (which we do) so I subbed in a Bloomberg one that does. I appreciate that this has been in reliable sources since the start - but that is the place to source it from :) not the primary source of the youtube channel - because that fails [{WP:V]]. looking good now :) --Errant (chat!) 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mug shot coverage

I've expanded the article with a brief description of the booking photograph and its coverage by media, in part also to continue to allow us to publish the image under fair use rules (the argument for its inclusion is stronger if the photo is also subject to critical commentary in the article).

This was reverted with the summary "Tabloid, unencyclopaedic: discuss on talk?"; a second attempt that did not cite the tabloids was likewise reverted with the summary "Still seems tabloid journalism to me, and has POV issues. Discuss on talk". So that's what I'm doing here. I'm not sure that I understand the objection. Yes, I'm citing tabloids (and leading papers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times) to describe how US media are covering Loughner. Yes, arguably these publications are engaging in "POV" and tabloid journalism by assuming Loughner's guilt and by essentially calling him a killer and a madman. But we are only describing these practices, not engaging in them ourselves. I believe that a neutral description of this highly emotionally charged media atmosphere is encyclopedically relevant as part of a biography of Loughner, in part also becauses it raises the question whether he can have a genuinely fair trial after the media have already decided that he is a crazed killer.  Sandstein  18:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that re-iterating the headlines of tabloids is particularly significant. Although it might be possible to include a couple of sentences given decent sources. The NYTmes citation doesn't seem to discuss the mug-shot? Unless I am missing it? The Washington post... yeh seems a reasonable source - but as I mentioned, I wouldn't use it to rehash the headlines used, but use it to mention use of the photo and doctoring of it etc. --Errant (chat!) 18:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT does discuss the photo: "Now to another building for the mug shot. Look into the camera, the suspect was told. He smiled. Click. Mr. Loughner’s spellbinding mug shot — that bald head, that bright-eyed gaze, that smile — yields no answer to why, why, why, why, the aching question cried out in a subdued Tucson synagogue last week. Does the absence of hair suggest a girding for battle? Does the grin convey a sense of accomplishment, or complete disengagement from the consequence of his actions? And is his slightly blackened left eye all but winking at the wholesale violence that preceded the camera’s click?".  Sandstein  18:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah great thanks! Although that simply discusses the image, not media reaction to it --Errant (chat!) 18:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few more such articles: from The Washington Post, Newser, Yahoo and Global Post, of which the first has already been incorporated into the article. KimChee (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was me that reverted, I will explain my position further. The mugshot itself is included in the article, so we don't need to be told he was smiling when it was taken, and nor do we need to be given opinions by journalists about what the picture tells us about his state of mind. This isn't reporting events, nor reporting public reaction to events, it is merely unqualified commentary by journalists. It also gives a clear implication of guilt, violating WP:BLP principles.
Regarding mugshots in relation to issues of a fair trial, I'm of the opinion that they have frequently been used in highly-dubious manners in the past, and would probably be better not released at all. While they are, however, we should at least try to avoid exacerbating the situation by quoting pseudo-psychological analyses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under some interpretations of WP:NFCC (with which I disagree), we cannot have the image in the article unless we also discuss it. I agree that we do not need the unqualified pseudo-psychological analyses in order to learn something about Loughner, because we can't. They are illustrative, however, to illustrate the context for the eventual trial. It is not we who imply his guilt but the American media; that we can (and ought to) report as a fact without violating WP:BLP.  Sandstein  18:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I agree, there isn't much need to discuss the image itself (or media interpretation/speculation of it). However, I do think it might be possible to have a sentence about media treatment of the image, the Washington Post source might have some reasonable content. I don't know... still divided over it --Errant (chat!) 18:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just something to think about: I have noticed that the American authorities often try to make mugshots look as "evil" as possible. Examples include the 9-11 terrorists, Saddam Hussein, gunmen involved in previous shootings, etc. So perhaps the mugshot tells at least as much about its takers than about the person in the photograph. This is one reason why I think it would be better the leave the photo analysis out like AndyTheGrump suggests. Nanobear (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the US. In the UK, Winston Silcott was the victim of this sort of trial-by-tabloid, after the Broadwater Farm riot, which may well have been a factor in his conviction - later ruled wrongful. Sadly, this is all too common. The media like pictures of the 'guilty' looking 'guilty' or even better 'insane'. I doubt many of us would look calm and composed after police interrogation, guilty or innocent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked and cut some of the re-inserted text for neutrality, BLP speculation, weasel wording and so forth (I don't mean to imply this was deliberate) I tried to do it in several edits so we could discuss anything that is disagreed with more minutely :) Hope that is ok --Errant (chat!) 00:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

There is more detail about the timeline in Arizona shooting: Jared Loughner 'posed with gun in women's underwear'. Some of this could be used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic article, but a suggestion

This article is fabulous. It has no bias whatsoever, and it is a powerful article. However, I think it is appropriate to refer to him as a terrorist. What does everyone think about that?

75.73.193.118 (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To do that we'd need (a) for him to be convicted first, and (b) for mainstream sources to do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, IMHO the terrorist tag does not fit very well anyway, but it would be up to a court.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There's a difference between threatening violence to incur political change for a certain ideology, and outright psychosis. This would be the latter. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorist is a word on Wikipedia's words to watch list under the Contentious labels-section, which means that one should be very cautious with using that word about anyone. Not even the article on Osama bin Laden says that he is a terrorist, it only says that he has been described as a "terrorist" (in quotation marks). So until there are at least a fair amount of reliable sources describing Loughner as a terrorist, I don't think anything of that sort should be mentioned in this article.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

newspaper/magazine article

My preference is to delete the article as inappropriate for an encyclopaedia but, if people insist on keeping it, then let's put the sources where they belong for a current affairs document. The sources should be cited within the main body of the article, as is normal for newspapers and magazines: "Joe Smith of The Guardian wrote that...", "A correspondent with The Morning Surmise reported that...". That way it would be at least as factual as a newspaper or a magazine. Right now it is mutton dressed as lamb. McZeus (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times says of Loughner: "His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush"

The third page of this January 15 New York Times aritcle says of Loughner: "His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush."

I suggest that this be added to the article.

Like a harp needs a string (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get a "Please Log In" message on trying to access this, so have not been able to read it yet.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a more accessible source that does not require logging in to verify.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We allow sources that you need to log in to see--Guerillero | My Talk 19:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see WP:PAYWALL. I'm not sure how the NYT works these days.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said it needs a source that can be verified. If no one can verify it, then why even suggest it. Just add it.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the times home page and search for "Loughner Bush", you should be able to click through to a readable version of the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may be it:[4] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 173.28.115.193, 17 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Er it says he wounded 14 people i believe he only wounded 13...

173.28.115.193 (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent reports say that six people were killed by gunfire, thirteen were wounded by gunfire, and one was wounded leaving the scene. I made this change to the article to reflect that. I'm open to suggestions about better phrasing, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community College Dates

From when to when was Jared Lee Loughner enrolled in Community College, the article doesn't explicitly say so, it appears it wasn't until a few years after Dropping Out of High School that he enrolled in Community College- before eventually dropping out (or getting kicked out of) there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Move to Jared Loughner

For 5 reasons;

  • A non-reponsive [5]SPA[6] decided way back when to use all 3 names, which is unusual for our BLPs; it makes no sense to perpetuate that unilateral decision into infinity unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
  • Google's "exact phrase" search shows "Jared Loughner" has about 4 million results and "Jared Lee Loughner" about 3 million.
  • Consistency in title style:Timothy McVeigh and Charles Manson do not include middle names.
  • By having it 3 names it reinforces one of Governor Ventura's conspiracy theories([7]at the 9:30 mark), which I prefer we avoid,even by happenstance, if we reasonably can.
  • I see no reason to give this Subject special treatment in Wikipedia(by middle name inclusion in the Title).

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There is no compelling reason to engage in endless pointless debates about article titles, when simple and necessary redirects solve all potential problems. I consider the endless raising of this topic by the same few editors, while there is no evidence for significant support, nor any evidence that the existing title is in any way problematic, to be bordering on disruption. (sorry, realised I hadn't signed this earlier) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, the reason assassin's middle names are given is to avoid stigmatizing people with similar names. Look at the disamabig page for John Booth. There are nine of them. Abductive (reasoning) 15:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully I don't think that passes the straight face test, not by a long shot. Jared Loughner is a lot rarer name that John Booth. I seriously doubt there would be a disambig problem for Jared Loughner. It would likely be none(Timothy McVeigh only has 1 and that's a more common name than Jared Loughner). Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure exactly what point is being made here about John Wilkes Booth. Our article about the assassin of Lincoln is called "John Wilkes Booth" not due to Wikipedia's concern about stigmatizing someone, it is due to the fact that "John Wilkes Booth" is what he is and always has been called by the vast majority of people (if not universally), long before Wikipedia came along. I have probably heard and read his name thousands of times, and every single time it was "John Wilkes Booth," never "John Booth." (As opposed to say, Lee Oswald, which I have heard, though Lee Harvey Oswald is much more common.) Without the "Wilkes" I think a lot of Americans would not really know who you were talking about. That is not the case for Jared Loughner, which has been used at least half the time since his name became known. Neutron (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's enough source material for this title. Redirects take care of the rest.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pretty sure that per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names test that Jared Loughner is the far more common usage in the reliable sources. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Seems to me WP:COMMONNAME supports the move. NickCT (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The usage actually seems to be about even -- on Google I get 3.45M for "Jared Loughner" vs. 3.31M for "Jared Lee Loughner", although the latter includes both the Wikipedia article itself and other sites that copy or mirror WP, so it might be a little inflated. Interestingly, the very first Google hit for "Jared Lee Loughner" (after the video links) is a NY Daily News article that copies (and credits) the Wikipedia article, which I have never seen a "mainstream" newspaper do before. So it may be that Wikipedia itself has contributed to the fact that the middle-name version is almost as common as "Jared Loughner." Since the shorter version is slightly more common, I would go with that, and of course the longer version will remain as a redirect in case anyone searches on it. Neutron (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; as the account responsible for the current naming is non-responsive and Wikipedia precedent/policy strongly supports the two naming, I see no reason not to omit Lee. Kansan (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are no mass articles on wikipedia with the name Jared Loughner. John Wilkes Booth is an example of middle name but the name John Booth has a few articles on wikipedia to compare. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshot Redux

I have received confirmation that the image is non-free - as such it should appear next to the critical commentary in the article per our policy on non-free images. To that end I moved it from the infobox down into the article. --Errant (chat!) 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence can you present to back up the "non-free" claim?--Jojhutton (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have linked. As part of the deletion discussion going on around the image some of us emailed the sherrifs department; and I heard back last night r.e. the licence status. BTW we dy default assumed it was non-free until proven otherwise, this was just confirmation. --Errant (chat!) 16:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand; where is the evidence? Please provide it before changing the BLP without consensus. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... well please understand our NFCC policy. The image is presumed to be non-free unless proven otherwise; in this case it was generally accepted that the image was non-free anyway but I have emailed the sherrif department to clarify this and it has confirmed our suspicions. The burden is on proving it is a free image BTW, if you can do that please do so. There was a small amount of discussion on the file deletion page and as a result Sandstein added some critical commentary that provides us a fair use basis to include the image but our policy says that the image should be next to said commentary. A little good faith would go a long way people.... ffs --Errant (chat!) 16:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the owner of the image wants to make a claim, it can be removed.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is not how it works :) (sadly). Non free images can be used under our NFCC criteria alongside critical commentary - that is why the commentary was added! --Errant (chat!) 17:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Errant - It's a little aggressive to just say, "this isn't free" I'm removing it. Without linking to any evidence to support the claim. It seems like this image is the subject of active debate here. Can't we let that conclude?
Additionally, why doesn't this meet the "produced by the US federal government, among others, is public domain," clause of Wikipedia:Non-free_content? NickCT (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not removing it :) I am placing it next to the critical commentary in the article.. sorry if that is not clear. In terms of your other question - this was established elsehwere, the image is not a product of the federal government. It is not public domain. Bear in mind that regardless of that debate the image will either be deleted or allowed as non free with a FUR - the FUR requires the image next to the critical commentary *shrug* I figured that is not very controversial and, in fact, obvious. --Errant (chat!) 17:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As the image uploader, I can confirm that ErrantX is correct and that the image is not free; it is correspondingly tagged as nonfree. It was made by the Pima Sheriff's Department, which is not part of the federal government. But I disagree that it must be moved out of the infobox. The policy, WP:NFCC, says nothing to the effect that the image must be located next to the commentary. In addition, the image is fair use not only on account of the commentary, but also to illustrate the person himself. I am not reverting the move so as not to edit-war, but strongly support that it be moved back.  Sandstein  17:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to images and their use on wikipedia, I'm a bit naive. But I looked over the policy, and no where did it say anything about not being used in the infobox.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re "The policy, WP:NFCC, says nothing to the effect that the image must be located next to the commentary" - After reviewing, I must agree with Sandstein. @Errant - I think you have either misread WP:NFCC, or are misrepresenting it. Suggest you self-revert. NickCT (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before we go round in circles on this again, a suggestion: Let's say that this image is non-free. I have always agreed with Sandstein's fair use rationale, given that this is a major image that has been used by the world's media. The mugshot template exists exactly for this sort of situation. As long as the image is in the article, it does not have to be in the infobox. The main thing is not getting the image deleted to please the NFCC purists.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicts)Well, but criteria 1 and 8 in WP:NFCC together say that a non-free image needs to provide a context which cannot be provided with a free image. For here to decide if the image should be used for the infobox really depends on whether it is decided that it is practically impossible to obtain any free image of Jared Loughner, as he is currently imprisoned, or that it is possible to get a free image of him, and therefore the mugshot only should be used as context for comments in the media about that image. I am not sure that this has been decided yet in the deletion discussion, so it might have been a little prematurely that this image was moved.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness I might have been a bit quick doing this but... the idea of FUR is that you have to meet the FUR - so in this case the image is used "to allow readers to understand the media commentary about the photograph that is being cited in the article." So the image should appear next to the commentary. I admit that in retrospect the deletion discussion is not closed; but it seemed clear to me that the rationale for using the image to visually identify the subject in the infobox had been rejected as reasonable rationale (it isn't; our policy is explicit on that). Given that Sandstein (the image uploader) added the new rationale I assumed it would be non-controversial... --Errant (chat!) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Ianmacm - that IMO is supporting rationale for use in the article, not in the infobox. @TheFreeUploader; actually there is no need for it to be taken after this date. There is ample opportunity to do so - or we could be provided with another recent photo. I feel it is clear that the valid FUR for this image is in relation to the critical commentary and media coverage and not to visually identify the subject. --Errant (chat!) 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(more edit conflicts)I tend to agree with you on that. I think another image should be found for the infobox, also when taking WP:MUG into account. But still, I don't think is good etiquette to take unilateral action on a topic currently being discussed.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough. Well given that it is controversial, do you think that you might self-revert and await consensus before making the change? NickCT (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the licensing issue, FUR problems and the BLP issues (which I do feel are still a problem for infobox use) I personally am not comfortable in replacing it in the infobox - I realise that is awkward, but I don't intend to revert or bug anyone restoring it to the original place. --Errant (chat!) 17:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Please try to remember - the projects focus is on commons compatible images and licensing, especially in regards to living people. This picture doesn't meet any of those requirements. It isn't free at all, there are pictures out there of him just that we don't have one - users insistence on including a non free image is imo a net negative to the chances of a commons license pic being obtained, I don't support or see a value in the position, we need a pic any pic. Off2riorob (talk)

- ::::This discussion is also ignoring WP:BLP which also gives the guidance that mugshots are completely inappropriate for infobox primary identification of a living person who is at this time still alleged and not convicted criminal. Active Banana (bananaphone 17:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Active - I'd agree that there are legitimate WP:MUG concerns here. But using WP:NFCC to get rid of an image that might violate WP:MUG isn't cool. NickCT (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - As I see there are clear issues, with the non free rational specifically to identify the person in relation to the crimes and as such as per ErrantX, the pic really has no place in the info box of his BLP this issue is compounded as Active Banana says by the fact that he is yet to be convicted, so non free usage is questionable and has WP:BLP issues and WP:MUG at this time for the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consensus here, at least not as yet, for moving the picture. Most input here is for not moving it and that it be put back where it was,in the info box, until, asNickCT said, the active debate here is concluded. Banana and Errant have been leading the argument against the picture at the deletion discussion, so it seems a bit like forum shopping to now be repackaging and shifting their vehement objections back over here. I'll put the photo back in the info-box as consensus here is clearly not in favour of moving it out. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the right move, but we should edit war this. Could I suggest a quick straw poll to how many people think the grounds for removing the pic are valid? NickCT (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, believe the picture ought to be removed for now. Kansan (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I can see , we have a pretty clear fair use rationale in regards to the charges out of the infobox and I wouldn't support removal from that Arrest and legal proceedings section at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that no clear consensus has been formed yet, removal is not a good idea as the picture is going to have to be moved back if kept anyways. If deleted the image will just go so if you want to remove the image from the article fully do that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
removal is not a good idea as the picture is going to have to be moved back if kept anyways; umm, no because it fails NFCC on that rationale. --Errant (chat!) 21:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does wikipedia delete something before the discussion is closed and a final say is made? I would wait for the results before moving anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page for three days following a request on RfPP, but it's unfortunate to have to protect it over such a minor issue, when lots of people want to edit it. Can I have an assurance that the reverting over this issue will not continue if I remove protection? Someone could set up an RfC here instead to gain consensus. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second SV's call for an RfC. Are there any volunteers who want to start one? I commit to not editing the location of the image until some firm consensus is reached. NickCT (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I agree this really is a minor issue but there has been alot of tension in this article over the last few days. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an RFC now --Errant (chat!) 21:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Errant. I'll remove protection once that's up and running, but please no one remove the image or change its position before the RfC has concluded. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I tried to keep it neutral; but people please say if anything is incorrect. SV; I'm not going to touch the image again till we get consensus. --Errant (chat!) 21:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of Image

This RFC relates to the placement of the Mugshot photo (File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg) in the article. The photograph was nominated for deletion a few days ago on the basis that our non-free content criteria says that non-free images should not be used to visually identify the subject of a BLP because it is almost always assumed another image can be gotten. The counter argument has been that as Loughner is currently in custody it might be difficult or impossible to take a freely licensed photograph of him.

Mid way through the deletion discussion critical commentary about the photograph and it's reception in the media. The FUR for the image was updated to include this as rationale for image placement. Today the image was moved from the infobox down to the critical commentary in the article on the rationale that the deletion discussion did not support the first section of the FUR (to visually identify the subject). This action has been subject to a mini-edit war with the counter argument being that there is currently no established consensus over the FUR.

The placement of the image is under dispute, the following questions need to be answered:

  • Is there a valid non-free use which allows us to use the image within the infobox
  • Are there any other concerns which preclude using the image in the infobox
  • If there is such a FUR, where is the best place to have the image (in the infobox or with the critical commentary)

As the article is protected hopefully we can come to a consensus before it is opened up Errant (chat!) 21:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already expressed my general concerns over the use of police mugshots, as indeed does Wikipedia BLP policy - see WP:MUG. Regardless of copyright issues, the photo is of an individual as yet unconvicted, and very possibly mentally disturbed, taken under stressful conditions. The sections of the media have chosen to 'psychoanalyse' the image, I see no reason why we should encourage the practice. On that basis, I say it shold go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Frankly, I think this image should go as a violation of WP:MUG, but the policy in dispute here seems to be WP:NFCC. I'm not an really an expert regarding WP:NFCC or FUR, but after reviewing briefly, I cannot seem to find anything that seems to explicitly forbids the use of the image. On another note, I think WP:NFCC is a bad justification for moving/delete b/c I find it hard to believe that the good people at the Pima County Sheriff’s Forensic Unit would care that this picture was posted on WP or pursue WP for that matter. Aren't mug shots typically considered public domain? Finally, I think we can all agree that this image will go as soon as a free image becomes available. NickCT (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add my thanks to SlimV for jumping in to mediate. NickCT (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for the deletion discussion to be closed reguarding the image. Once that discussion is closed there will be more of a clear consensus on what to do (Hey if the image is deleted then there will be no reason for a move). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is a fair use case for the infobox: the mugshot is the most recent image of the subject and no other free photo can be taken of him as he is in prison (where he must realistically be expected to remain for the foreseeable future). It is therefore necessary to illustrate the subject, and the conventional place to do so is in the infobox. WP:MUG only says that mugshots "should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light", but the mugshot is very much in context for Loughner, as he is only known for his alleged crime; and the mugshot does not disparage him any more than his own (reliably sourced) actions already do. I have added the critical commentary about the image only as an additional reason to retain the image for those who (wrongly, in my opinion) believe that it should otherwise be deleted. In my opinion, the image should be retained for identification and illustration purposes independent from the commentary.  Sandstein  22:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually sorta like that reasoning. He is known for being an evil mass murderer, so an image that makes him look like an evil mass murderer isn't putting him in a "false and disparaging" light. Hmmmmm.... Seems like it might be a WP:NPOV question though. NickCT (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salvia and LSD

What happened to the sources talking about how people noticed changes in his behavior after becoming a psychedelic drug user?Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that in the article; how was it sourced? That may have something to do with why it was removed. Elsewhere I have seen those allegations attributed to an unnamed "friend", which is not really good enough to put it on Wikipedia given WP:BLP. Neutron (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor syntax/grammar error

This phrase is slightly inaccurate, and perhaps slightly ungrammatical:

The federal judiciary of the entire state of Arizona recused themselves from hearing the case...

Would read better, and more accurately, as:

The entire federal judiciary of the state of Arizona recused itself from hearing the case...

1. The point is not that these people are the judiciary of the entire state, it's that they're the entire judiciary of the state.

2. 'Judiciary' is normally a collective singular noun and should take 'itself' as the pronoun. Analagous to, e.g., 'executive'.

Beades (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner&oldid=408875200"