Jump to content

Talk:Gabby Giffords/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Congresswoman reported shot

UPDATE 16:00 EST (21:00 UTC) Live report from hospital: Giffords alive after surgery, critical, shot through one side of head (via radio. live press conference at hospital). Alanbrowne (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR reports that the congresswoman has been shot http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona The article should perhaps be protected until there are more information? --Kristjan Wager (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if the speculation/addition of unsourced information gets out of hand, or if it starts to be a target for vandalism. That said, I've moved the blurb about her being shot to the section on her Congressional tenure, because it happened at a "Congress on Your Corner" event. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of reports of the shooting (e.g. by CNN) that make no mention of Giffords. We should exercise great caution while there are still conflicting and unclear reports. CIreland (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
CNN says that Pima County sheriff has confirmed 12 people injured. As for Rep. Giffords, all they say is, "It is feared that Congresswoman Giffords is one of them." Apparently there is no official confirmation about the Rep. Gifford's condition.--Janus657 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
CNN has also run a banner headline echoing the Tucson Citizen report that she was shot in the head. Accordingly, we should wait to be sure that what's going into an encyclopedia article about Giffords is backed up by multiple reliable sources, and preferably sources that cite the Sheriff or other official sources rather than parroting other media reports. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But the article definitely needs to be edited in current-event/go-slow mode. KOLD is reporting that she was injured in the shooting but that the Pima Sheriff will not confirm that she was shot.[1] Per Google News, the Tucson Citizen reports she was shot point blank in the head; their website is down, so the story can't be checked for updates.[2] —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This really should be semi protected..... --Found5dollar (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I put in request for pending changes at ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
No, this is a case for semi-protection. I was about to boldly semi-protect it myself, but at least two other admins had the same idea. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And I'll be tempted to up to to full protection if some confirmed editors continue on in the way they have been. It may be necessary to enforce the go slow approach which I thoroughly agree with. --Slp1 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw this as confirmed by Reuters (though wasn't a print / web medium so not reference-able. Happy to now await second source; sad news in any event. -AlisonW (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I for one definitely endorse the slow, sourced approach here. We aren't a news service, we're a repository of confirmed facts, and waiting for confirmation is a much higher priority than split-second status updates. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Per this article and the 11:01 PT (?19:01 UTC?) National Public Radio newscast, Giffords died. That is what I based my edit on, and I think that there is now enough sourced material to add that she died in the article 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Mark Twain comes to mind for some reason or another. --Absolut1966 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Too Much Revision?

Looks like electoral history section got wiped out in the furious edit storm. Gripdamage (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I just ran a diff to the 5 Jan version, and I don't see anything missing, unless there's an unclosed ref tag or something eating the seciton. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There was an "Electoral history" section header at one point, but no actual content that I can find. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look at it, the issue is that when the "electoral history" material was added, the editor who added it mangled the formatting and mixed the "Electoral history" and "References" material together [3]. The material is in the article now, it just need to be sorted out from the references, if someone with the bits would like to do that. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, NPR, the one source the whole section is based on, just posed that "Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and six others died after a gunman opened fire at a public event on Saturday, the Pima County, Ariz., sheriff's office confirms." [4] --Found5dollar (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Only NPR says she was killed. Politico.com and CNN.com do not say she is dead and CNN TV says it is unclear. --Metallurgist (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reuters is echoing NPR. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
CNN TV confirms it too now.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Reuters has just reversed itself and said she is alive and in surgery. --AlisonW (talk) 19
36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

AP reporting that she is in critical condition in hospital. Not DEAD yet. (unsigned)

Current event

According to the article, she is a "current event".

Can we agree people are never "current events "? Greswik (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Changed to {{Current person}}. Adambro (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
She was just shot. That must count for something. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/01/breaking_arizon.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.227.175 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I have upped this to full protection for six hours. There are too many BLP violating edits from confirmed users, and managing this is too difficult. There are plenty of admins watching this who can edit the page when concrete, non-news reporting becomes available. Feel free to make suggestions here. We can go slow and assess the sources more calmly this way. --Slp1 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Has She Died?

Multiple sources are now confirming that she's been killed. You need to unprotect the page or update it with relevant information.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
What are the other sources? Do they all quote NPR? All the ones I've seen say "according to NPR". --Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
NPR should be enough. Not to mention the fact that they cite a statement made by the Pima County Sheriff.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
{{recent death|Last name, First name}} Time tragically The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This would suggest she is dead; and that the {{died}} template should be added. I request that my last edit be restored, with the link as a source Purplebackpack89 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you add the date of death to the infobox? It looks strange mentioning it in the intro, but not in the infobox
Also, as she is deceased, the term needs to be shown as ended in the Member of the House part. Hello3202019:18, January 8, 2011
A number of sources are saying she's in the hospital with unknown status, so marking her as dead should probably wait a bit. Also, shouldn't there be a template saying that the article is locked? The Teddy Bear Blogger 19:21, January 8, 2011

So when the world comes here, we're out of date. Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.94.3 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a little bit. When the world comes here, we try to give them solid, reliable information. When facts are unclear, we let the sources settle down. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:V. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


MSNBC is saying that her Doctors are now "optimistic" that she will pull through.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please

I see NPR reports she has died, and that's a good source, but at least one more independent reliable source would be better. Please link them here. Jonathunder (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New York Times, says medical condition unclear: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
CNN confirms NPR's report that Rep. Giffords has been killed.--Janus657 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the CNN report independent? Can you provide a link, please? Jonathunder (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Link Purplebackpack89 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
At this time it says, "CNN could not confirm conditions for Giffords or any of the others wounded..." Jonathunder (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
[5] Reuters confirms that she is dead, though CNN Live TV still says that they have unconfirmed reports and are waiting for the news coverage

Edit request from Willtim, 8 January 2011

{{edit protected}} Reports of Gabrielle Giffords death have not yet been confirmed. It is only sure that she was shot in the head at close proximity during a "Congress on Your Corner" early morning event. At least 12 other people were injured in the attack.

Willtim 19:21, January 8, 2011 (UTC) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8248267/American-congresswoman-Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-dead.html

 Not done This is not evidence of the contrary, and there are other news organizations (NPR, CNN, see below) confirming the death at this point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR is no longer confirming her death [6] KOLD [7] reporting live in surgery

Is She Dead?

LA Times and WashPo both show her in surgery as of 14:49 EST (19:49 UTC). Let's chill on the edits to the article until everything settles. Wikipedia is not a news source. There is no glory in editing the article over and over just to be "first". Alanbrowne (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As of 1439hrs/EST on January 8, 2011, CNN has not yet confirmed that she has died. They are reporting that she was last scene being transported by paramedics and that she was "responsive" at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.29.12 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR no longer confirming she is dead [8] KOLD (on air) reporting she is in surgery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.29.65 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Huffington Post and NPR, Giffords was shot around 1:19 PM ET. Now, Huffington Post says that it is confirmed that she is dead. So is she really dead? User:Katemorganishere 19:23, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is not a reliable source. They're a publisher of opinion. WP:NOTRELIABLE. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Confirmation from CNN and NPR [9], [10]
The Daily Mail is also reporting her death independently. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345386/Gabrielle-Giffords-dies-shot-head-public-event.html?ITO=socialnet-twitter-mailonline --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching MSNBC now. They've reported she's dead but the sheriff says she's still alive, but critical. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC retracted the statement. Houstonbuildings (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So did NY Times NY Times Houstonbuildings (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting: I recently created {{Reported death editnotice}} specifically for situations like this. If it looks usable, that could be used in the article editnotice to discourage churning the article with material related to this incident. In the meantime, I notice that administrators are making edits of substance through the full protection, so I would also ask that some consideration is given to reducing the article to semiprotection. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC Now reporting her death http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143774 - PJ 84.13.243.211 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Al jazeera has now revised their news to 'shot' instead of 'shot dead', they say there are conflicting reports. Lilaac (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Electoral history

Someone needs to fix the electoral history box. Just add a } or a |} to the bottom. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any content for that section. Could you post it here, please? Jonathunder (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the table. Can you be more clear? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR is now retracting her death saying there are conflicting reports. -anon

BBC Now reporting her death http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143774 - PJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.243.211 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Assassinated?

I feel we should refer to her as not Shot Dead, but rather Assassinated.--Subman758 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's going to be a tough sell, especially with the event less than two hours old. We need to wait on that until the District Attorney announces what specific charges will be lodged against the shooter. Doing anything before then is speculative at best. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not certain if it was an assassination or not, the poster with the targets was a call to vote republican, not to literally shoot them. Bad PR, yes. CONFIRMED call to assassinate them? No, and hopefully that's not the case or we'll see 19 other dead senators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.114.255 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

First, they are Representatives not Senators, second, the District Attorney has nothing to do with whether or not it is an assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.10.169 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Did I say anything about a district attorney...? Also yeah, my mistake, but regardless, we can't say it was an assassination until all the facts are in 173.22.114.255 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure we can. Whether or not the shooter was inspired by some poster has nothing to do with whether or not it was an assassination. Wikipedia's own definition of assassination is very broad: "Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives. Additionally, assassins may be prompted by financial gain, revenge, a desire to acquire status within a group, or a psychological need to garner personal public recognition." (emphasis added) By this definition, any intentional killing of a political figure qualifies, even if the motivation is as apolitical as trying to impress Jodie Foster.

Skotoseme (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange when I suggested this I didn't know anything about posters. I just figured as she is a sitting member of Congress, it would be an Assassination.--Subman758 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Often when someone is brain dead the media miscommunicates this as dead. Not the first time it has happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.18.52 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Words near the bottom of article

The words "she was shot in the Head" appears near the bottom of the article, needs to be fixed. Greswik (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And her being dead. Sheriff on MSNBC says she's still alive and MSNBC is retracting their claim that she is dead. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw that as well, but I can't figure out where it's coming from. It's not in the article itself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done It was in {{USCongRep-end}} Adambro (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR cites several reports of her death at [11]. -- 92.225.77.206 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN had a telephone interview with a spokeswoman from a hospital, saying that the congresswoman was currently in surgery. There will be a press conference at the hospital updating what they know. I think it's unclear at this time if she is alive or not, but the most probable answer is that she has not died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorillatheape (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Would somebody update the infobox section concerning her being a US representative? GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What update is needed? Please be specific. Jonathunder (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Her tenure ended today & the seat is now vacant. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And the "birth date and age" template should be changed to "birth date" Bcperson89 (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He probably means that it needs to be changed to a box for FORMER political figures, rather than current ones. 173.22.114.255 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

electoral history

{{editprotected}}

The electoral history section is messed up, it is appearing after the references, with its own section appearing blank. I think this is the result of an unclosed table or unclosed ref 65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

someone fixed it. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR now says "conflicting reports" about giffords death

When someone is brain dead, the media often jumps the gun and accidently reports them dead. This is because relatives of the victim often refer to her in the past tense in this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.18.52 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

azstarnews.com "critically wounded"

January 11th?

Wasn't it January 8th? S51438 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Today is January 8th, yes. Are you perhaps reading a date wrong, though? Dates are done in US format, (MM-DD-YYYY) not like they are done in Europe, (DD-MM-YYYY)

No someone put the date she died as January 11th for some reason. Of course she didn't die.

not dead in surgery

getting reports - not dead in surgery Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix Journal reports that she has died. Condolences to Arizona...
MSNBC has hospital spokesperson saying she is in surgery, not dead. --Crunch (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely, local news here in Tucson (KOLD 13) is reporting from the University Medical Center that she is in surgery and she is not dead, at least as of 12:30pm MST. --Volcanopele (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Caution re alive/dead

BBC now saying Reuters quoting hospital spokewoman saying she's alive. Other news orgs are also suggesting she might actually still be alive. Adambro (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN as well is now retracting their earlier statement of her death, simply saying reports are "conflicting." --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

Edit request - get the dead claim out of the article - Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC and MSNBC are both saying dead. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143774 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/politics/

BBC just updated again reflecting the 'in surgery' line. Definitely wait and see on this, there is no deadline after all--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Earlier claims are being retracted. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree - the news reports are retracting fast. Our reports of the death were perfectly appropriate based on those news reports, but the situation has now changed. I'd be happy to do it but I want a few more to agree first so we don't start having mass reversions all over the shop. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Earlier claims are being retracted. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

She is in surgery, not dead source, local CBS affiliate KOLD 13 --Volcanopele (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Reuters latest: "FLASH: Congresswoman Giffords still alive, in surgery, nine other patients brought in from shooting: hospital spokeswoman" [13] Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I supporting reverting to the alive version. --Slp1 (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done It all seems to be reverted now. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up. Her office is reporting she is in surgery. I hope for the sake of hope that she is still alive. FROM THE AZ STAR ARTICLE: Some national media are reporting that she was killed, but a spokeman for her office said after noon today that Giffords was in surgery. "The reports that the congreswoman has died are not accurate she's in surgery," CJ Karamargin told the Star this afternoon. milonica (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice one - perhaps a prayer would be in order if users are that way inclined. Off2riorob (talk) 7:54 pm, Today (UTC+0)
Just got word that a news conference is to be held within an hour to discuss the situation. More info on her condition may be available at that time. I suggest we hold off on switching back and forth between "dead" and "alive" until that news conference concludes. I'll see if I can find a good feed for it since I'm not near a working TV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

About the death

I think the date of death until more sources can confirm that she died. Right now they are having unconfirmed reports of death and there are sources that say that she is still alive. I recommend we wait and see the outcome --Chrismaster1 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We should remove the death date until we have absolute evidence as to her condition Bcperson89 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Be bold, guys, this anon can't edit. ^^ -- 92.225.77.206 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. The official release from her staff is that she is alive and in surgery. Not dead. This needs to be changed ASAP! Andrewman327 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the events of today should be placed in their own section in the article. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Took me a while to get everything, sorry if it seemed like I was ignoring you.  Done --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hospital has also confirmed that she is alive, in surgery. Lahaun (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The anon above removed this post Exxolon (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Death confirmed by reliable source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8248267/American-congresswoman-Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-dead.html Exxolon (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Multiple sources confirm her death. [14][15][16] This page needs to be unlocked.--Oakshade (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Article is now messy, says she was in office until 2010, (not even 2011), and it also still talks about her death... Greswik (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Oakshade, there is multiple sources saying that she is alive, let's just wait this out until all network say she is dead, they announced on MSNBC and CNN and USAToday that she is alive and in surgery. --Chrismaster1 (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
You are correct. The reports from reliable sources are conflicting. But the article should remain unlocked as it can state there were reports of her death.--Oakshade (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

UMC officials confirm Rep. Giffords is in surgery. She has not been declared dead. --Sheitan (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC) http://www.kold.com/global/story.asp?s=13807790

Multiple reliable sources have confirmed death but then retracted it, wait and see. Wikipedia is not news, there is no deadline, so why the hurry?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fox now confirming she is still alive, but in critical condition.--Subman758 (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pauldara, 8 January 2011

{{edit protected}}

Year of death wrong in small box at right. Pauldara (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Year of death should be non-existent. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Infobox

{{editprotected}} Could you add the date of death to the infobox, it is missing there in the bottom still. 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Conflicting reports, we cannot be sure. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Who was the last Congressperson to be assassinated?

Am I right in thinking that this is the first assassination of a Congressperson since Leo Ryan back in 1978? Prioryman (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it has yet to be confirmed that she is dead, I think this as a little premature. Even Fox News has retracted the death announcement and is saying that they have "...independent sources, Fox News has a source that says Rep. Giffords is in the hospital, in critical condition and is being attended to." NoloMoto (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The phrasing may have been poor, but the question is still valid. Let's rephrase it to "When was the most recent previous attempted assassination of a US Congressman?". Better? CFLeon (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends on whether you limit yourself to sitting Representatives. Allard K. Lowenstein was killed by a deranged acquaintence some 9 years after leaving office. Whether his death counts as an assassination could make a semantic debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.76.157 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Gage (talk)

{{editprotected}}

MSNBC and her staff are still reporting that she is alive, why was her death date added? Gage (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC) BBC is reporting her death Matthew Stuckwisch (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It was removed, unless I missed something. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
BBC isn't reporting her death[17]... last updated 19:42. [stwalkerster|talk] 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
They were at 19:30 (I still have the window open, and can send you a screeny if you like). Not that that is relevant, 'cus they changed it. News 24 also reported that several sources had (note past tense) confirmed her death, but that other information subsequently refuted this. Guinness2702 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from VinnieCool, 8 January 2011

{{editsemiprotected}} Apparently someone did a find-replace on the whole article for changing 'is' to 'was' thereby changing the tense even where it was not for Gabrielle.

Vinnie (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific? Or are there many places? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've closed this request, as it has been resolved some time through the few hundred subsequent edits. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)

Shooting

The portion of the shooting has been removed. The link showed that she died, which hasn't been confirmed and is currently in surgery. Any word on who the federal judge is?--Hourick (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect immediately

Since full protection was implemented, 40+ edits have been done by admins - this article should not be locked out of normal editing if admins are going to edit it willy nilly. That's not acceptable. Exxolon (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The last few edits demonstrate it should be bumped back up to full protection. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
We are an enyclopaedia. We are not a news source. It is OK for us to be a little out-of-date. The purpose of the full protection was to prevent the premature use of unconfirmed breaking news reports. Admins ghoulishly editing through protection in disregard of this have acted irresponsibly and against the protection policy. I'm not going to lift the full protection because I think no-one should be editing this for the moment, but I understand your annoyance. CIreland (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well put and absolutely right. Russ London (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Bravo!--99.164.84.26 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - link to the shooting article

{{editprotected}}

Please link to the shooting article in the paragraph that describes that she was shot. 2011 Tucson shooting

Also add a current related banner

{{current related|victim|2011 Tucson shooting}}

65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, but is this good English? "Information in this victim[...]]" Greswik (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a template, there's not a whole lot one can do about the formatting. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


Seems like someone updated the article, and eliminated the shooting paragraph. Which is now just a sentence in the intro 65.94.69.242 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be censoring things by putting the padlock on

I fully understand that we don't want to say she is dead if she is not. However, we don't want to say she is alive when she is dead.

There are conflicting reports to whether the head wound was fatal is a neutral and accurate. Nesteoil (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The hospital said she is alive, what more do you need? --StormCommander (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
We aren't saying she's alive. We're not saying that she's dead. There's a difference. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a news website? --99.164.84.26 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
On Wikipedia she is alive until there is reliable information that she is not. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. An encyclopedia has an obligation to provide accurate information, which is not necessarily timely information. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but NPR, CNN and the NY Times were reporting that she had died. Then they retracted that. Doesn't seem like that's wikipedia's fault. Peacewashlove (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That is the fault of editors who write for the moment rather than writing for an encyclopedia. This is why every youtube viral video celeb that hits the airwaves gets the Instant Article treatment. Tarc (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well said, "breaking news" clearly is not necessarily reliable no matter where it comes from. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, guys. I mean I see your point, but wikipedia is only as good as its "reliable sources." Once they report something, seems like it's fair game to publish here. When the retract themselves then wikipedia has to do the same thing. That strikes me as responsible. Otherwise, you seem like you're suggesting an embargo on using reliable sources until they've had a chance to check themselves. In this case, it was until the Pima County Sherif's Office's statement was contradicted. Seems like that's doing the New York Times' job for it. Our goal here is "verifiability not truth," right? Or maybe I'm mistaken. I'm just a new editor after all. Peacewashlove (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tuscon Safeway shooting

I seeded this, but I am going to wait until a link, don't know if I want to put it in the Personal section or another section in the future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2011 January 8

Umm...you might want to move that for correct spelling of the city name. It's Tucson. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There's already an article, see 2011 Tucson shooting. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

I heard about this from a friend and went to Google news and found many news reports, some saying she has died, others saying she's in critical condition and in surgery. It was hard to tell from google news timestamps which was the more current information, so I came to Wikipedia on the assumption that we would have sorted it out. Clearly, at least at this moment, that hasn't quite happened.

I wonder if it might not be a good idea to take the information in the edit notice of the article and put it at the top of the article, with a specific timestamp: "As of xx:xx on January 8, 2011, there are conflicting reports as to whether or not she has survived." If we did this in a warning box at the time, we could also add, editorially, "Wikipedia editors are monitoring the situation and will try to update when confirmed information is available."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A hat note may be unconventional, but perhaps not a bad idea. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I'm going to do this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
There is already a very specific current event template, and the article gives what is known. Would a hatnote be overkill and too self-referential? I would not object to the lede saying there were conflicting news reports on whether she survived. Jonathunder (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The hat note is unconventional but strikes me as very thoughtful and responsible. We normally don't see this much confusion from mainstream media. It should be sorted in an hour or two.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note

I can't cite anything for this unfortunately, but KVOA just said two things: they have heard that she is still alive, and that while she was being rolled to surgery she was talking. Just a reminder to keep things in check here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - personal life

{{editprotected}}

Shouldn't the shooting also be mentioned in the personal life section? 65.94.69.242 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The shooting will probably deserve a section of its own (with a link to the main article), but until someone writes it here I can't copy it there. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"This article may be affected by"

Am I the only one that thinks the note at the top that says "this article may be affected by..." is...well... wrong? I'm pretty sure it's the subject, not the article, that's affected by the event. I just can't think of something good to change it to. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Information from initial section disappeared after shooting. It should be reverted.

I found that this morning the following two lines were in the initial section of this page. Someone removed them. I am unable to put them back because of the lock. I ask an administrator to do so.

"She is the only member of the U.S. Congress whose spouse, astronaut Mark E. Kelly, is an active duty member of the U.S. military.[1]

Giffords is known as a strong proponent of solar energy as well as for her work to secure the border with Mexico.[2] [3]"

The references can be found from an appropriate earlier version of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfoxvog (talk • contribs) 20:26, January 8, 2011

Inappropriate sourcing

Please do not cite the Irish Examiner, Al Jazeera, Channel 6 News in Greenboro Alabama, or anyone else that is not a reliable source for a breaking US news story. It really looks stupid. — RockMFR 20:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Request to Add Image

{{editprotected}}

I found this image and think it could be added to the page, since there are only two there right now. Hello32020 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is two not enough? What real/missing value/information does it add to the article? Guinness2702 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not very good even when cropped, adds that she talks to people in combats - associates her with the military - not really. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it shows her in her actions as a congresswoman, so I believe it is quite encyclopedic to be added, since the others are just portraits of her. Hello32020 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect immediately Part 2

And since the 2nd full protection, 13+ edits by admins in 15 minutes. Stop locking the article up so only you can edit it. Either we all can or none of us can. Exxolon (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and it has been downgraded to semi-protection. There are enough people watching that vandalism or incorrect info is unlikely to stay more than seconds. henrik•talk 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Protection seems a legitimate course of action in this case. If administrators are misusing their powers, then WP:RFC/ADMIN is probably the place to highlight it. Guinness2702 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC) (See also [18] Guinness2702 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC))
I see we have wheeled back to semi now. I would encourage all editors to be extremely cautious about adding the latest tidbit of information to appear in a news source. We are an encyclopaedia - it is fine if we are a few hours out-of-date. It is not fine for us to rely on inherently unreliable "breaking" news reports. CIreland (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Please be a little more careful in what you say. "13+ edits by admins" may sound bad, but when they're things like updating the protection template (like mine were), it's really not as bad as you would think. However, I agree with leaving it at semi, and I do agree that several admins are making edits they shouldn't be. I've just refused to change it one way or the other. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Protected edits

I propose that admins be allowed to do uncontroversial cleanup while the article is protected, since the only real dispute at the moment is over today's events.

I would support, but at the moment I believe the protection has been lowered to semi in any case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Echoing NYB here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Full protection policy

And, while administrators are jumping back and forth between full and semi (4-6 changes, can't keep track, because of all the administrator edits to a fully protected article), maybe some of those editing the fully protected article can familiarize themselves with policy on fully protected articles:

Full protection policy

A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators.... Administrators still have an edit tab, but the edit box is shaded red with a warning above it.

Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page.

Bold added.

Please notice the omission of any line that says, "Full protection makes the article a playground for administrators only.

Also, please notice that grammar and punctuation corrections, etc., are allowed. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested edit: move political postions/gun rights to talk page

The political positions/gun rights is so badly written it needs to be temporarily removed. Move it here for correction, then put it back.

It says she is for gun rights. That means people have guns. But the NRA, who loves guns, gives her a D+. There is no explanation. This is bad writing. Please move it here for discussion.

If you are reading this, please do it and don't pass the buck. Thank you. Nesteoil (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed that section and placed it here for confirmation/validation. Dioxinfreak (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The statements in that section all appear to be sourced, so I don't see a problem requiring removal of the section. I'm looking at the references to see if there's an improvement to be made, but it appears that she is generally rated badly by pro-gun organizations, and it is also a fact that she supported the pro-gun side of Heller. See references below, plus http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=28507&type=category&category=37 — Gavia immer (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is this in question? These are her positions on gun rights. If anything changes in the future, it can be updated but for now it should stay as is. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Text of the section in question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Gun rights

Giffords supports gun rights.[1] She opposed the Washington DC gun ban, signing an Amicus curiae brief with the US Supreme Court to support its overturn.[1][2] She has a D+ rating from the NRA[3] and a D- from the GOA.[4]

References from the above section

  1. ^ a b Palmer, Christian (2008-03-21). "Arizona Democrats split on DC gun ban". Arizona Capitol Times. {{cite news}}: Text "accessdate-2010-08-10" ignored (help)
  2. ^ "Brief for respondent District of Columbia v. Heller 07-290" (PDF).
  3. ^ "Project Vote Smart – National Rifle Association Rating". Votesmart.org. Retrieved 2010-07-11.
  4. ^ "GOA House Ratings for the 111th Congress". Gunowners.org. Retrieved 2010-07-11.

She is expected to survive

MSNBC has informed that she is expected to survive according to the doctors. So, relax everyone and let the news unfold. Please unprotect article too. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be a really bad idea. This article needs to be protected until things calm down. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Doctor update live

Doctor optimistic of some kind of recovery - surgery over - Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Watching the press conference, she is alive and the surgery is over. She is being moved to intensive care, but the doctor confirms she was shot in the head. He did say he is "optimistic about her recovery".--milonica (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
unlock shes alive, but keep semi-locked and monitored.(Lihaas (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)).

It was also mentioned that she was conscious at some point and "following instructions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.175.247 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

In "Personal life" 1st para last sentence "This mission in to space..." should be "This mission into space". My responses are slow because I'm disabled and not using a keyboard. --75.202.128.66 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Immigration and border security, last words "house of representatives" should be "House of Representatives".

 Done Thank you --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Alive or dead editing notices

Maybe the editing notices as to editing on whether she is alive or dead should be removed and the current events notice rewritten since it is now more clear that she is alive and all the major news outlets are now reporting. I'm all for precaution when it comes to informing editors about when to edit careful but after the smoke has settled it may be unneeded. Cat-five - talk 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree and made an initial change in that direction. "Gifford, who was hosting the event, is under anesthesia after undergoing surgery for a single gunshot wound to the head, said Dr. Peter Rhee, Trauma Director at the University Medical Center in Tucson.
"The Congresswoman is not deceased. She is in critical condition," Rhee said in a press conference. "I am very optimistic about recovery."" (from cnn.com)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I wrote over Jimbo here and adjusted the protection template further by putting it back to the standard BLP protection template. I figured it was more applicable, as well as tried-and-true. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Besides the standard semi-protect notice there also appears to be another pagenotice about editing on whether she is alive or dead which is showing up upon editing. I'm not sure how to remove that and I don't see it in the page edit-code but it should probably be removed too if possible. On overwriting Jimbo, I can't speak for him but I remember him saying somewhere else many years ago that he generally won't micromanage article content and that his edits should not be regarded as irreversible. Cat-five - talk 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've blanked the edit notice (see Template:Editnotices/Page/Gabrielle Giffords) for now as the situation seems clearer. Adambro (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Change to WP:PROTECTION

In light of today's events, see [19]. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the traffic freezing up the servers, loading is getting slow - bigger faster servers with the new donation please Jimmy. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove editnotice

Now that things have settled down, anyone mind if I nuke the editnotice as uncontroversial cleanup? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems totally reasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's fine to do that at this point. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Press release for Congress on Corner

I'm not sure how this should be used, but I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

hatnote

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add

{{redirect|Giffords|other uses|Gifford}}

"Giffords" redirects here. For the singular, see Gifford. For other uses, see Gifford.

65.94.44.243 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the first hatnote, but I don't see a need for the note about singular and plural forms. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.93.224.77, 9 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

 Not done - currently no death claim in the article - Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article states that the congresswomen has been killed. This is not an accurate report. All news agencys are showing her as being in critical condition.216.93.224.77 (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As it currently stands, the article does not state that she has been killed. There was some confusion in the initial hours after the event, and you may have seen an earlier version. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Casualty Count Error

There appears to be an error in the casualty count comment. ("18 wounded, of which 6 died.") There is reported one more wounded, making it 19, of which 6 died.

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

(CBS News-Tucson)

"Six people are dead and 13 wounded after a gunman opened fire at a public meeting held by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona."

68.5.76.19 (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's now 20 wounded. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Shooting article

Is there an article on this mass shooting? Considering that 6 people have died, and a dozen were shot, it appears to be on the face of it notable enough for its own article, even without Giffords being shot. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly at some point, when/if there's more coverage. -- 92.225.77.206 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
A basic stub can be stubbed up for it. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is now a shooting article, courtesy of WP:ITN/C. see 2011 Tucson shooting ... 65.94.69.242 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The suspect is an avid reader of Mein Kampf and the communist manifesto, multiple cites here is one http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jared-lee-laughners-youtube-site-reveals-clues-about-killer-lists-mein-kampf-and-communist-m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery3 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing a fully protected page

There appears to be quite a few edits on this fully protected page, while there appears to be very little requests to do so. Why is this page protected and why are admins misusing their tools to edit on this page without consensus? This continued editing goes against WP:FULL and should be stopped immediately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 19:43, January 8, 2011

I'm only making edits based on what I see here. I can't speak to anyone else. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to, as we seem to be heading, get back to not saying she's dead and then not edit the article to say that she's dead until (and if) it is confirmed she has died and there is consensus here that it is reliable. Adambro (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, which also seems to be what people have been saying here as well. It's better to take a conservative approach. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This needs to be done properly and within policy or it should be unlocked ASAP. Otherwise this goes to ANI. I know that some edits are based on requests here, but there needs to be discussion and consensus first.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I made one edit to fix a dash, which is now gone anyway because she might not be dead. Is that a misuse of tools? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
All that's happening is our article is being affected by movements in news reporting. 20 minutes or so ago the news reports were 100% certain of her death. Now they're not. The article has kept pace with that reasonably well. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this a news website or a encyclopedia?99.164.84.26 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news agency. No changes should be made regarding what is currently a contentious issue until there are reliable news sources. So shortly after the event that is unlikely for now, no matter what news organisation the information is coming from. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The world's largest news gathering organisation states clearly and unambiguously that she is dead Guinness (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Ha ha! even they just changed their mind. If they can get it wrong, I guess you can call it confusion Guinness2702 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And other respected sources say she's alive, or that we don't know. One RS isn't better than another. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 4) With all the uncertainty that we've already seen, I'm not going to make a change back to "dead" until we start seeing agreement among both editors and news agencies. Just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they're 100% right. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 5)The material to which you've linked doesn't say that at all. Quite the opposite. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This whole situation is a bit of a clusterfuck. Not unlike this talk page at the moment. We just need to wait for concrete confirmation. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The spokeswoman of the hospital confirmed she is alive and in surgery. That was maybe twenty minutes ago. --StormCommander (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The policy says, Any Edit, so even if you admins think your making a harmless edit, you are still violating policy. I haven't seen one edit made that falls within the wording of WP:FULL.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 20:00, January 8, 2011

It's been a bit discouraging that we've seen so many back and forths, without discussion here, by admins no less! Personally I think that in a situation of likely confusion we should lock the article, forbid even admins to edit it, and wait 30-60 mins after the first reports of death, to be sure that it isn't a mistake, as it appears to have been here. I was quite suspicious of everybody citing NPR, quite rightly it seems. --Slp1 (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this provides a good opportunity to improve this relatively weak article. There's a good chance that it'll end up being visited many thousands of times now, so we should spend the time making it a decent article, so locking it entirely is not a good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Disagree, stop all the editing until consensus is reached, or unlock the page. Another editor made a report at ANI, and I plan to sift through all of this later and make an official report on the violators.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but the edits appear to all have been made in good faith, and now there's a edit message and semi-protection, the problem seems entirely under control. So now it's time to improve the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Full protection applies to administrators as well as all other editors, and having looked at a majority of the edits that took place during full protection, there are an awful lot of administrators who were part of the problem, not the solution. Edits like adding categories, correcting minor MOS issues or repositioning paragraphs so they are consistent with similar articles were inappropriate to have been carried out during what was clearly intended to be full protection, and repeated insertions and removals of statements she had been killed, injured, alive or dead, should invariably have been discussed on this page before inclusion. I am very concerned at the number of administrators who misunderstand the purpose of protecting an article. Risker (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Also interesting the fact she was a Republican until a few years ago has been...left out...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.189.245 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

addendum to Sarah Palin reference.

Someone should make an addendum to the Palin reference to the affect that palin herself has denounced the implication that her "target" map was in any way any kind of hit list and denounced violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.36.222.23 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It was also added to the Palin BLP but has been removed with a WP:BLP claim. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted, that the suspect, Jared Loughner, appears to espouse the opposite political belief of Mrs. Palin. Though he attempted to join the Army, he was rejected. [1] And though he was clearly anti-government, he called for a "revolution" against those who own property and the government officials. [2] Tied to the fact that he lists the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books, it is clear to see that he is calling for a Marxist style "revolution". [3] [4] Furthermore, the suspect appears to reject a Christian identity. [5] With this information, it is clear that the suspect is in no way connected with Mrs. Palin or her politics. It does appear that continuing to reference Mrs. Palin's campaign season political rhetoric is a veiled attempt to link her to this tragedy. I would recommend removing the reference to Mrs. Palin's election comments. It is becoming obvious that her comments have nothing to do with this tragedy, except to politicize it. By removing the Palin reference, the article's contents will present a point-of-view that is more neutral and more in line with WIKIPEDIA's objective goals. Leaving the Palin reference will only continue to politicize this tragedy by attempting to link and innocent individual to it. Moesbob (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problems with your comment: A) It's blatant original research, B) this is an article on Gabrielle Giffords not the shooter, and C) Plus, you're distorting the facts to fit your viewpoint. A helpful suggestion to continue on editing here at Wikipedia: you must separate your political viewpoint with your editing. You must be able to work on articles that may disagree with your politics without resorting to imposing your politics on it. Just because you disagree with something does not make it wrong. Plus, trying to come up with stuff to back up your viewpoint is even worse. Brothejr (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Target map

I've removed the section about the 'Target map' Mrs. Giffords was on. I don't think it is particularly NPOV as it makes speculitive implications both to the motives of Sarah Palin, and to the reasoning of the shooter. See [20]. Prodego talk 21:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a point that has been raised by several major media outlets and as such deserves mention here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to include it then you'll need to also include the fact it was identical to left/Democrat adds using bullseyes rather than crosshais. Including the DailyKos who listed Gifford with a bullseye! http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2011/01/that-was-fast-detroit-free-press-links.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.189.245 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a difficult one to decide on, but the existence of the map, and its very widespread knowledge, certainly makes it a part of this story. I'm not sure that [the removal] wasn't POV in some ways. Needs an link out to an external reference, for definite. --AlisonW (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The map isn't directly related to Gabrielle Giffords. We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that map is at all related to the shooting. The goal is to write an encyclopedia article about Mrs. Giffords, not to speculate. What the media says is only important in that it is a reliable source, everything from a reliable source isn't necessarily to be included. Prodego talk 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think removal of the map image is fine, as long as a mention of the basic point remains. The map could be appropriate in the "2010 shooting" article depending on how the story plays out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Excellent point. In fact Palin had targeted Gifford with crosshairs in a very well known campaign she posted on her facebook page. It appears on the map here Her name can be visible at the bottom. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it isn't true, I'm claiming that it isn't relevant to either the shooting, or Gabrielle Giffords. Prodego talk 21:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It may not be relevant to the shooting, but it's certainly relevant to Giffords. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I say the mention of the Palin map should be removed, as its mentioning is only due to those on the left trying to blame those ofthe right.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 21:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the media sources is the UK Telegraph, which could hardly be called "left." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could wait and see about the shooter's motives. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide. We report what the sources say. I'm not a fan of Giffords (because of her stand on immigration) but there's no reason to hide this information from our readers when numerous high-end media outlets are reporting it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Whether news outlets have picked up on it or not, unless their is shown to be a clear connection to this death then the the teaparty target advert is trivia - it wasn't here before the death so why should we add it now unless there is some actual connection to her death. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Whether news outlets have picked up on it or not -- you're proposing that we disregard policy. Why are you so insistent on hiding this multiply-sourced information from our readers? Please cite policy, not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I though I had posted three times - NPOV - it makes speculative implications both to the motives of Sarah Palin, and to the reasoning of the shooter. TRIVIA - unless there actually is a connection - Off2riorob (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, all it indicates is that news outlets have pointed out that 'speculative implications' have been made about the map. The 'implications' may be wrong, but that they have been noted by the media is fact. We can chose not to report this per WP:WEIGHT (not WP:TRIVIA if it is in multiple sources), but WP:NPOV doesn't come into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Who's death, are we speaking of? GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. We've now got CBS News,[21] the New York Times,[22] the Los Angeles Times,[23] the UK Daily Telegraph,[24] and a host of other major media outlets covering or even doing entire stories on the Giffords-Palin connection. It's going back in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Just be careful in how you do it. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, as Palin didn't call for Gifford's assassination. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree as well, but keep it short and with multiple cites. Trebor (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, take that back, was confused which talk page I was on. I think it would be undue weight here, but appropriate at 2011 Tucson Shooting. Trebor (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's relevant at least in the description of her 2010 reelection. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a stab at it, here.[25] I wrote this to make it clear that no direct connection to the shooting was being claimed, while also placing the incident within the context of the larger issue of U.S. partisan politics (which is what the sources are doing). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is still ongoing at WP:BLPN, there's no consensus for inclusion of this speculation in any of the related article. Kelly hi! 03:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
How many sources and of what quality would be enough for you to consider inclusion? Given that you consider practically all of the US prestige media (NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post) insufficient to justify inclusion, is there any amount of coverage that would change your mind? (I'm not trying to score points; this is a serious question.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's just keep in mind, the attacker hasn't revealed his motive, yet. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody's arguing that Palin's site directly motivated the attacker; that's a red herring. The sources are discussing the incident in the context of the hyperpartisan nature of recent U.S. politics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion at WP:BLPN instead of forking it into multiple places. Kelly hi! 03:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Nah. Consider each article on its merits. The threshold for inclusion in this article differs from the threshold for inclusion in Sarah Palin which differs from the threshold for inclusion in 2011 Tucson shooting which differs from the threshold for... and so on. At BLPN everything gets balled up together and all the nuances are lost. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Further discussion on this issue is in this blog. Apparently the congresswoman had commented on this specific map at one point, and this blog includes a link. Leaving it to others to decide the relevance, and where it belongs in the article if at all (perhaps in the 2010 election section?). Risker (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlock the page

First unlock the page now! Secondly in an interview with Fox News Bill Hemmer on her offical website she said she was a former member of the Republican Party. That should be included in the entry!--188.22.98.159 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We block sensitive pages like this to protect them from libel and vandalism. If you want to contribute, please consider logging in as a user account, and gaining time in Wikipedia.--Novus Orator 07:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Astonishing

I'm speechless at how so many people want(ed) to turn this page into a 24 hour rolling news network. WK is an encyclopaedia; it needs to wait until the dust has settled and facts have been properly confirmed. It really does annoy me why people insist on 'updating' pages as they see things on the TV news. WP is not the place to come to to get up-to-the-second coverage, or uncomfirmed rumour. This page needs to keep to the official word, regardless of various news organisations who are in a race to be first with 'breaking news'.

(PS, i'm a long time reader and a budding editor but i'm not sure how to sign up. And also a little intimidated!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.87.211 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Click on "Login/Create account" at the very top right of your screen. Follow the instructions. Then, find an article you can contribute to and click "edit" just like you did for this talk page. Of course this article is protected just now, so no one can edit it until things settle down. (And don't let the "regulars" intimidate you- ask me on my talk page if your unsure of something.
And your right about the page. Wikipedia is not the news...there's Wikinews for that. David Able (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed wholeheartedly. People just want to feel important. - DrLight11 141.161.133.207 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

real charges?

January 9, federal officials officially charged Loughner((with what?}} for killing federal government employees, attempting to assassinate a member of Congress and attempting to kill federal employees.[6]

What is this ? these are not real charges, they are the reasons that he is being charged, likely with first degree murder and suchlike, just because some reports carry this stuff doesn't mean we have to. For the time being -shooting is fine, there is not need to raise the drama. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure those aren't real charges? First degree murder would typically be a state charge, and these are federal charges. And Federal law does have provisions against, for example, "lying to a Federal official" - I don't know but would not be shocked if they have a law against killing them, separate from murder laws.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
These are in fact the real charges being reported by reliable sources. [27][28][29]--Oakshade (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
CNN says: "Prosecutors filed two first-degree murder counts, two attempted murder counts and one count of attempting to kill a member of Congress against Loughner on Sunday. Those counts involve only victims who worked for the federal government, but state prosecutors also could bring charges in the remaining cases." But the media advisory document on the charges (which reference violations of the US Code) is online (and linked to from NPR, so presumably it is legitimate) here. NW (Talk) 00:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"In the United States, Congress reacted in 1963 to President John F. Kennedy's assassination by making it a federal offense punishable by death or life imprisonment to assassinate the president, president-elect, vice president, vice president-elect, or anyone legally acting as president (18 U.S.C. section 1751 (1976)). Subsequently, it was also made a federal offense to assassinate an incumbent or elected member of Congress.

Read more: Assassination - Assassination And The Law - Political, Common, Treason, President, Offense, and Legal http://law.jrank.org/pages/541/Assassination-Assassination-law.html#ixzz1AaPtSxpz"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I was also searching this detail - the Judge John_McCarthy_Roll might quality? http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty - Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that some of the confusion may be cultural. I think Off2riorob comes from the UK, and these sort of charges sound weird to those of us from UK and Commonwealth countries, where I don't think separate charges of this sort about murdering government employees etc/assassination exist. Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thats true as far as I know Slp1, we don't have this separation in the UK. My big issue is only that the press in the US have already failed us on this story and I would prefer clear official statements to support allegations and not sources reported and such like. I someone has the official federal comment/video please link me to it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a charge of Murder of a Federal judge or law enforcement official. which carries the death penalty but reportedly he has not been charged with that charge. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
18 U.S.C. section 1751 is about the President or other members of the Executive Branch. I assume Loughner is charged under 18 U.S.C. 351: "Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties." [30]. Jokestress (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The federal complaint alleges five counts against Loughner:

Count 1

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defend, Jared Lee Loughner, did attempt to kill Gabrielle Giffords, a Member of Congress; in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 351(c).

Count 2

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, did unlawfully kill Gabriel Zimmerman, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties and who was assisting Member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords while she was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1111.

Count 3

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, 'did unlawfully kill John M. Roll, a U. S. District Court Judge for the District of Arizona, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1111.

Count 4

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, did, with intent to kill, attempt to kill Pamela Simon, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties and who was assisting Member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords while she was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1113.

Count 5

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, did, with intent to kill, attempt to kill Ron Barbe r, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties and who was assisting Member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords while she was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1113.

- Nothing at all about attempted assassination - Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As posted above, Count 1 is from the US statute regarding assassination: "Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties" (emphasis mine). Same statute discusses attempts. Jokestress (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A copy (6-page PDF) of the federal criminal complaint is here. The federal crimes charged relate to the killing or attempted killing of federal officials or employees. There will also be state-level charges filed in Arizona relating to the murder or attempted murder of these individuals as well as the other victims. (As for your last point, any difference between "attempted to kill a Member of Congress" and "attempted to assassinate a Member of Congress" seems purely semantic.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Well perhaps to the person that is being attacked, but my post is the statement from the FBI without any mention of assassination - call it assassination if you like , but the FBI do not appear to have when they charged him. There are also no results from searching for assassination in the doc that NYB linked to. Perhaps I am being semantic but to me there is a big difference to what we have in our article claimed right now and the detail in these two decent statement links directly from the FBI - We already had a living dead person from such slapdash reporting and I don't see why we should continue to add their interpretation of events and charges. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
As it's reported you are from the UK, you might not know this. The FBI does not prosecute individuals. As the name Federal Bureau of Investigation implies, they investigate as part of their federal law enforcement assignment. The United States Department of Justice Criminal Division prosecutes. That's the agency that's charging the shooter with attempted assassination. I suppose you get Law & Order over there. In that show, the local police investigate and arrest the criminals in the first part and then they hand the case over to the local District Attorney's office for prosecution. Same thing is occurring here, except on a Federal level. --Oakshade (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey fish face, don't hit on me with your condescending crap - you need outside input so you don't get so inbred. retracted, sorry, it was rude, I was just trying to get to the exact detail of the charges, I got a bit upset, please excuse me.Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not really appropriate Off2riorob. Prodego talk 04:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
One correction to my above response. It's the United States Attorneys that criminally prosecutes in Federal cases. --Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The reference to 18 USC §351(c) contains terms relating to lengths of punishment, so "attempt to kill a member of Congress" is a real crime. The homicides and attempted homicides just refer to 18 USC §1111 and 18 USC §1113, which are the definitions of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and attempted murder. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"Assassin" is a colloquial term with some inherent implications. The prosecutors don't need to get into that sort of thing. "Kill" is unambiguous and non-political. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but that's what prosecutors, and attorneys in general, do...they make use of very, very specific words and phrases in the course of their work. And for that, they get paid fairly big bucks. With that said, I'd direct attention to page two of the PDF that was published by NYT, the one that specified the charges being preferred against Loughner. Specifically, that part of the document, the "Statement of Probable Cause", references 18 USC 351(c) and entitles Count 1 as "Attempted Assassination of a Member of Congress". Exactly how specific do we need to get in our application of "mere" semantics? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a possible problem with "assassination attempt", in that it presumes the guilt of the accused. That is, the guy's been arrested, and the alleged contents of his web page have been leaked. But until he actually is convicted, or at least brought to trial, "assassination" presupposes a motive that hasn't been demonstrated in court. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Still, that IS what he's been charged with, under 18 USC 351: attempted assassination (see title of that section of the USC). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Repeating myself from farther up, if the charges say "assassination", then it's fair game. The implication regarding the judge might be that his target was the Congresswoman, and that everyone else there was essentially "collateral damage", as McVeigh would have said. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that we should tread lightly here. There is no single policy on Wikipedia that I agree with more than CONSENSUS. With the number of visitors to this page of late (only 398 the day before the shooting, nearly 1 million in the 2 days since) Establishing consensus here, with so many visitors, will require us to be flexible. Lets all just take a deep breath and try to make sure that we respect all Wikipedia users. AlaskaMike (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious affiliation

Her father is Jewish, her mother is not. She is/was not Jewish.184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps she converted. --Absolut1966 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
We don't need to wonder. Either there's sources or there's not. --StormCommander (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What I have read says that she identifies as Jewish.

Some Jews believe you are only Jewish if you have the heritage from your mothers side (some Jews believe that descent through the father doesn't count). But that is not how all Jewish people feel about it.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this discussion, the only article source that states that she's "Jewish" hints that she's not. She's getting a lot of press on the matter the record should be set straight. From an objective standpoint she considers herself Jewish, though she's technically not according to Jewish Law. My edit was something that addressed both areas. Saxophonemn (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The original research inherent in these comments have no place here - she identifies as Jewish, and that's what we report, based on two sources. It does not matter one bit whether anyone here or anywhere believe anything about Jewish heredity, and I for one find this section deeply offensive. Tvoz/talk 05:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

She's Jewish. See Who is a Jew? — Rickyrab | Talk 07:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

From that article:

"One issue arises because North American Reform and UK Liberal movements have changed some of the halakhic requirements for a Jewish identity in two ways:

A. Children born of just one Jewish parent — regardless of whether the father or mother is Jewish — can claim a Jewish identity. A child of only one Jewish parent who does not claim this identity has, in the eyes of the Reform movement, forfeited his/her Jewish identity. By contrast, the halakhic view is that any child born to a Jewish mother is Jewish, whether or not he/she is raised Jewish, or even whether the mother considers herself Jewish. As an example, the children of Madeleine Albright (who was raised Catholic and was unaware of her Jewish ancestry) would all be Jews according to halakha, since their mother's traceable female ancestors were all Jewish and all three of her children were female. However, this is not the belief of progressive Judaism.

B. The requirement of brit milah has been relaxed, as has the requirement of ritual immersion. (While the Conservative movement permits conversion without circumcision in some cases, notably hemophiliacs,[citation needed] most Orthodox Jews do not[citation needed], except in cases specifically exempted by the Talmud, such as one who has had three brothers die as a result of circumcision.)"

So, under Reform rules, she is Jewish. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take this discussion elsewhere. We're here to discuss the improvement of this article. All that matters is what reliable sources say about Gabrielle Giffords, and that is what is reflected in this article. Tvoz/talk 10:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I was simply declaring to straighten things out, the article makes a controversial statement about her being Jewish, in most Wikipedia articles it mentions in a situation like this that they'll say the background of each parent. This article uses a POV to push a fringe notion of who a Jew is. It would only be offensive to the radicals that came up with that rule in the first place and its implications. Saxophonemn (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Saxophonemn. This "belief" in patrilineality is so ancient (from 1983), that it makes radical Jews "uncomfortable." Reform Judaism allows anything its members want, so the fact that it has "rules" is ridiculous. My dog is Jewish under a reform Rabbi's interpretation.184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

How did the dog take to his circumcision? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Shirly! they don't circumcise dogs! Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You bet! However, only the ortho-dogs wear a yarmulke. P.S. Leslie Nielsen called from The Big Screen in the Sky. He wants his shtick back. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL! — Rickyrab | Talk 17:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddist, etc. What does it matter? GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to quote from Tom Lehrer's "National Brotherhood Week": "Oh, the Catholics hate the Protestants / And the Protestants hate the Catholics / And the Hindus hate the Moslems [sic] / And everybody hates the Jews!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My dog is Reform, so no circ required!184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

Did he get a Bark Mitzvah? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed this Wikipedia obsession with who is (Jewish, German, add your binary category here) before. Two hours ago, I read about the horrific attack on Ms. Giffords in a provincial Swiss newspaper (as it so happens). I looked up her Wikipedia page, then the discussion page, and guess what I found - this. This obsession has simply become disgusting.

Let people have private lives - yes, even if they talk about them in public. Let them be free to say what they see themselves as, and let us focus on their actions, good or bad, and define them by these actions, and not by their private lives or somebody else's demented a priori classifications.

Most importantly, let us hope, with all the strength we have, that Ms. Giffords survives and makes a full recovery. Feketekave (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(In case anybody is wondering, it seems clear to me that the best thing is to remove these labels from her inbox and from the bottom of the page, not because some anonymous contributor somehow has the magical ability to know better than she herself what she is, but rather because her religion and how she sees her ancestry are nobody's business but her own.) Feketekave (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If it were up to me? the religion section would be deleted from all BLP article infoboxes. PS: It's bad enough hearing about all this praying soundbites, on CNN. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, someone feels "uncomfortable." Stop muddying the waters with your comments.184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

I see that Tvoz has edited based upon seeing the sources, however there are irrefutable facts. Citing reliable articles that state the orange is blue and up is left are wrong. And having a cite for them is erroneous. In the main article that states that she's Jewish mentions that she really isn't. When you take the context of the source and knowledge the other aspects you can pull it all together. This isn't a POV issue it's about knowing what you're talking about. The facts that can be agreed upon in a factual sense is that she is a Reform Jew. Saxophonemn (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One irrefutable fact is that we always base religious and ethnic descriptors primarily on self-identification, and only go beyond that if there's some reliable source discussing contradictory information. Find a reliable source that says "Giffords is not actually Jewish" and then we could discuss it - but I've seen no such discussion except on Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well according to my Rastafarian friend that's a whole load of bullocks, it's like saying that your Rastafarian when you're white, you'll be laughed at. Now Judaism is not a "religion" it's more so a culture. The religion of the Jews is Torah Judaism, other "movements" are full of Jews leading to non-Jews who may be apart of the culture but that doesn't cut it. Judaism is about action in addition to beliefs, something that becomes apparent to non-Jews and less observant Jews when they see how Torah Jews act. I don't mean to be coming off as a pompous so, and so, we're doing work here making this article correct, and people keep on getting offended.Saxophonemn (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


In addition to what Gavia said, I think that Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth would be a helpful essay to read. NW (Talk) 19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict, but making the same point] Yes, exactly. I edited based on sources. Duh. Reliable sources, with no apparent axe to grind as I'm seeing here. Saxophonem, do some reading on Wiki policies please - our standard is verifiability, not truth as we know it or truth as we can extrapolate. As a matter of fact I know a lot about the matrilineality of Judaism, and that knowledge, and my knowledge of Torah, and my familiarity with all branches of Judaism, no matter how accurate, is utterly irrlevant to the editing of this article. The sources indicate that she identifies as Jewish, that she belongs to a specific synagogue, and that is how I edited. In fact I did not add or take away "Reform", and unless there are sources that make the specific point regarding Giffords, the branch of Judaism to which her synagogue affiliates is also irrelevant to the editing of this bio. This discussion is inappropriate here, and as I said earlier, I personally find it deeply offensive that people on this talk page are debating whether she is Jewish, how Jewish she is, what kind of Jewish - none of this is appropriate unless it's discussed in a prominent manner - that is, sufficient to merit including it in this BLP - in reliable sources. None of it is helpful here to the editing of the article, and none of it should continue. I'm changing the subhead and asking again that this stop, and the next step would be to close down this thread and move on to actually editing the article. Find a blog somewhere that wants to debate this, if you must, but stop wasting people's time here. Tvoz/talk 19:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The New York Times has a decent article on her religious beliefs: [31] NW (Talk) 00:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Does she eat bagels and lox and go to a Chinese restaurant on Christmas? :) — Rickyrab | Talk 10:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
See comment below I found an article from Israel that says what no other media would dare say. Saxophonemn (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reform Judaism Change

Reform Judaism is Judaism. It's simply a movement within Judaism and not it's own religion. Arizona's entire Jewish population is suffering right now as a whole. The change is insensitive to Arizona's Jewish Community as a whole. I myself, as a Jew, happen to be a member of a reform congregation in AZ. But I'm still a Jew. Not a reform, conservative, or orthodox Jew. I am a simply a Jew. Please consider reverting the edit.

On your talk page you list yourself as simply Jewish. What's your problem with Reform Jews? If I don't see a change I'll revert the edit myself tomorrow.

Ergo Reform Judaism isn't Judaism, Judaism is Judaism. Being a Jew is based upon actually being a Jew. My uncle went to a Reform Temple in AZ, maybe your Temple. They asked him for some sort of statement of earning, and he never came back. Though he shunned religion, he saw through the balogna sauce. I'm just I'm just calling it as I see it. Saxophonemn (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Reform Judaism is a branch of Judaism. It's not the most formal or traditionally adherent variety of Judaism out there - it's to Judaism what "cafeteria Catholicism" is to Catholicism - but it's still Jewish. Unlike Messianic Judaism, which is basically Protestant Christianity trying to pass as Judaism. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thought, the Law of Return and a supreme court decision in Israel have determined that Reform Jews are Jewish. What I am upset about is how Israeli politics of who is Jewish got dragged into an article about a congress woman in AZ. User:N1LQJ | Talk 05:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.240.64 (talk)

User:n1lqj (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. — Rickyrab | Talk 10:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
As you can tell if you scroll down (section "Religious affiliation", previously called "She is not Jewish") some people objected to her being listed as "Jewish" not because she went to a congregation affiliated with Reform Judaism (though they did indulge in what looks like nasty remarks about it) but because she happens to be of mixed descent (with her maternal ancestors not being of the Jewish religion). "Reform Jewish" was chosen as a compromise by an editor who apparently does not consider her to be a true Jew because of her origins.
For what it is worth, it seems clear to me that both (a) her affiliation and (b) the privacy of religious affiliations should be respected; we shouldn't have an infobox entry stating "Religion: Jewish" not because she somehow doesn't have a right to choose what she is, but rather because we should not in general have a religion entry in the infobox - that's a private matter of little relevance to the article. Feketekave (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an insensitivity, but hearing the POV that I'm reform Jew from AZ, blah, blah, blah.... My grandparents are buried and uncle, aunt, and cousins live in AZ, so according to you I have a "shaichus" to express my feelings. However I'm trying to establish a non biased POV, which irks Reform Jews who opened a pandora's box when they redefined who a Jew was. Nobody, but them agreed, what did they expect that by coercion that we would all go along. The result is that you have the a group of people that aren't entirely Jewish. I suspect in a few generations that the Reform Jews will possibly have to go long ways to proved they're Jewish to be accepted into Jewish circles because of this mishigas. Thus to get back on topic, she's a Reform Jew, something everyone could agree on. Because she's not a Jew according to the Torah, but is to the Reform Movement. Saxophonemn (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC) (Sorry forgot to log in)

Wait.....from Arutz Sheva in Israel......."Her paternal grandfather was a rabbi, but the fact that her mother was not Jewish defines her as a non-Jew according to Jewish law. Giffords has accepted herself as a Jew under non-traditional theology, which also recognizes a Jew through Jewish paternity alone." Saxophonemn (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

[citation needed] — Rickyrab | Talk 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm Jewish. By both the Reform and traditional definitions. I'm not sure where what is now the Union for Reform Judaism got its definition from (or, for that matter, where the Orthodox Jews got their definition from), but it is worth noting that the Karaites rely on paternality to define natural Judaism, and that some Orthodoxers out there claim that natural Judaism should derive from both parents in combination. Can you clarify where the Torah says something about "who is a Jew"? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


Orthodox Jewish logic Reform Jewish logic — Rickyrab | Talk 17:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the vast majority of sources that mention her religion say she is Jewish. She says she is Jewish. It is typical in Wikipedia articles about prominent elected officials to mention their religion (though I'm not sure it should be.) Therefore the article says she is Jewish. I don't think it needs to be made any more complicated than that. Neutron (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

A source that says she is Reform Jewish does not contradict a source that says she is Jewish. It merely makes it more precise. this article says:'Born to a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother, Rep. Giffords associated herself with the Reform Jewish faith.' It also says 'Her paternal grandfather was a rabbi, but the fact that her mother was not Jewish defines her as a non-Jew according to Jewish law. Giffords has defined herself as a Jew under non-traditional theology, which also recognizes a Jew through Jewish paternity alone.'
This is a reliable source. None of the other sources referring to her as a Jew say that she is not a Reform Jew. Therefore, this is how Wikipedia should state it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
...which is why the Infobox says "Reform Judaism". However, "first Jewish USRep" is preferable. If a Catholic were elected president of Israel, would you object to her being called "first Christian president"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if a significant percentage of Christians don't consider Catholics to be Christian, I would think it more appropriate to refer to her as "first Catholic president". In any case, barring a source that says either that she is not a Reform Jew or that she does not identify as a Reform Jew, it's more appropriate to call her that. Otherwise, Wikipedia is taking sides in a contentious debate within Judaism, and this hardly seems the place for that. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, this is hardly the place to bring a contentious debate withing Judaism. So, from your first sentence above, you're clarifying that you don't believe her to be Jewish. Since multiple reliable sources disagree with your personal opinion, I'll have to ask you to stop trying to insert that opinion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've said nothing about my personal opinion here. However, your contention that multiple sources disagree with the Orthodox and Conservative view is original research at best. Your removal of a reliable source simply because you disagree with it speaks volumes. Please stop removing it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This comes down to policy. "She's Jewish" is neutral. "She's not really Jewish, even though she says so and multiple reliable sources also say so" is a WP:BLP violation. Your choice where to go with this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused if she said she was Black even though White would you put her down as Black? Additionally it's not again on your original research there is one article that calls it out, and additionally the article hints at it. Is 2+2=4 original research? It seems more like connecting the dots, which requires a reference so that when someone posts 2+2 you can find the other article that says that 2+2=4, so no original research is being done?
Now many of the articles referring to her being Jewish appear to come from the same reference. The article I tried to post from Israel put in the disclaimer, because they're more attuned to the subtleties in a country full of presidents, I mean Jews. Though it seems like were bringing the who's a Jew debate into this article we're not. I figured it would be good to point out that she's technically not Jewish according to Halacha aka Jewish Law as in the Law of the Jews. The labeling her as a Reform Jew is a good start and maybe a broader approach to wikipedia is needed where we agree on how to identify Jews. The reason why this is relevant is because at first it appeared that she was a bona fide Jew, and then upon reading the articles about her background it needed to be clarified. The problem in this part also is that it's a very technical problem, and Jewish theology is also very technical. Saxophonemn (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, this is not an article about Jewish theology. This is a biography of a living person. An extraordinary claim like "she's not what she says she is" requires extraordinary sourcing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The issue concerns Jewish law, not Jewish theology. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Well aware, however it's more of a qualifier, it's not like this is her personal page and she can say whatever about herself. I wouldn't call it extraordinary sourcing in this case we have 2+2 from a "bunch/many" articles and then I found the article that says technically 2+2=4. It sort of ties everything together, and finishes up the gap. I know this isn't a theological article, but I think it creates a springboard for how to deal with this in the future with other Reform "Jews" as opposed to Reform Jews. Saxophonemn (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Funny update, my mom not knowing that I had anything to do with the page mentioned how she looked up the page because Gifford didn't "look Jewish", which is utter trite, however the point still stands, much of her attention in the world, was that she was a Jewish Congressman in addition to being shot. It was the front page of JPost.com if her daddy wasn't Jewish it might have been less prominent.Saxophonemn (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

More sources

I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I found the source (and video) for Rep. Giffords reading the constitution on C-Span.com. It is:
C-SPAN. "House Session January 6, 2011." video 1:55:48 - 1:56:10 as viewed: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HouseSession3985
But, I couldn't figure out how to add it in. Sorry, novice here. - Samueldee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueldee (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I added the C-SPAN source. Good work & thank you. Jesanj (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Name

Is her surname /'d͡ʒɪfədz/ or /'gɪfədz/, or something else entirely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.41.189 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Something else entirely; she's American, it has an American pronunciation, i.e., there is an "R" in it. /'gɪfərdz/ —Diiscool (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In/near Tucson

I am a 15-year Tucson resident and "every news source" is never an accurate statement. The shooting location is most accurately described by local residents as "the NorthWest side of Tucson." The "North side" of Tuscon locally refers to the Foothills area several miles to the east. Also, one could more accurately and completely identify the Safeway involved by including its address: 7110 North Oracle Road, Tucson, AZ, since it isn't the only Safeway store on this side of Tucson. This information is useful because even as a medium term resident, I wasn't certain of just which Safeway they were initially talking about when the news reports referred to it as a Safeway supermarket on Tucson's NorthWest side. David Barber (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Every news sources says "in Tucson," even the one at the end of the sentence recently changed to "near Tucson." Ina Road and Oracle is not in Marana or Oro Valley. The Safeway has a Tucson address, not a Marana address; and this area is not Marana. Tucson has many areas that are not included on the real estate map used to change "in" to "near."

Please restore "in" Tucson until you find a news sources that says otherwise. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant "please don't restore 'near' Tucson". I won't, since the Arizona Star[32] uses similar language. I am used to Massachusetts municipal organization, local reports here would not call a location outside Boston city limits "in Boston". The related 2011 Tucson shooting article has been saying "near", i.e. Casas Adobes, Arizona, which I believe is a technically correct use of the word "near", however subject to claims of WP:OR per what you have written. If you know, does Tucson PD patrol this area? The sheriff's department is in charge of the investigation, but the mayor has held news conferences so it is a little unclear. Thanks for the notice. Sswonk (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirming that the location is correctly called "in Tucson" per U.S. Census map at American Fact Finder, linked here[33]. Thanks again for the clarification. Sswonk (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I wish I knew, but Tucson is a little different in how they handle unincorporated or non-municipal areas. There are areas of Tucson, which are not considered in the city, as bounded approximately by the area shown in the real estate map you linked to, and these areas have Tucson addresses, but not Tucson utilities or school districts or wards. The Pima County Sheriff's department does patrol that area. They said in a news conference today that they are heading the investigation with the FBI and being helped by both the Marana PD (and it's not Marana) and the TPD. I suspect it will be cleared up in tomorrow's newspaper reports, or as soon as someone raises the same questions you did by looking at a map. For now, I think using "in Tucson," as it shows in most press reports is sufficient, until more media select otherwise. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
And thanks for the mind-reading. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Safeway is in Tucson, according to its address. And, the link says she was shot in Tucson. Don't add descriptions from the wikipedia article to prove your original research. If you have a source that says "Casas Adobes," then use it, otherwise there is no consensus and no source for saying she was shot someplace other than Tucson as the news articles say. I ask that this edit to change to Casas Adobes be changed. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it back to "in Tucson" which is accurate per news reports from reliable sources and the address of the location of the shooting, per Google and whitepages.com. Sswonk (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Whether this is in Tucson or not is easily solved. Since we have the address, all we need is a map of the city.
Do not use the city name of the address as the sole factor of determining what city a place is in. It is common for the USPS to assign "Tucson, AZ" to a place outside of the city limits - and this is true in much of the US. Instead, use the street name, street number, and zip code, and compare the location to the city map.
http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/imported/maps/city/wards.pdf shows the extent of the Tucson city limits.
This is the map of the Casas Adobes CDP - This seems to be the real location of the supermarket.
Having an address + map counts as an RS and not as original research. The RSes saying "Tucson, AZ" is an approximation. The RS description of "Tucson, AZ" sources the assertion that the place is near Tucson.
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you notice that the map you link says "Tucson" in bright green letters at about Oracle and Ina? --Kleopatra (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between the place name appearing in a mailing address and actual boundaries of places. The U.S. Postal Service draws up ZIP code boundaries and assigns place names to them without necessarily adhering to actual city boundaries. Thus, while a supermarket like the Safeway where the incident occurred may have “Tucson, AZ” in the last line of its mailing address, this does not necessarily mean it is in Tucson. The City of Tucson has boundaries and Casas Adobes has boundaries. They are clearly defined in the official U.S. Census Boundary and Annexation Survey at http://www2.census.gov/geo/pvs/bas/bas11/st04_az/cou/c04019_pima/BAS11C20401900000_041.pdf. A location is either in Tucson, or it is not. A location is either in Casas Adobes, or it is not. It cannot be in both. As shown on the map, 7011 N. Oracle Road is clearly outside the Tucson city limits, and within the boundaries of Casas Adobes.

The use of “in” by various news sources is simply sloppy journalism. They are saying “in Tucson” in the sense of “in the Tucson metropolitan area” or “in the area for which the U.S. Postal Service assigns ‘Tucson’ as the place name for mailing addresses” - when they should really have reported “near Tucson”, “north of Tucson”, “in Pima County” or “in Casas Adobes” - all true statements. “In Tucson” by itself with no qualifiers is simply misleading and false. Trorov (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do either of you have sources that state the shooting was in anywhere but Tucson? I really don't care how many maps you looked at, or how many times you quote the wikipedia article on cdp's. Simply post a source that says she was shot in an unincorporated area near Tucson. It's simple, this is an encyclopedia, we report the information, let others do the original research to gather it. Your original map reading, your definition from wikipedia articles, none of this matters. IT says in Tucson in all of the article tied to sentences you are writing saying the shooting took place in an unincorporated area near Tucson. Your research is not what's in the news. But, you're welcome to contact the news agencies, get them corrected, get your source, then change the article. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And, in addition to the "Tucson" in bright green letters on WhisperToMe's map, there's this disclaimer on Trorov's map, "boundaries shown on this map are for Census Bureau statistical data collection and tabulation purposes only; their depiction and designation for statistical purposes does not constitute a determination of jurisdictional authority or rights of ownership or entitlement." --Kleopatra (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The green letters refer to the metropolitan area, Kleo. The Tucson in black is the city of Tucson.
And did you see the City of Tucson city council map? Try finding the Safeway market in that. You will not find the market's intersection there.
Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Using_maps_to_determine_locations shows that it is NOT OR to use maps to determine location
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The location of the shooting has been constantly reported as Tucson and "in Tucson" by the Arizona newspaper websites. As explained above, the location of the supermarket is in an unincorporated area which is also a CDP. However, the vast majority of reliable sources which have reported on this tremendous tragedy have stated and continue to state that it is "in Tucson" or at a "Tucson supermarket". I have no doubt that you are both correct, I originally[34] made the change to "near Tucson" but have since been thoroughly convinced that "in Tucson" is entirely acceptable for any purpose other than a further explanation outside the lead in the article about the shooting. Here at the our article about the congresswoman, there is no need to go into such fine detail. "In" here is being used in a broad sense that is supported by heavily reliable sources who have decided not to make the distinction you feel is necessary. Please do not make an issue of this. Sswonk (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
If there is no need to go in fine detail, "near Tucson" will do for this article. I will accept "supermarket near Tucson." It is not accurate to use "in Tucson." The article should not say "in Tucson." Again, "near Tucson," since we do not have to mention the specific name of the suburb in this article. Refer to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Using_maps_to_determine_locations WhisperToMe (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict: take it easy) Well, I got accused of OR for the opposite, that is changing to "near" without a reliable source. My position now is that in spite of what using GIS and maps can tell us, the vast and I do stress vast number of sources on this event at this hour are calling the location of the tragedy Tucson. Please, do not continue to push this it is not worth making a huge deal over such geographic arcana at this article. Sswonk (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"Well, I got accused of OR for the opposite, that is changing to "near" without a reliable source." - Sswonk, I have been in many such discussions. Talk:ENSCO shows that the OR accusations based on CDP maps are not founded. Talk:ENSCO and Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Using_maps_to_determine_locations illustrate that it is okay to say "near."
If you want the discussion to end now, let's agree that "near Tucson" is the best choice. The talk page discussions and the map sources I linked to clearly confirm that we should use "near Tucson," and we should put any debate around it to rest. Based on the same talk pages, we cannot simply say "in Tucson." We must say "near Tucson."
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As I stated and actually acted on earlier[35], I don't disagree with you on the technical merits. What I am asking is that you not change it here. The discussion I believe is suitable for the current events article, there is a lot of stress on the BLP article and I would prefer not to have my earlier actions become a force of agitation as well. Can you take this to another venue? I can not currently agree that "near" is appropriate. Sswonk (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's right the articles say "in Tucson," but you are using a conversation you created on Wikipedia to prove that "near Tucson" is correct. That is the best example of WP:Original Research I have seen in ages. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use such conversations. Noticeboard posts and talk pages don't only involve me. They involve many Wikipedians. As a matter of fact, noticeboard posts are created with the intention of resolving issues like this. "That is the best example of WP:Original Research I have seen in ages." - That isn't OR. When an OR noticeboard concludes/accepts that my usage of the sources is not OR, then it's not OR. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
No, WhisperToMe, your talk page conversations on wikipedia are not reliable references. It's simple: find a reference that agrees with you, provide it, and change the article to what it says. Stop supplying your maps, your research, and your wikipedia talk page conversations, and stop venue shopping to make your point. Just report what the news says. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a lack of understanding of what is happening. I am not directly citing the conversation to say that this is verifiable. I am illustrating that the Wikipedia community considers my usage of map sources of the U.S. Census Bureau (Reliable sources) to not be original research. Directly citing a talk page on Wikipedia in a references section is not okay. Using a talk page to say "my usage of these map sources is not original research" is okay. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? Despite the “disclaimer”, the U.S. Census Boundary and Annexation Survey is the only comprehensive and standardized source of information on jurisdictional boundaries in the country. It covers every state, every county, every municipality of the country. It is updated every year, based on information that the jurisdictions themselves provide. I challenge you to find ANY more reliable source for boundary information.
That being said, do you think any of these news sources looked at a single map in writing their articles? Highly doubtful. All that was probably done was a quick Google fact-check: if Google says “Safeway, 7011 N. Oracle Rd., Tucson, AZ 85704” then it must be IN Tucson! Although there should be clues to any reporter that this is a false assumption - e.g. why would the Pima County Sheriff’s office be handling things instead of the Tucson Police? Oh, well maybe because the incident happened outside of Tucson’s jurisdiction. Gee...that must mean it didn’t happen IN Tucson... Trorov (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't characterize my linking of Google as anything other than a further confirmation of the "acceptability" of using "in Tucson". I know it was in Casas Adobes, see the talk page at Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting#News_overwhelmingly_says_.22in_Tucson.22 for links. However, that is arcana and not what is being reported by our sources. Sswonk (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Since it is in Casas Adobes, but believe that we shouldn't go into detail, let's use "near Tucson" and not mention Casas Adobes in the lead. Is this good? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You really have your soapbox about this issue, and you're going to make your point in this article no matter what. So, how can anyone stop you? --Kleopatra (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't address the person. Address the issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Rses that say "near Tucson"
Hurst, Nathan and Marisa Schultz. "Michigan delegation condemns shooting of Arizona congressional colleague." The Detroit News. January 9, 2011.
"Gabrielle Gifford, D-Ariz., and a handful of staffers at a community event near Tucson on Saturday has left Michigan's congressional delegation "shocked""
Espo, David. "BREAKING - Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot near Tucson." Associated Press at Walla Walla Union-Bulletin. January 8, 2011.
Kiefer, Michael and Karina Bland. "Judge John Roll respected among peers." Arizona Republic. January 9, 2011.
"But his death Saturday in the melee near Tucson that killed six and wounded 13 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was likely an unfortunate coincidence."
Spotts, Pete. "Arizona shooting: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords hit at meeting with constituents." The Christian Science Monitor. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation and local police are investigating a shooting near Tucson, Ariz., that critically injured US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and left an aide, a 9-year-old child, a federal judge, and at least two others dead, law-enforcement officials say."
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
EC again: This local story from Tucson has been using "northwest side" for a few hours, I remember reading it much earlier yesterday. The headline reads Rep. Giffords shot, judge and 5 others killed at Tucson event, not Casas Adobes. Can you please find time to think about what Kleopatra and I are telling you about making too much of this? Yes it technically is near Tucson, I think that once a majority of reports clarify that we can leave the present wording and not get so excited about this. That is my best intuition at this time, Whisper. Sswonk (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of the principle that you and Kleopatra mentioned - It can be seen in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars - However this issue is an understandably confusing one, and I totally understand how a dispute can happen. Also I do not see the problem in using an effort to help solve an issue like this, as I did. Since I found an AZ Republic source that states specifically, exactly the location of this store, I think this issue can be put to rest. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"Gabrielle Giffords shooting: As it unfolded." The Arizona Republic. January 8, 2011.
"Giffords holds town-hall meeting at Safeway, 7110 N. Oracle Road, just outside Tucson city limits in northwestern Pima County."
I think that should do it. This is an RS from Arizona that states exactly where the Safeway is.
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Concur, that is a good correct statement from a reliable source. I will support using "near Tucson". Is there some way to keep that from being food for edit warriors, however? Sswonk (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's create a page notice instructing users on the consensus chosen for the article. The page notice should be at [[Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Gabrielle Giffords]] - The page notice will make it clear to all editors what the consensus is. A sample is at Template:Editnotices/Page/Continental Airlines WhisperToMe (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How is...

this? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See strikes and edits above. That redlink Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Gabrielle Giffords goes to project space, not main space? Sswonk (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I added the final version of the edit notice. I found that the edit notice goes to Template:Editnotices/Page/Gabrielle_Giffords WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

← What is the issue here? The intro is supposed to summarize this article and the section regarding the shooting in this article summarizes the sub article 2011 Tucson shooting. The section here in the main article now names the location as in "Casas Adobes, northwest of Tucson" which could be 2 miles northwest of Tucson or 250 miles. That is not helpful. What possible reason is there to not say in the main article section exactly what the sub article says, which is "Casas Adobes, a suburb of Tucson" and then say "a suburb of Tucson" in the lead? This argument is ridiculous, and you've lost sight of the forest for the trees, and as a result we are giving vague information instead of accurate, sourced information. Tvoz/talk 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is really talking about the lead, which is a summary of information and the general stuff. The specific details are in the body of this article and in the main article about the shooting. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely right. And "suburb of Tucson" in the lead section is more informative than the vague "near Tucson", but is not really more detailed in any way that is harmful to the integrity of the article. Tvoz/talk 21:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, I think the edit notice is really overdoing it - this is an extremely minor point, and the discussion above hardly represents some kind of community consensus, the usual reasons for adding an edit notice. A hidden note pointing editors to this talk page discussion is more than enough - that ought to stave off edit warring (which i doubt we'd have anyway) and allow for discussion here. I'm adding that - if a real consensus is reached that what this point needs is an edit notice, then one can be re-added. This one is overkill, and should be removed. Tvoz/talk 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I could use a comment-in edit <!-- --> instead of an edit notice. What do the rest of you think? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW I found a source stating milage of the place from Downtown Tucson.
News Services. "Routine event turned deadly fast." The New York Times. January 10, 2011.
"She and an aide parked an SUV in the lot of La Toscana Village, a mall about 8 miles north of downtown Tucson."</ref>
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Just noting that I removed the word "suburb" here as this area isn't any more or less sub-urban than the rest of the Tucson metro area. I didn't think this minor change required prior discussion, but thought I should mention it anyway. Revert if you disagree. -Atmoz (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Atmoz, the term "suburb" doesn't mean "rural". In major cities (I'll cite mine —Dallas— as an example) suburb refers to the surrounding communities that are outside the city limits: Farmers Branch, Carrollton, and Richardson are all called "suburbs" of Dallas.
If you'll take the time to follow the suburb Wikilink, you'll see my point. But, personally having no taste for the preceding battle over the Safeway's locale, I wouldn't touch your edit with a ten foot pole.
And in the future, please be civil in your edit summaries. The "b.s." comment was unwarranted, especially since you were off-base on the edit anyway. — DennisDallas (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
In future, I'll take my geography lessons from someone who actually lives in the city. -Atmoz (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Suburb does not mean rural, it means residential. "North of the city" is not particularly informative in the context of this article, nor is it important enough for the lead section of this article which is a biography covering her whole life and career. The fact that the area is a suburban part of the Tucson metro area has some informative value for our readers as it suggests the kind of connection it has to the city of Tucson, and informs our readers of the nature of the area = that it is a residential area, not a downtown business area, not the countryside, not an inner city area, etc. "Unincorporated" as you added to the daughter article is a political distinction and similarly not particularly informative in the context of this article. The wikilinked article on Casas Adobes refers to it as being suburban, as well. So, I am taking it out of the lead where it is not needed and putting into the body where it has some value. This whole matter has been seriously overblown - perhaps by people from the area who have an interest in how it is described? So we should just stick to the sources, go easy on the irrelevant details, and move on already. Tvoz/talk 02:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I would ad the fact that Casa Adobes is not a sub urb or a city or anything, it is a neighborhood, with a small strip mall shopping center named after it. This area is located in Tucson, az however. I know this because I live in Tucson, next to the casa adobes shopping center. The shooting WAS in Tucson TECHNICALLY and NOT in some type of city called "Casa Adobes" which does NOT exist. Some maps I guess say this, but there is no mayor of Casa Adobes, no addresses to this location, nothing of the sorts. I live IN Tucson, near the Casa Adobes neighborhood. Tucson has weird ways of categorizing areas so it makes it confusing for others to understand what city it happened in on the national level. If you check any local Tucson news station or paper, it will never cite Casa Adobes as the location, or as any real type of a location other than a shopping center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdeo (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Tracheotomy Jan 15th

"On January 15, 2011, Giffords had an operation called a tracheostomy tube placement as well as a feeding tube placed." Can this be reworded so it doesn't sound like things took a turn for the worse? I think the Tracheostomy was a positive development the way the source article reads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.52.69 (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I addressed your concern in the article, using material from the original source. This might be too much detail for the long run, though. PhGustaf (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47257.html
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/u/1/nHoaZaLbqB4
  3. ^ http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/u/1/nHoaZaLbqB4
  4. ^ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=248829
  5. ^ http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/u/1/nHoaZaLbqB4
  6. ^ Alexander Burns & Matt Negrin (January 9, 2011). "Federal charges could carry death penalty". Politico. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gabby_Giffords/Archive_3&oldid=1088795670"