Talk:Jared Lee Loughner

Jared Lee Loughner

It seems like this guy's mindset, background and motivations will be an important component of the historical record over time. The "why" of this event is yet to be determined, but it will center, to some extent, around Jared Lee Loughner.

574jerry (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

This person needs to be expanded on. if it is redirected there is no reason for more information to be added. Lets leave it for a little while if no one contributes then redirect. Don't kill the article before it has a chance.

(Savagemic (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

Probably he falls under WP:BLP1E. Prodego ^talk 22:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This article was being Redirected by Ktr101 so I'm hoping he will stop redirected in order to give it a chance. (Savagemic (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

To me this article looks like it should pretty clearly be redirected because the subject falls under WP:BLP1E and the entire article is WP:OR (no reliable sources). Prodego ^talk 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've restored the redirect. IF sources emerge to build an article and the material can't go on the article on the shooting THEN at that point we can consider an article. At the moment there is noting to report that doesn't belong elsewhere. Further the Youtude stuff breaches the prohibition on original research. See also WP:NOTNEWS.--Scott Mac 22:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

An Open Letter to Editors

Though the article mentions a "former classmate" claiming he was "liberal when she knew him" (...knew him how well? There's no clarification on this, is there...?), and some of the other details, such as reading the Communist Manifesto and being critical of "religion" might suggest a left-wing radical, I would like to caution future editors to be very careful of stating things without citations as we get an influx of more news and commentary on the issue, or that matter, listing him as explicitly "left-wing" - or "right-wing" for that matter - since while being a fan of the Communist Manifesto certainly isn't "conservative", "returning to the gold standard" is also NOT a liberal position nor is anti-federalism necessarily a liberal position either, in the US; the American left-wing is actually generally pro-federalist and against the gold standard, whereas the right-wing is likely to support "states' rights" and more likely to support a gold or silver standard. Moreover, there is such a thing as what an American would classify as a "social conservative" who is an atheist (Christopher Hitchens, for instance), so the anti-religion thing isn't exactly exclusive to the left wing either.

In short, this guy seems to have views from all across the spectrum; even if he were to claim he was "liberal" or "conservative", I would want editors to be aware that he does supposedly hold some very conservative views in terms of the US political scene alongside his many alleged liberal ones, and that this should be made clear for, well, clarity's sake. Most of all, I want to make sure we don't get too bad of an edit war on this thing, because this is the kind of politically-involved story that will get one side accusing the other having spawned a monster and then the next side gets indignant and then next thing you know, the article's locked and people are wishing they hadn't touched the Talk page. :P

Also... honestly, the fact that he thinks there is a "5% literacy rate" in any part of Arizona... pure OR speculation here, but I'm wondering if by "literacy" he means "hip to the same Truth [he is]". Particularly since the Congresswoman he shot apparently was in favor of public education and against the oft-criticized No Child Left Behind act (hardly surprising for a Democrat, as that's a liberal/Democratic standby) meanwhile, he seems to have been bizarrely fixated on a lack of "literacy" at the same time as he was claiming that a community college was "unconstitutional" (an argument so out of the mainstream of either side that I've never come across it before, to be honest). Honestly, he sounds just flat-out psychotic (I don't mean that as a generic pejorative, either; I mean it literally, as in, paranoid schizophrenic or the like, seeing conspiracies everywhere, assuming he himself has the only access to The Truth, described as having been prone to "random outbursts" and problems with authority figures since his teen years, etc.).

HOWEVER, even though this is an easy, obvious assumption to make, keep in mind what I am - that it's still an opinion! I won't be surprised if he gets some kind of mental illness diagnosis, I'm sure many people won't, BUT until anything is official, be careful about adding such speculation! Even if others make it, make sure it's clear who is making it, and what if any basis they have for it; if you don't know, either don't add it, or add that it "isn't clear".

Let's try to keep this article super-accurate so we have fewer headeaches! :) 68.202.85.105 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Caiti Parker knew him, but I doubt that she's qualified to make assessments of other people's politics. Anarchism is generally considered left-wing; this doesn't mean that it has anything to do with modern liberalism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Her "left-wing" assessment could very well be accurate (although Mein Kampf is hardly a left-wing manifesto). But the "liberal" part of it seems speculative at best, and uninformed at worst.

In any event, it's impossible to judge what his politics were based on the information at hand. As you said, it's quite possible that he suffered from psychosis, and I'm sure he will be tested for it in the coming days. StanHater (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Registered Republican

Screenshot of registration page from AZ Secretary of State googuse (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Give me 10 minutes I can make President Obama a Republican too. Let's be honest, he was a psycho. 75.150.245.242 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

The constant redirects from this article are not proper wikipedia policy. If anyone feels that the article should not belong then please do a formal request to delete the article, otherwise the redirects are obviously being challenged.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It had been merged and redirected to 2011 Tucson shooting#Primary suspect, quite properly per custom and policy, and I agree with that decision at this point.
Going through a seven-day AfD with a current event like this is usually not the best way. I'd rather recommend trying to find quick consensus here.
Jojhutton, do you think WP:BLP1E does not apply here, and if so, why?
Amalthea 23:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Too late: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Lee Loughner. Amalthea 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E always applies, but you and I have been around long enough to know that deletion discussions do not always agree with that assessment. Best to get more opinions than the opinion of just one or two editors.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, was trying to use that as a seed for discussion. Well, let's see how the AfD goes. I agree BTW that this is bound to be a standalone article in a couple of weeks, but IMHO it's best developed as part of the shooting article. Amalthea 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just sitting back and watching and knowing how this will end eventually. With the article standing alone and whole lot of wasted time. It happens every time.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if there was a more expedient process for this. I had just been through the AfD for Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and was aware that there had already been some discussion about this above. KimChee (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew where this was going. No need to apologize. I'm not gonna get bent out of shape over this trivial subject. I just know in the end how this will end up. I've seen it before. Several early editors want to speedy redirect and then just when it begins to look like the article will be deleted or redirected, everything turns on a dime and a huge amount of editors start wanting to keep it. I can't explain it, it just happens that way. Maybe this one will be different.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Medical history

The Columbine shooter was rejected from the military because he was on anti-depressants. I wonder if this guy was too. Would his medical records be closed till the trial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.42.133.231 (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge

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)

• Support merge: as proposer. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge. This article is still basically a stub. There simply aren't enough sources to justify a separate article at this stage - suggestions that there will be later are contrary to WP:CRYSTAL. All this fork does is to make consistant editing more difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge If this individual had done anything else noteworthy other that the assassination attempt of the Congresswoman, he might warrant an individual page. Yet, this is the only thing that has caused him to be brought into the public domain. This page should be merged with the 2011 Tucson shooting page unless this disgrace of a person has done something else noteworthy. Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge. Not worth a full article at the moment per WP:BLP1E.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge. As I said at the other umpteen places this discussion has occurred, he is presently notable solely for the one event, and he is unlikely to have any future notability not connected to that event. Merging to the main article is the right thing to do. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge per above, notable for only one significant act. For full disclosure, I had proposed the previous AfD. KimChee (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge notable for only one significant act, although this whole situation probably needs more time to settle. -- Avanu (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge, and full protect the redirects. Abductive (reasoning) 08:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge, per WP:BLP1E. --slakr^\ talk / 08:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merge and this is appearing a gaming attempt to circumvent the outcome of the AfD with AfD arguments being cited. --Oakshade (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

If the AfD runs its full 8 day course, I have no issue with that. --Oakshade (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Support merge per MZMcBride, which basically echoes my "redirect" !vote at the AFD. –MuZemike 09:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge This appears to be an attempt tobypass the AFD which at this point is beginning to lean towards keep.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  Ahem, the merge proposal was made after the original closure of the AfD, and before the re-opening of the AfD.  --Lambiam 13:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Support merge per MZMcBride (and also to protest the cost of tea in China).  --Lambiam 13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep it separate - It's only going to get larger over time, and then it will likely be split out. So keep it that way now, and save the trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge This guy will be as notable as John Hinckley or Mark Chapman in ongoing years. Leave the article so his bio can be fleshed out independently of the assassination event. --hmcnally (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• A WP:CRYSTAL argument. Abductive (reasoning) 14:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support merger per MZMcBride / WP:BLP1E and in my view this sort of debate should be made impossible by policy in some way going forward, that is suspects in mass murders or assassinations and other notorious actors suddenly in the news for a single heinous act should never be given the tacit recognition of a separate article in the first days of news. Sswonk (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Opppose Merger or discussion of such while afd is pending.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Merge There really is not much in the article that there is not already here in the main page 2011 Tucson shooting - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppopse merger. Consider many murders have their own articles: John Hinckley, Jr. who shot Reagan, Mark David Chapman who shot Lennon, Lee Harvey Oswald who shot JFK, Sirhan Sirhan who killed RFK, Nathuram Godse who shot Gahndi etc. AND don't say it's not a significant shooting because it's the first time a U.S. Rep. was shot in over three decades.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support merger This does little more than duplicate the Tucson Shooting article, while making oversight of BLP etc issues more difficult. The question shouldn't be 'is the suspect notable', but 'is he notable for anything that shouldn't be in the Tucson article anyway?' AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as his notability come from event-in-question. PS: Why is everybody writing merger in their support & oppose votes? GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge In "random" shootings like this one, the personality of the shooter ends up being always more interesting than the event itself. Even if they are not likeable or pleasant in any way, they reveal a great deal about our society and culture. This is probably why, as someone rightly pointed out above, many murderers of this kind have their dedicated pages. 83.206.76.221 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note

Abductive, please don't revert again to the redirect. If people disagree with the AfD result, it should be taken to DRV. If reverting continues and the page is protected, it will stop everyone from improving it, so please go to DRV instead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Or I guess at this point just update the WP:BLP1E policy and/or remove it. :P Same goes for that big bold part at the bottom of the WP:CRIMINAL section. "Guilty until proven innocent" is what's fashionable in the news nowadays anyway. *shrug* We can issue a retraction later if the poor guy turns out to be innocent; then, no damage done, right? :| --slakr^\ talk / 09:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Scott has reopened the AfD, declaring it improperly closed, so it can be decided there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Redirect' : We should let the AfD run its full course. This has nothing to do with "Guilty until proven innocent", as he is being delcared a suspect, not a convict in a case that has made worldwide news. Orenthal James Simpson and William Kennedy Smith were both acquitted of the crimes with which they were criminally charged, and they still have articles about them in Wikipedia which talk about their cases. Assuming that this article is redirected, which I don't think it should be, the article about the 2001 Tucson shooting will more than likely discuss Loughner anyway.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding what's "fashionable nowadays", it used to be much worse than this. Decades ago, newspapers would publish pictures of arrested suspects and caption them "the killer" and such as that. They've reined it in over time and are more careful with their wording now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Okay, if Loughner can be classified as a failed assassin prior to conviction, then why couldn't he be considered a mass murderer? If a conviction is required for one, then shouldn't it be required for both? - Janers0217 ^(talk) 10:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As he hasn't been tried yet, isn't it contempt of court to refer to him as either?--82.207.96.223 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not "contempt of court", it's just not appropriate for wikipedia to label him in ways not yet legally demonstrated. At the moment he's an accused killer or accused assassin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords's YouTube channel is subscribed to Loughner's.

Gabrielle Giffords's official YouTube channel ( http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2 ) is subscribed to only two channels. One is the official YouTube channel of Congressman Ike Skelton, and the other is that of Jared Lee Loughner ( http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10 ). 188.102.7.187 (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap your right, that is, if the youtube channel that is suppose to be Giffords, really is hers. Sometimes people set up fake youtube channels, cliaming to be other people, but this one looks legit. I wonder if there is a reliable source that will back this up, because we can't add it to the article because it may beconstrued as original research.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed at Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting#Gabrielle_Giffords_was_subscribed_to_Jared_Lee_Loughner.27s_YouTube_channel.2C_classitup10. Probably not significant at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)