Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Please, no fake info

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

Second suspect

{{edit semi-protected}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Er look at the article since 20:56 [1] Nil Einne (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Already done?...looks like the section has been deleted. Shearonink (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we still have the "Person of Interest" section. I think this should be removed for the following reasons: the only reason the media were reporting on this person was that he was initially thought to have been a possible co-conspirator, except he turned out to be a cab driver who had the misfortune of transporting the suspect. If he had still been near the scene and found quickly, chances are we may never have seen more than a very brief media mention. After the media discovered that he was not involved, the only reports were to counter their original hype of a possible "second suspect." He's not being reported on at all, and I do not think the fact that the media made this overblown then dropped it makes him notable. The only notable thing, in my opinion, is that the media latched onto an unknown as a possibly "bigger story" that turned out not to be the case. So, I propose removal. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Charges?

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

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

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

{{edit semi-protected}}

The MSNBC article quote I pasted, which was pasted verbatim onto the article as well, has very poor grammar and style. The official criminal complaint has much more detailed info; perhaps someone more versed in the law can distill down the charges better? In the meantime, I request changing this to read "one count of attempted assassination of a member of Congress, two counts of killing a federal employee, and two counts of attempting to kill a federal employee." (Minus the quotation marks.) The reference can be changed to point at the official complaint above, perhaps. It has a bunch of other information that may be helpful in updating the article that hasn't been well reported elsewhere. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

will do. I had no clue how to rephrase the quote when I was adding it in.--Guerillero | My Talk 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

people being unreasonable

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

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

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

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

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

There are coordinates anyways, and again this was OUTSIDE the Safeway, which appears to be part of a strip mall. It seems it's being reported as being at the Safeway as that was the anchor tenant and closest store, but at the edge of the shared parking lot. So I think the coordinates are even more accurate than providing an address in this case. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hakkapeliitta you have already been warned by a wikipedia admin to stop this edit warring reguarding the address, please just drop it already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It was an Assassination Attempt!

Per the Criminal Complaint filed in United States District Court. Jared Lee Loughner did attempt to Assassinate United States Representative Gabrielle Giffords on or about 8 January 2011.[2] The article should state this was an Assassination Attempt on Mrs. Giffords life.--Subman758 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I added this can you check it please.

He is being charged with "one count of attempted assassination of member of Congress, two counts of killing an employee of the federal government and two counts of attempting to killing a federal employee."[29]

cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 22:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Names of the people who subdued shooter

See [3] Wrad (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably best not included for now - general WP:BLP policy is not to name those only peripheral to topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article also includes more information on how many people helped take him down and how they did it. I was especially impressed that a woman grabbed the fulll magazine of ammo as he was trying to reload. Wrad (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotation

I think we should include the quote from Harnden because it pinpoints the reaction concisely. I do agree that we should trim the weight we give to him, so I will just put in the quotation.--Novus Orator 23:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If we include a quote from him then we need to have a quote from someone who wants to tag Sarah Palin for this to keep it from being unduly weighed. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we already do..? I'll just make it more prominent by using blockquote.--Novus Orator 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner AfD / merge

As a potential POV fork may be forming at a separate article for Jared Lee Loughner, I have started an AfD discussion and suggest merging that article into 2011 Tucson shooting per WP:BLP1E. KimChee (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents

This event has been added to List of terrorist incidents, 2011 - was there consensus for that type of nomenclature here? Kelly ^hi! 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Not every violent act is terrorism. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not an act of terrorism though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that is inappropriate. This is not terrorism by the established definitions, nor are most (any?) places describing it as such. Trebor (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't been charged with terrorism --Guerillero | My Talk 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it from that page. We don't yet know the perpetrator's motives and any attempts to deduce them from his Youtube/Myspace rantings is WP:OR. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin's Map Notable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How very facetious. Obviously, that wouldn't be relevant. A map with crosshairs over a targeted congresswoman, which the congresswoman discussed, and has frequently been discussed by the media is relevant. No one has said that there is a direct link to Palin, but both Palin and the map have been referenced too much to not be noted. Should there be an image of the map in the article? Probably not. Should it be referenced? Absolutely. --Jb 007clone (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

References

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube videos

Loughner apparently has a YouTube video channel at [4], under the name of Classitup10. This is reminiscent of the Kauhajoki school shooting, prior to which Matti Saari had posted videos on YouTube. I've had a look at the three Loughner videos and there is nothing disturbing in them, although they are weird. Take a look quickly, YouTube may pull this channel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Same comment as above, news sources have continually referenced the Youtube videos, such as CNN: [5]. For this article, Youtube is (perhaps unfortunately) a primary source, most of the data about the shooter has come from there. danielkennedy74 (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Giffords was apparently subscribed to him, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.76.118 (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism alert and merging

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hakkapeliitta (talk · contribs) was blocked for editwarring, has multiple UW-3 warnings. So was Hakkapeliitta warning against himself? 184.144.161.119 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

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

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

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

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

Attack Type

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said at a Saturday evening news conference that “I don’t have information about whether she was the first person shot, but yes, I believe she was the target.”[7] Let's not be certain about the motive, things are still confused.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See my comment above - assassination does not necessarily imply motivation. See [8] Professor water (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Now that reliable sources are reporting that the suspect is being charged with an assassination attempt, what are thoughts of others here on whether "assassination attempt" or "attempted assassination" merit inclusion in the article title? I understand that it would increase the length and complexity of the title a great deal so, on that basis alone, I'm concerned the information gain might not be worth it. I'd still like to hear other opinions. -Kasreyn (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Target map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but you can't state unequivocally that there is 'no connection'. We just don't know what motivated the shooting, and if, as seems entirely possible, the gunman was mentally unstable, he may have seen a connection himself, even if nobody else does. Even that is untrue however. There were already numerous comments being made about the risks of inflammatory rhetoric (including Palin's) being made before the shooting, based on the argument that this could lead to somebody carrying out just such an act. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Glock gun image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case there doesn't seem be an image on Wikimedia Commons of a Glock 19 with a 33-round magazine, and the high-capacity magazine would be the salient element. That said, the Virginia Tech precedent is I think a good one. kencf0618 (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

image from Myspace/fallenasleep Copyright Jared ? Glock 19 ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Straub (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos at scene non-free?

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

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

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

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

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

And speaking of images, I've gotten consent for a pair of them from the Flickr copyright holder and have added them to the article. Tabercil (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

ATS Forums Posts

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

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

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

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

Jesse Kelly

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

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

Was blogged at the time - Pointing a 'Page Freshness Bookmarklet' at the image URL gives an http header 'last modified 06/12/2010 22:06:14' - Both June ! Screenshot on a blog ?
I suppose he gets away with deleting the content ?
Or is a local paper a reliable source ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We have the wrong focus in the reactions section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with bd2412. There's nothing wrong with giving an example (The President of the country being the most notable example I can think of in terms of an assault on a US Congresswoman)that helps demonstrate the wide breadth of reaction. They are not mutually exclusive things. This is the standard format on many articles...referring to the general, and then demonstrating it through specific example. To me there's not reason not to have example(s). Jbower47 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Left Wing Radical?

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

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

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

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

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

At best you could argue that Nazism and Fascism described a Third Position, between capitalism and socialism, but quickly devolved into right wing xenophobic nationalists with extremely conservative ideologies. Anything else is revisionism. --Rarian rakista (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

True enough. Certainly a lot of the people who claim to have read Animal Farm can't have been paying much attention if they did. And Mein Kampf is notoriously unreadable for anyone but diehard fanatics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to archive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expansion of reaction section with blockquotes

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

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

A teacher's review

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

Several points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map of Arizona

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

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

Cool!

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

Picture of alleged perpetrator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References and citation tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

High school dropout or not?

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

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

Jared Lee Loughner article reopened

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

Confirmation of assassination attempt of giffords specifically

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

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

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

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

Globe and Mail quote

The Globe and Mail quote is accurately cited [11], but somewhat vague and inaccurate itself. There have been other political shootings in the USA since the attack on Reagan in 1981 [12], but the attack on Giffords is the first on a national politician and the first on a woman. The article should reflect this, or it might be better to remove the GAM quote altogether.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Sources

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

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

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

Need help posting photo

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions/political commentary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More statements

Joe Pitts released a statement at:

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

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

Reaction: References

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

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

to this:

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

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

Reaction area

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

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

Photo: officers investigate crime scene

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

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

Interview with close friend

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

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

Edit request from Mfherman, 10 January 2011

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

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

Misleading edit summary

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

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

That was my edit. Apologies, I thought I'd edited out 'left-wing'. From looking at the diff [13], I think what must have happened is that I made the edit in the wrong place - further down is the following '...a longtime classmate of Loughner describes him as "left wing", "quite liberal" and as a "political radical."', and I think that is what I'd intended to amend. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

911 calls and response times

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

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

Arizona sheriff's comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is very interesting, and apparently correct, as it would be hard to fake. There are two subscriptions, "Classitup10" (apparently Loughner) and Ike Skelton.[14] Since there is some WP:OR here, there are problems with putting it in the article. Let's hope the media wakes up to this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• They have since unsubscribed Loughner. Last login was 4 hours ago. Diego Grez (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

left wing liberal

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

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

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

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

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

I have a question about this. If we're going to include the comments from Caiti Parker, shouldn't the entire comment be included? If we remove the part of her comment we don't like, isn't that OR? Either include the full comment or none at all. 207.67.110.66 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A comment links to possible evidence.

here's his page from Arizona State Voter Information - He's a REPUBLICAN rom District 08:

[15]

Can anyone confirm - That link doesn't work for me ? (Plus I know nothing of US politics - not a 'secret ballot' ???) --195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

An image posted on ImageShack isn't a reliable source - never heard of PhotoShop? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there word of his insanity out yet

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

This is mentioned in the article. In March 2010, a man was arrested for making a death threat against Eric Cantor in a YouTube video.[16][17]. The problem is that if the police had to arrest everyone who posted videos with crazy political views on YouTube, they might soon find they had little time left for anything else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Some accused individuals who have acted crazy have been -- wait for it:-- MERELY ACTING CRAZY! Crazy like a fox, to avoid a death penalty. No intuitive or lay diagnoses of psychopathology, please. Edison (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The news services have now reported he was rejected from military service due to past drug use, not instability. However, several psychiatrists on ABC and CBS stated they believe he displays classic paranoid-schizophrenia symptoms. Still, the legal requirement for him to stand trial is whether or not he understands right from wrong, a test he'll likely pass, and I believe he'll stand trial. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Bullet direction?

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

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

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

I have revised this as attending military surgeons with experience treating gunshot injuries appear to be second-guessing the civilian doctors. KimChee (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in Reactions

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

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

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

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

"20%"? If you're not going to take this seriously, it's hard to debate with you. Palin's bullseyes comprise two small paragraphs. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact is, there had been lots of talk before this happened that the violent rhetoric could lead to something like this.[18] If you want to make it less Palin-specific, that makes some sense, but I don't think it's undue weight to mention the map, especially since Giffords raised her concern over it. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just made some edits to frame the section as about the political climate rather than about the cause of the shooting and cut down on the finger-pointing at Palin. -- ke4roh (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann's POV opinion piece belongs on the Keith Olbermann page not here. Unless we want to add Rush limbaugh, Glen Beck and every other biased POV statement on the issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

1.I've added the 'international media' alinea. It includes 2 Dutch links (NOS, a public news broadcaster; and RTL, a commercial news broadcaster), the BBC News, VRT (Belgian (Flemish, to be specific) news broadcaster), and the ARD (German news broadcaster). All of them referred to both the political climate and the 'hit list', though none of them point fingers towards any party/anyone.

2. I can't see any harm in including the Keith Olbermann quote. Looking at it from a neutral POV (I honestly have no idea who this guy is), he just aks to tone down political rhetoric, and even apologises for his share, without pointing fingers (at least in this quote). I really think it's relevant to the political environment in the US.

3. And to finalise it all: In my opinion, I don't think this part of the article should be one giant 'he said she said' and/or 'he did she did'. It almost looks like as if the shooting continues here on this page. I don't know much about US politics, but I do know that, indeed, the discussions have been heated (to say the least). Maybe really stupid to ask of anyone, and I certainly don't want to offend anyone by saying this, but is it perhaps an idea to look at the article from a European (or Asian, or African, or whatever) point of view? What I mean is: without ány political preference that you might have (Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, etc.)? Robster1983 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Suspect allegedly a left-wing liberal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sheriff: Loughner targeted Giffords, but not over politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would only be appropriate if cited by a reliable source. Kelly ^hi! 01:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a 'reliable source' that will assert that the Nazis were socialists. It is an outright lie. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that the kind of thing Glenn Beck peddles? Andrew Neil said today on 5 Live Beck is an entertainer, but speaks 'meaningless drivel'. Sayerslle (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)