Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Hernandez

Given that we have a number of independent sources that discuss the significance of Hernandez's ethnicity and sexual orientation, I'm in favor of including these facts in the article. I can also see the logic in keeping them out as irrelevant to his motivations, but in that case I can't see the rationale for keeping his age, because that's not relevant either. Including age, but taking out sexual orientation (and ethnicity), just seems like it stems from a desire to keep people from finding out that he is gay (or Latino). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I understand your motivation, but this is just too peripheral. I can't see that the age, sexual orientation or ethnicity of a relatively-minor participant in the incident are that important. Yes, he played his part, and should be thanked for it, but none of the labels we attach to him are actually relevant - or at least, they shouldn't be. Would it be appropriate to note that another participant was a white Anglo-Saxon protestant heterosexual? I doubt it. This shouldn't matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Are sources discussing the importance of his WASPness? (Which they well might be, I haven't looked.) Or, less likely but not impossible, his religion or heterosexuality? If so, I'd be for it.

And, like I said, I'm cool with keeping it all out of the article, too - but taking out sexual orientation and leaving age seems to come from sketchy motivations. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any of it as relevant other than that he is Giffords' intern. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As of now, Hernandez's age isn't in the article anyway - it may possibly have been at some time, but the article changes rapidly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd added all three pieces of information at the same time; one editor reverted ethnicity and sexual orientation but left age, I presumed that none of the factors were important and thus removed age as well, and a separate editor added it back in. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with leaving this out, the media is going into overdrive on the motive, and this is yet more speculation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Booking photo fair use?

I am not sure that the booking photo qualifies as fair use here, because there is a more detailed article specifically on Loughner that the photo is more appropriate to, where it is definitely covered under fair use. This article is about the shooting, and not specifically the suspect. I'm not sure what the policy is on this... Flodded (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be a pity not to have a photo of Loughner in this article. Usually booking photos released to the media do not cause a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that a historical argument has been made in this case. I have submitted a question to the admins at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Jared Lee Loughner just to be sure. KimChee (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Flodded has a point, fair use is not an excuse to freely use the photo in multiple locations. Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not unusual for an image to have a FUR for more than one article, and two articles closely related to Loughner is not multiple locations. It is hard to point out incidents where the police have complained about images that they have released to the media, so this is less of an issue than film screenshots etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

While the appropriate justifications can be made for the use of a copyright image in more than one article, I dont think WP:FAIR allows the use of a copyright image of a living person in this instance in any articles and I have nominated it for deletion. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 95.170.209.139, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the intro, "Those killed in the incident include chief judge for the U.S. District Court for Arizona, John Roll; a nine-year-old girl; and a congressional aide" needs to be changed to "Those killed in the incident include chief judge for the U.S. District Court for Arizona; John Roll, a nine-year-old girl, and a congressional aide" for improper use of semicolons and commas.

95.170.209.138 (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done I believe the current use is consistent with stylistic guidelines. Semicolons may be used in place of commas when commas are required as delimiters within those sections that would otherwise be comma-delimited. Flodded (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we actually need the comma after "Arizona", which means we could change it to "Those killed in the incident include chief judge for the U.S. District Court for Arizona John Roll, a nine-year-old girl, and a congressional aide." -Atmoz (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Political climate section being disputed.

I see somebody added a template to that section. What exactly is being disputed? Likeminas (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The section has had a cleanup and there does not seem much wrong with it at the moment. The template could probably be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done If anyone wants to renew the debate they can feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, Dupnik did not draw a connection, he attempted to draw a connection. He stated point blank he had no evidence. "In the wake of the shooting, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik drew a connection between the political vitriol and the shooting" sb "In the wake of the shooting, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik attempted to draw a connection between the political vitriol and the shooting".

Done, wording simplified.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This section should be a subsection of the Reaction section, as far as I can see. It has to do with the reactions just as much as what is in the Reactions section does, which is why it was originally a part of that section to begin with. Flyer22 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, what does this removal have to do with WP:NPOV? Shouldn't we be relaying both sides of the political climate, how each side felt? That paragraph is how some on the left felt/feel. All this cutting things out in the name of NPOV is senseless to me. It's pretty easy to present both sides. And I'm not seeing why there needs to be so little on it. This is not a big article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the paragraph back but with the disputed wording toned down. I also made the section a subsection, per what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2011

I explained in this section, "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) 21:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything wrong with the way it is formatted now. The problem was that the whole paragraph was removed, when people citing political rhetoric as being partly responsible for the incident, and likely to be one cause of future violent incidents, has been prominent. The way I formatted it now, it notes this view without Olbermann calling people out, but rather Olbermann citing his own political rhetoric as possibly having been a part of the problem. Another editor has also added more to the paragraph in a neutral way. We can add the views of either side without having to add every statement by every prominent figure, especially when the statements are essentially the same coming from whichever side we are focusing on at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary commentary on Myspace

I think the bolded words in this sentence should be deleted - it reads more like a bitter commentary on myspace policy rather than an attempt to bring something of substance to the article:

His deleted Myspace page[52][53] was promptly retrieved.[54] (The page had been removed in accordance to Myspace policy in an attempt to preserve it for possible use as evidence and to protect it from vandalism, though it would have been possible to preserve it by other means.)

Also, perhaps the use of such a lengthy parenthesised text should be avoided? If anyone with permission to edit agrees with me, feel free to delete it. 128.240.229.68 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The part in parentheses was removed. It is somewhat surprising that the YouTube profile is still up at the time of writing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Current event tag

This is not a current event. It has to do with the shootings, which as you know ended. Stop the madness. --Hinata talk 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This article also deals with the after effects of the shooting not JUST the shooting its-self, I feel it is still a current event as it is still being carried in the news. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

People are always in the news. Like Brittany spears and ect. This should stay off. --Hinata talk 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a tendency to overuse the current event tag. This is no longer a breaking news story, the article can do without it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Details worth a mention?

he paid 499 dollars for a Glock automatic. At the first Wal Mart to buy ammunition the sales assistant thought he was acting skittish and said they were out of stock so he just walked to the next one and got 200 rounds of the super-size magazines, banned by Clinton, now available again. 92.1.34.210 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this taken from a reliable media story, could you provide a link?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin in the lede

Why is criticism of Sarah Palin mentioned and cited in the intro to the shooting event? Yes, it is mentioned in the "Political climate" section, but so are other people, and the point made in that section about criticism of the media for politicizing the tragedy is omitted from the intro. Kelly ^hi! 20:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD gives a summary, and there has been considerable criticism of Sarah Palin's rhetoric. I don't think that the current wording goes against WP:NPOV, the main problem is not making a direct link with the map.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the main problem is linking Palin with the shooting at all. If the criticism is included, so should be the widespread notion that the criticism is bogus. Kelly ^hi! 20:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What that guy said. Honestly, this whole thing is just an attempt by the far left to tie in the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh (who is the new target) and create an Oklahoma City bombing type effect for Obama; it is sick and perverted the first thing anyone thinks in this situation is 'How can this help my political party?'. Toa Nidhiki05 20:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw Palin had been installed in the lede, an overview - of the shooting yes, which Palin had nothing to do with, I object to her being stuffed in the lede of a mass shooting that has nothing to do with her at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is not well-balanced content for the lead. --FormerIP (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have any objection to simply removing Palin's name from the lede? I've done it once already but was simply reverted by Andy the Grump without comment here. Kelly ^hi! 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The other extreme would be to airbrush criticism of Sarah Palin out of the article altogether, despite the weight of reliable sourcing on the issue. However, I'm not going to argue about removing this from the lead.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Did someone mention "airbrushing"? Kelly ^hi! 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords herself objected to Sarah Palins 'target list' after her office was vandalised after she voted in favour of healthcare reform - when will you seek to remove all mention of Giffords interview of 2010, of the target map, of the calls for more thought about the language ...('dont retreat, RELOAD' ), used in political fights? Soon enough ,you'll vanish it all. Sayerslle (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin in the introduction for an article she has nothing to do with is completely unacceptable. Prodego ^talk 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It's already been removed by someone else. -Atmoz (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole "political reactions" theme has been removed from the lead. Probably just as well to prevent edit warring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I really think we should hold off until the police figure out why this guy did what he did and what his ideology is; his favorite books are Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, so who knows what this guy thinks; he may be a Third Positionist for all we know. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just weighing in with late agreement - we should not name any names in regard to any political controversy in the lede. As information has developed, it has become less and less plausible that this event was motivated by any particular recent display of political rhetoric. bd2412 T 22:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur, it was quite spectacularly undue and should never have been inserted to begin with. jæs (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• The political climate section currently contains a false statement...it says that Palin's "Take Back the 20" map was removed from Facebook following the attack. Original research on my part, but it's still there. I think they were referring to the "Take Back the 20" website, which a Palin aide said was taken down because it was obsolete. Probably best to just remove the statement unless it can be accurately sourced. Kelly ^hi! 23:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Palin shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. For all we know, twinkies might've been the motivator. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Laughner?

That erroneous spelt article is currently a re-direct to this article. It should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Several media outlets were reporting this spelling for a few initial hours, hence the redirect. It's not hurting anything. Beach drifter (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Title

Lots of people are shot in Tucson.

There needs to be discussion on the title. First, we need to decide what is important then decide on the title.

As we know more, it may make sense. Was the gunman mad at Safeway? Or Judge Roll? Or Rep. Giffords? Or mad at Tucson? Or just wanted to shoot at a crowd?

CNN poses this as the shooting of Giffords, not 2011 Tucson shooting as Wikipedia. If so, it is original research and wrong to make up a Wikipedia term. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Did not the shooting happen at an event called, Congress on Your Corner ? Would that not be needed in the title ? Just as a shooting at the Superbowl would have Superbowl in the title110.174.238.120 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not how we do things
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2011 Is this important. Don't assume that it is. Neutral 2011 is not a major feature of the event. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Tucson, AZ Oppose Reliable sources, like CNN, point to Gifford's shooting more prominently than Tucson. Besides, it may be Casas Adobes, AZ. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Safeway Neutral No reports of anti-Safeway yet but the Safeway shootings may become popularized as a term later. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Gabrielle Giffords Support Reliable sources, like CNN, point to this as the event. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

This Wikipedia entry reads like an article from a news organization, laden with quotes and images that have very little relevance. I came to read about the event because I knew very little and found all sorts of nonsense, like the ages of the victims, for example. This is my first wiki edit, so if its out of place, someone move it. But please keep this comment because I am very disapointed by the relevance of this article. Quotes by pundits and media are next to useless and the story telling (ie "within 38 minutes...") is childish.

This is so poorly set up I dont even know where to post, I am fine with the current title as I feel it says enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is this? The page move should be undone. We don't even know Giffords was the target. It could have been Roll. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Per consensus? You were the only one to vote for a change! This needs to be undone.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 22:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change I feel that this should be move protected until this dispute can be resolved, there is anotehr way to present the information too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Survey

I'd keep it at 2011 Tucson shooting for now. Year+place has often been the standard formula for names of articles about shootings. Nanobear (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping the move war. Do we need all 50 heading on this page. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed to keep it as 2011 Tucson shooting - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Support move-protection. The current title is not ideal, but Hakkapeliitta has twicerepeatedly moved this page to random-seeming titles, and the above is a textbook example of how not to conduct a move discussion. If there's no obvious new title, we discuss it, we do not force things to proceed through incomprehensible polls. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that this discussion shoul be removed too so there isnt 50 headings here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I cut as much of it as I could without altering Hakkapeliitta's comments and hid the rest. Again, let's discuss things. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose moves Current title is fine. I would support move protection as well. Yoenit (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose moves Agreed current title is fine, it sums up what the article is about without being overlly too detailed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Moves If this is moved again it needs to be locked in place. This wheel warring is crazy. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Can we at least get the article title to match the correct city (It was not in Tuscon) or reference one of the more significant victims (the Senator)? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 00:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Move protection

• Please move protect for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin has move protected the article, so it cannot be renamed without administrator intervention. 65.94.44.243 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Good idea to keep it where it is for now, the media may eventually come up with a standardized name for it, it's too soon to tell. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Year is Young

...There may very well be more notable shootings in Tuscon this year.Mike18xx (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, all future shootings in Tucson that occur in this year will be referred to as 2011 Tucson shooting Part 2, 3, etc. Shardok (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Time to change title, listen to the Governor

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said "Please join me in prayer for the health of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and several other individuals who were shot this morning in Tucson."[27]

Note that the governor did not use the term "2011 Tucson shootings". I looked at CNN, ABC, NBC, none of them use that term.

This is illegal Wikipedia Original Research.

One possibility is to use the term that that Governor used, i.e. Shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others. Or drop the others.

CNN says http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 a reference to "grocery store" so maybe "Tucson grocery store shootings (2011)". Hakkapeliitta (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please give it a rest. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rest period ended, current title is wrong

Reading over the news, NOBODY refers to it as the "2011 Tucson shootings". The title of the article needs to change. Discussion is useful to decide what to change it to.

Arizona: Most of the news organizations refer to Arizona.

Giffords: There are reports now that she was the target, not Judge Roll and certainly not the 9 year old kid. Note that the Reagan assassination attempt is not entitled "1981 Washington shootings". As more information becomes available, we will have more information from the gunman that the Congresswoman was the target.

grocery store or Safeway: This is fairly prominent into the story.

In a few days, if there is further confirmation of the gunman's motives, the title might be Giffords assassination attempt. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so I don't see any harm in waiting a few more days until the motives are clearer. The current title is good enough for now. Gbraing (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The current title is fine, leave it as is until the media dubs it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK with me to wait but the title is wrong. Just as the Reagan assassination attempt shouldn't be called "1981 Washington shooting" Hakkapeliitta (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think that the situations are a little different because there were additional civilian casualties in this instance, beyond Giffords herself. Gbraing (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no rush to change this title. There is so much media being produced about the event at the moment, that we have no idea what the established name will become. Once things settle down, we can have another look; in the interim, this title is fine. Trebor (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tucson Massacre or Arizona Massacre

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

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

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

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

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

The media operate on a different timescale than Wikipedia. In any case, I've seen no evidence that people are finding the article hard to locate. Endless tinkering with titles achieves little. Content is more significant AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That is just a grumpy excuse. The article is easy to find because there is a link on the main page. With that link, this article is easy to find even if it were retitled IEIFUFJERHDYEYU348585697D8KJ Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Image of the crosshairs map

Audio of the First responders can be found at WhyPayForHelp.info click on The only link on the page which leads you to a .mp3 =

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unbelievable that so many sources would be blamed for motivating this murderer while no one has mentioned his parents' political affiliations. I'll bet you everything I have that they are liberal and they are registered democrats. The murderer was a nut and his parents would have had more influence on his worldview than any other source. Any one want to refute that? 63.166.247.24 (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • • What we have to discuss is whether the map has encyclopedic relevance, and if it there is critical commentary about it. Plenty of newpapers have covered the removal of the map and the usage of the type of crosshairs that are used in gun sights google news search. It's already sourced to the New York Times and the CNN, and it was also covered in places like Daily Mail[1], Sydney Morning Herald[2], Msnbc [3]. Slate magazine is reporting that Bob Brady wants to create new legislation for the specific purpose of forbiding stuff like this map[4] brady google search. A Palin's aide has claimed that they were surveyor symbols, and newspapers are reporting on a tweet made by Palin the same day that the map was posted [5] (The Atlantic). If the problem is the lack of critical commentary, then there are sources to write up at least a couple or three sentences, almost a whole paragraph. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• - not here - totally undue, there is nothing at all to say the picture has anything to do with the shooting, which is what this article is actually about - I suggest if users want to write about this they create an article for it - Aggression and violent rhetoric in American partisan politics - Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There are lots of newspapers articles commenting on the map in relationship to the shooting, that's the basis for including it here. And nobody is saying that the map caused or influenced the shootings, that's just a straw man argument. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Hey, guess what, today I bought the paper edition of Spanish El País because of a promotion they are making, and it shows the crosshair map in page 3 in the middle of the article about the shooting. The caption says "THE TARGETS OF PALIN. Sarah Palin published in 2010 a list of democrat congressists who voted the reform of Sanity and whose legislative seats [she] considered easily recoverable. Gabrielle Giffords appears in the list, the forth by the left". --Enric Naval (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the basis for saying that it shouldn't be covered here? All the RS coverage of the map is made in the context of how the shooting has made it relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The image appears now at Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Use_of_martial_language, which is more relevant than this article. That is good enough for me. Congrats for the good editing job. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Supposed American Renaissance connection

American Renaissance specifically denies that Loughner ever had anything to do with them; see [6] [http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/01/american_renais_16.php]. They also say the supposed "leaked Homeland Security memo" is actually by local law enforcement. Given the denials, it is not appropriate to try to link them with Loughner, any more than it is appropriate to try to link Loughner to Palin, or call him a "left-winger", "right-winger", etc. If there's a connection, it will come out in plain terms eventually. Until then, that material needs to stay out of the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just an update on this: DHS confirms that they never wrote any such memo or made this supposed connection [7]. Again, I will not be removing that section any more - but it ought to be removed. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

If you want to characterize American Renaissance as "far right," so be it; that's merely opinion, but your article falsely characterizes American Renaissance as anti-Semitic. That is an extremely serious charge as anti-Semitism was the driving force behind the genocidal destruction of European Jewry in the mid-20th century. Can we at least agree that such a serious accusation should not be tossed around carelessly? In this case, there is absolutely *no* evidence for the charge that American Renaissance is anti-Semitic. In its 20 years of existence, AmRen has never published an anti-Semitic article. Even a cursory review of the American Renaissance website reveals AmRen regularly publishes Jewish writers in its monthly magazine and hosts Jewish speakers at its bi-annual conferences. This would include Jewish intellectuals such as Paul Gottfried, Nichols Stix, Michael E. Levin, Eugene Valberg, Lawrence Auster, Michael Hart, and Robert Weissberg. At their first conference in 1994, one of the speakers was Rabbi Mayer Schiller. We all know that Wikipedia is run by a bunch of left-of-center types, but can you at least get your facts straight enough to avoid lodging such scurrilous attacks against people with whom you disagree politically? I'm not asking you to spend hours of shoe leather on it; just spend a few minutes looking at amren.com and using google. KarlKetzer (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What does the source say? If the source we are currently using doesn't say "anti-semitic" then neither should we (I am typing this without looking). --FormerIP (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For the charge of anti-Semitism, the Wikipedia article cites The Huffington Post and the Christian Science Monitor, which in turn cite a memo which Fox news supposedly obtained from DHS except that most recently DHS says that it's not their memo (tinyurl.com/4a4swf3), so who the heck knows where this supposed "memo" came from. For all we know, someone at Fox pulled it out of thin air, and HuffPo and CSM are simply parroting Fox propaganda without doing any original research - what we in the old days used to call journalism. HuffPo, CSM, and Fox are all pretty much stenographers to power, and since Jared Taylor stands as a heretic before the cult of PC diversity, the news media essentially swallow and regurgitate any scurrilous statement made by "an official close to the investigation speaking off the record." Is that really the model that Wikipedia seeks to emulate? The fact remains that AmRen is not anti-Semitic, and this is easily verifiable by anyone capable of rubbing two braincells together regardless of what an internal memo supposedly written by some government bureaucrat may or may not say. For crying out loud, even Mark Potok at the SPLC can verify that Jared Taylor is not an anti-Semite. Every moment that Wikipedia allows the baseless smear of anti-Semitism against Jared Taylor and AmRen to stand uncorrected is a stain on Wikipedia's reputation for fairness. Simple decency demands that it be removed. KarlKetzer (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, Karl. If you are just saying "we should not say this because I believe it isn't true", then that is not wikipedia policy. With regards to the memo, we should be accurate. Fox might have pulled it out of the air but they are for better or worse a reliable source, so our presumption is that they didn't, unless there is evidence to the contrary. With regards to whether AR is anti-semitic, it appears to be in a reliable source, although if there are other reliable sources which debunk this, please present them. "Jared Taylor stands as a heretic before the cult of PC diversity" comes across like a defence. You might want to think about rephrasing, but its up to you. --FormerIP (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in question is structured in such a way that "anti-Semitic" is merely a statement of fact, but it's not a proven fact that AmRen is anti-Semitic. It's an unproved assertion. If the DHS wants to label a group as anti-Semitic, or racist, or whatever, the onus is on them to back the assertion with facts. Otherwise it's simply an Appeal to Authority and they are free to similarly label anything they like. Now we know that the memo itself didn't come from the DHS but rather from a "law enforcement" source that is unverifiable. Believing an organization to be anti-Semitic based on a single, possibly fraudulent memo is obviously partisan thinking, and this is the only reason why the wording remains. At the very least, "alleged" should be added before "anti-Semitic", especially since Loughner is identified as the "alleged" shooter throughout the article.Deep Candle (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The "memo" and its contents have been debunked. The characterization of AmRen as "anti-Semitic" is slander and should be removed immediately. Deep Candle (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it's against Wikipedia policy to retract the original charge of anti-Semitism unless and until a government document or a government spokesperson states that American Renaissance is not anti-Semitic, and then Fox news or some other "reliable source" [sic] reports it. Nicholas Stix had Wikipedia perfectly figured out. Perhaps this website should change its name from Wikipedia to "GovernmentSays."KarlKetzer (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

On 1-11-2011 Politico reported that David Denlinger, commander of the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center, publicly acknowledged that the document earlier and erroneously described by Fox as a "DHS memo" actually came from his agency. Dellinger "conceded that the document erred in labeling American Renaissance anti-Semitic, which formed the basis for its suggestion that Loughner may have targeted Giffords because of her religion." Will Wikipedia finally retract its false defamatory charge of anti-Semitism against American Renaissance? KarlKetzer (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary measurement (distance)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please spare us from automatic conversions which say "the gun was 1.2 meters away," since no one held up a tape measure to verify the distance to 2 significant figures, with confidence that it was between 1.15 meters and 1.25 meters. Edison (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to get involved with this debate. However, I know for a fact that police do measure things exactly and report that shell casings were __ inches from __. Madrid 2020 (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Loughner's Attorney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is "alleged" or "accused." Per WP:BLP, the article cannot state that he is guilty of a crime, or that he is a murderer. Period. Edison (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Our policy applies to talk pages as well. Referring to the "alleged" or "accused" by their name also works. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Was suspect a 9/11 truther?

Newest information starting to get out that the primary suspect believed that 9/11 was an inside job, and that George W. Bush was responsible: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/10/more-loughner-details-911-truther-perhaps-an-occultist/ Also some information about the suspect's occultist tendencies...? Just something to keep an eye on, I'm not confident enough to edit the article personally, I just wanted to make this info known. Zenmastervex (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Hotair.com"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hot Air (news site). Primarily conservative opinion. Kelly ^hi! 13:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the name of their site is apropos. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you guys even bother to check out the AP links posted on that site? Even though the site I posted may be biased, it's sources were not. Try reading the entire article next time. Zenmastervex (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I make it a habit not to click on questionable links, and that is a questionable link. If you wanted us to take this seriously, you should've posted those AP links instead. I still won't click on that link. --Muboshgu (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The occultist theory comes from a New York Daily News story at [8], which looks less than ideal as a source. It is becoming quite hard to keep up with all the media theories about the motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The media love to try to pin down a rational "motive" for an irrational act. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the AP article, which I'm betting most of you will agree is RS:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gutbUc8KWEv3iMUewPN445D4uSYw?docId=c09a07a17e1b4aaa82815779cbf6f758 Zenmastervex (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to put it in because it was written shortly after the shooting, which makes it a rush job that could be inaccurate. They're taking it from reports of people who sorta knew him (as far as I can tell) and whether he was a full blown 9/11 Truther or someone who briefly considered the idea but then never stuck with it makes a difference. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Judge Roll's picture

Should be in the article. Madrid 2020 (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have a rationale for this article per WP:NFCC#10c, and would probably be challenged even if it did. Kelly ^hi! 01:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't have it because it is not a free image. Then I agree to not have it. Madrid 2020 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reactions: photos of Obama and Boehner

The Boehner photo is important because it shows how Congress has closed shop in tribute. The Obama photo is just one of hundreds of Obama photos of him on the podium. However, to give equal coverage to the GOP and Democrats, we shouldn't just have Boehner's photo and we should allow Obama. Madrid 2020 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the Obama photo looks like just another picture of Obama behind a podium again, but I don't have any feelings about its presence. It would be nice if someone with video tech skillz could take the actual video of his remarks and make it wiki-compatible. Kelly ^hi! 01:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be overkill because the President typically makes public statements, like in the crash of Continental Airlines in Buffalo, NY or this shooting. But it is fair to have a still photo of Obama so that Boehner's photo is balanced out. Madrid 2020 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, we'll be able replace it with a more distinctive photo of Obama actually speaking in Arizona tomorrow. bd2412 T 03:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It took a while to find the photo of Speaker Boehner. One user took it out because of sandwiching concerns but I fixed it. I hope this will not become a shooting war with radical Tea Party people trying to remove Obama's photo and radical Communists trying to remove Boehner's photo. Both were big wigs to react, Boehner speaking out very early and essentially shutting down the House for a week and Obama doing what Presidents are supposed to do. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No link between Jared Loughner and "American Renaissaince"

Please delete from the article the claim that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) linked the prime suspect Jared Loughner with the anti-immigration group "American Renaissance". That is a false statement, and has been refuted by the DHS itself. DHS has NOT linked Loughner with "American Renaissance", as shown in an article in the Washington Post at the following link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/dhs_has_not_determined_possibl.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to say that DHS has not officially established a link between the two because it is not its role to do so. However, the spokesperson is also clear in saying that local law enforcement may have been given the information unofficially. So it doesn't seem to me to contradict what has been reported on Fox News and elsewhere. --FormerIP (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The DHS statement in the Washington Post article goes beyond that: "DHS has not even concluded in any official way that even the possibility of such ties exists." Why would the Wikipedia article report on what may have been said unofficially by someone in the DHS, and not on what has been said officially? This smacks of bias on the part of the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article would report on this because it has been reported in reliable sources per WP:RS. --FormerIP (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This notion has been completely debunked and should be removed from the article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47438.html

Thismightbezach (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that AmRen is anti-semitic, and clarified the source and contents of the memo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Too much quoting

There's too much quoting overall in the article. If I had to point to which quotes should be trimmed or paraphrased, I'd say that quoting news organizations is worse than quoting individuals. Abductive (reasoning) 00:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Which quotes are you talking about? Kelly ^hi! 00:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Towards the bottom, there are a lot of quotes from news orgs. These are lazy and should be paraphrased. But I mention it here on the talk page to see if anybody wants to put in the effort, not to gain consensus that they be paraphrased; that must be done eventually. No rush. Abductive (reasoning) 00:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for specificity, you mean the Political climate section, correct? If so, I agree with you that there is too much quoting of copyrighted material there, and also that the excess quoting in that section makes for bad style generally. I don't have an immediate suggestion on what to cut, but I'll look at it. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole political climate section should be three sentences. The first the quote from the sheriff, because that is the only important quote and it gives context to the whole event, the second should be a sentence saying something like "some politicians have criticized that political rhetoric has become too militant, often citing Sarah Palin's map depicting images resembling cross hairs on Giffords district(with links)." and a third sentence saying something like. "While other's have defended Sarah Palin, saying that it's too soon to tell what the shooter's motive was"(with links here). Just because John Stewart or Keith Olberman have a tv show does not make their reactions encyclopedia worthy. It's worth broadly summarizing the even because news outlets are covering it but I doubt anyone will care in 6 months let alone 2 years who said what. See Oklahoma city bombing where there was widespread speculation that the attack was from Muslims. The section summarizes that view and links to a few articles. examinernumber9

Anti-Palin POV-pushing

This keeps coming up in thread after thread on this page, but can we all agree that's it's time to stop with the anti-Sarah Palin POV-pushing? There hasn't been a single shred of evidence to tie anything Palin (or any other political figure or group) has done or said to this crime. Yes, a bunch of media figures engaged in a lot of irresponsible speculation immediately after the shooting. A bunch of other media figures denounced the speculation. It was always far more about the running battle that Palin and the press have engaged in for over two years than it was ever about this shooting. There is now a brief mention of the Palin/media fight in this article and in Palin's biography. Can we all agree to stop trying to expand the information (which only invites others to insert even more opposing viewpoints and to battle over the content)? And can we also agree to stop trying to change the language from neutral to non-neutral (i.e. "hit list")? Kelly ^hi! 00:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No argument here. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I say remove it. All of this "possibly influenced by unpopular person X" crap is speculation without evidence, and all of it should go. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately there are far too many reliable secondary sources discussioning Palin's violent language, image, Gifford complaining about the image, taking down said image, impact on Palin's future career, and so forth to whitewash it out if the article. Compare the near total lack of reference to Sharon Angle's "second amendment remedies" and any reasonable interpretation is that the article must cover the material, no matter how illogical it may seem to some that she is catching flak. Abductive (reasoning) 00:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That stuff maybe belongs in the Public image of Sarah Palin article, sure. It isn't actually relevant to the shooting, so I don't think we can justify emphasizing it here. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would not be a reflection of the sources, which are talking about this shooting. Abductive (reasoning) 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This might sound more convincing were it not for the attempts of some on the right amongst Wikipedia contributors to brand Loughner a "left winger" etc on the flimsiest of evidence. Yes, there has been partisan editing, and no, there is no evidence as yet of any connection with anything Palin said or did and the shootings, but this doesn't alter the fact that responsible media sources world-wide have questioned whether the sometimes-inflammatory rhetoric of the American political right may have been a factor. It should be noted that this was being commented on before the shootings, and was specifically directed at the right. To attempt to conceal the fact that the issue is being discussed is itself POV-pushing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't been concealed or "whitewashed", it's included. But everytime a consensus version is reached, there are attempts to expand it or make it more POV. Kelly ^hi! 01:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The "leftist" crap is also crap, and also should go. The fact that "this was being discussed before the shootings" just makes my point for me, that it's not related to the shootings. And we don't do tit-for-tat editing here. If other editors have advanced bad theories, that doesn't mean we add more bad theories to balance them. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't know yet that this is a 'bad theory'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"this doesn't alter the fact that responsible media sources world-wide have questioned whether the sometimes-inflammatory rhetoric of the American political right may have been a factor."Whether anyone questions it or not really isn't part of what Wikipedia is about is it? I mean, they may question it, but we're supposed to be dealing in verifiable fact here and not speculation, aren't we? Lhb1239 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The world-wide commentary is a verifiable fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That they are talking about it is a verifiable fact, whether they are right or wrong about what they are saying isn't. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Likeminas (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I get that. But they are specualting. Until there are facts about why Loughner did what he did, there's no reason why we need to add more speculation. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a news reporting agency or a supermarket tabloid, is it? Isn't it supposed to be an encyclopedia? Encyclopedias contain verifiable facts, not speculation. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WE are reporting that the media have raised the issue. This is a verifiable fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned up the page, the media - normally reliable sources - speculates about Palin all the time, about whether she had a boob job, whether she's getting divorced, whether she gave birth to her own child. All this speculation is verifiable, it doesn't make it encyclopedic. A brief mention is fine, but enough with trying to expand into a main point of the article about this crime. Kelly ^hi! 01:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but tabloid gossip about Palin is no way comparable to the coverage of this issue being given by mainstream media sources worldwide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about tabloids. The Trig Truth stuff is pushed regularly by The Atlantic. But I'm not sure of your position - are you advocating expansion of the Palin information in this article? Kelly ^hi! 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm advocating not taking something being 'anti-Palin' as a justification to exclude it, when it is on-topic, relevant, and sourced to the mainstream media because you consider this to be 'non-neutral'. Wikepedia isn't supposed to use 'neutrality' as a reason to exclude properly-sourced criticism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about attempts to insinuate that Palin was responsible for the shooting in any way. Kelly ^hi! 01:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you all want an article on inflammatory political rhetoric, start one or expand an existing article about the person in question. This page is about the shooting in Tucson earlier this week, not a page devoted to using the tragedy to score political points, this is not an offshoot of the Sarah Palin article. It would be worth mentioning that there was widespread SPECULATION that the shooter was influenced by the right wing or that the incident sparked debate over heated rhetoric, but now that we know the facts of the case and that politics had little to do with the shooters personal grudge against the Congresswoman, this article should reflect that fact and not serve as yet another battlefield for the Palin vs. anti-Palin ideologues.

The closest example we have to this shooting is Hickley's 1981 attempt. When that assassination attempt occurred, there was wild speculation in the media that it was a left winger who wanted Reagan dead for his politics. Now, 30 years later we have filtered out the BS, and it is no longer relevant what speculation was going on after that assassination attempt. After 9/11, there was all kinds of media speculation prior to it being confirmed what group was responsible. Do we see those speculative remarks posted in the Wikipedia article? No. Or at least, not in detail. Just some thoughts on the issue..--FrankieG123 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't insinuation. It is speculation in responsible sources as to whether Palin's rhetoric etc may have been a factor in the shooting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And the speculation has been widely criticized and has already been left behind by the news cycle as more facts have become known. It makes me wonder what the point is of continuing to emphasize it. Kelly ^hi! 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

For all we know, Grover of Sesame Street or the Mad Hatter, might've motivated Loughner to attack. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And if mainstream media sources worldwide start discussing this, we can include it too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

An important difference would be that Grover is not the subject of a Wikipedia BLP. Kelly ^hi! 02:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Grover. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Grover is alive? ALIVE! Kelly ^hi! 02:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Section break

Let's stop the Palin damage control advocacy, and instead let’s focus on mirroring the discussion by the mainstream media outlets. The facts are 1) The Palin camp posted, a map showing political 'targets' with their names. 2)Palin has allegorically used gun related rhetoric as in don't retreat, reload, 3)whether this individual was influenced by Palin wen don't know. What we do know, however, is that the Palin camp felt the heat and immediately took down the page with the map and the MSM is discussing how that rhetoric might have had an effect on these events. Those are facts, and they need to go into this article and possibly others as well.Likeminas (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The points you have described don't "need to go" anywhere except perhaps in Public image of Sarah Palin. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's already covered there. Kelly ^hi! 01:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is being discussed in relation to the shootings. It should be covered here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Giffords was pro-gun. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is covered here. What I'm saying is leave the consensus version alone. Kelly ^hi! 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If the attempts to expand it are all attempting to increase coverage of the issue, then isn't this an indication that the 'consensus' actually isn't being met? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And the attempts to expand end up getting reverted by multiple other editors. It's making the article unstable. Kelly ^hi! 01:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Some information on the Palin mess should definitely go in this article, not just her article, as it largely has to do with reactions to the shooting. This article is about the shooting, so how it is unrelated to this matter is beyond me. But I agree that it should be given due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Palin damage control team has been quite successful at adding at least two times within the political climate section, sentences condemning any insinuation that the maps with the targets could have had any influence on anybody.Likeminas (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have some reliable sources stating that the maps did influence the killer, you could add that reference, you know. Kelly ^hi! 02:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We have reliable sources asking whether the maps might have. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And other sources condemning that speculation. Both of which viewpoints are included with appropriate weight and don't need to be made more POV or expanded further. Kelly ^hi! 02:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources discussing how that kind of rhetoric (and the hit list map) might have had an influence. Yet the article has barely any mention of it.

The section does have plenty of Palin apologetics: such as Commentators defending Palin pointed to previous examples of "targeting" being used in political imagery prior to the "crosshairs" map. Internation media pointed to the political climate in the US and the Palin list in particular. AND Meanwhile an email from Sarah Palin was read aloud by Glenn Beck on his January 10, 2011 show. It read: “I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence. Likeminas (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So perhaps we could have a 100kb section that included every single example of media outlets criticizing Palin over this issue. Then the pro-Palin people could add another 100kB section detailing and quoting every countervailing view. All of which has very little actual relation to the subject of this article. Kelly ^hi! 02:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this rather proves the point, Kelly. Rather than reflecting what sources are discussing, you see this in pro vs anti-Palin terms. This isn't NPOV at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm speaking precisely in terms of NPOV. I'm not arguing for removal of the criticism, I've been asking from the beginning for neutral language and appropriate weight. Kelly ^hi! 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but every edit you've proposed, and every comment you've made, has been pro-Palin. You really aren't in a position to discuss 'neutrality'. If you based your arguments on WP policy, rather than your own perception of what constitutes POV, you'd have a better argument. AndyTheGrump (talk)

That's odd - arguing for neutral language regarding Palin automatically means I'm "pro-Palin"? You'll notice I've not similarly labeled you as "anti-Palin". I'm pro WP:BLP, actually. Kelly ^hi! 02:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Sayerslle (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Neutrality is in the eye of the beholder. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Kelly ^hi! 03:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think both of you have cast an equal number of stones. (The truth comes out in discourse, so thats not necessarily a bad thing)--Guerillero | My Talk 03:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

All I see is green Kelly's all over the place. --Jb 007clone (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Imma put here what I already said before:
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) 10:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note that now that Republican Tim Pawlenty has criticized Palin for the crosshairs, the article should be adjusted to reflect that criticism of the crosshairs image is not restricted to left wing pundits. Abductive (reasoning) 11:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Palin Sanitizing

This article is continually being sanitized by Pro-Palin and Right-Wing editors. Palin is notable as, like it or not, reaction has primarily been focused on her. It is not your job to correct this 'wrong' in the article, but instead accurately reflect what has been said/reported, giving her notability proportional representation against any opposing views. Inserting violent quotes by liberals simply to 'balance' things out is political gamesmanship. Trying to minimize her role in the reactions or eliminate any mention of her altogether is political gamesmanship. As many have pointed out, this article is not a political debate forum. Please try and remember that.--Jb 007clone (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin image and images mashed together in the Political climate section

(←) I've just reverted an attempt to insert a photograph of Palin into the "Political climate" section by Madrid 2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No level of good faith assumption can overcome the fact that it looks like that account may be some sort of a sleeper sock out to prove a point here. jæs (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the user once on mashing an image with the Obama image, just moments ago, and twice now on removing the Obama image. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What point is that? I've been off the computer most of the day and from what I can see, Madrid's edits are just disruptive, but seem all over the place. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

My best guess based on a posting to my talk page is that they may object to any images being included. Based on the state of the article before their editing, perhaps they object to the image of Obama during the moment of silence? The method of asserting their point seems to be to overwhelm the article with as many images as possible. jæs (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment about lede

I was just reading the lede and it seems pretty good overall, but I don't see why the stores where he bought the gun and ammo are important. It seems like relatively unimportant details to include in the lede. I doubt if John Hinckley, Jr. includes such details in the lede.

I suggest changing removing the following struck out text:

Police reports reveal he had purchased a Glock pistol at a Sportsman's Warehouse store less than six weeks before, had attempted to buy additional bullets for the pistol at a Wal-Mart on the day of the shooting, and was legally able to carry it concealed on his person due to recent changes in Arizona law.

If no bullets were actually purchased at the Walmart as the text seems to imply, then it should go as well.

Police reports reveal he had purchased a Glock pistol at a Sportsman's Warehouse store less than six weeks before, had attempted to buy additional bullets for the pistol at a Wal-Mart on the day of the shooting, and was legally able to carry it concealed on his person due to recent changes in Arizona law.

The sentence still works either way.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Casas Adobes

OTRS has received the following notice from a user:

I've gone around and around in circles as to how to contact you about a factual error in an article. It's on Gabrielle Giffords page and it is a small error, but an error nonetheless. It is stated in the article that she was shot at a Safeway in "Cases Adobes, a suburb of Tucson." This is not true. Cases Adobes (sic) is a shopping center across the street from where the shooting took place and is NOT a suburb. She was shot at a Safeway in northwest Tucson. It may be out of the city limits, but it is NOT in a suburb called Cases Adobes as there is no such suburb in the Tucson area. The closes "suburb" is Oro Valley and I believe this is south of where Oro Valley starts. But as it is stated now in the article, it is wrong

I have no knowledge about the subject, but the entries on Casas Adobes and Casas Adobes Plaza seem to corroborate what the article, rather than this user says. Can someone correct the article if it's in error, please? Asav (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• See the City-Data.com article for a map (scroll way down). Casas Adobes is an unincorporated suburb but with well-defined boundaries, and the Safeway is within those boundaries. Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Suburb isn't really the best word to describe it, as it isn't any more sub-urban than the rest of the Tucson metro area. I've changed it to "unincorporated area". Hopefully that's better. -Atmoz (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Channel Four News quote is way too long

We have a sentence beginning with "And" and without a verb. I fixed it,[9] but that quote is way too long. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Sarah Smith quote does mention high capacity ammuniton clips banned under Clinton,, perhaps that bit could stay and lead on to plans to introduce legislation (Lautenberg D.NJ) 'banning high capacity ammunition clips to re-establish a prohibition that lapsed in 2004' ABC news tonight. Part of the political reaction to the shooting. Sayerslle (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Emergency Arizona law banning funeral protests

This needs to be added. New law, emergency legislation. No protests at funerals.

The right wing fanatics may want this out. The left wing fanatics want to make this a huge section. The correct thing for Wikipedia would be to have a sentence saying that the shooting and subsequent funerals planned resulted in emergency legislation banning protests at funeral. See http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/index.html?hpt=T2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix AZ (talk • contribs) 04:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you assume anyone here would treat this in a partisan manner? Even the hyperpartisan state of Arizona passed that in the most bipartisan way I've seen in years. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The correct thing for Wikipedia will be to see how the media report this, and then comment appropriately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how you view it, it seems like a fairly significant "reaction" to the shooting. (A reaction that, if I had to guess, I'd say almost certainly will be overturned on appeal. I suppose the question is whether or not the Phelps clan will be able to secure an emergency injunction should they still wish to protest.) If a state passes specific legislation, abridging in whole or in part a right of the First Amendment, I'd say that's inarguably a notable event in the timeline of this article. The reliable sources seem to agree. jæs (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

They based it on a law written in Ohio for the same purpose, which survived legal challenges. I agree it's notable enough to include. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved this with the announcement of the memorial and Peter T. King's gun legislation into a new Aftermath section. Feel free to retitle or reorder. KimChee (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Long Island Congresspeople, is there a comment in there yet about Carolyn McCarthy's gun legislation? I gotta run and can't add it now, but I'll add it later if it's not in when I'm back. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Phelps quote

I don't really see the need to report the exact details of his hate speech, so I removed, but other editors feel it's needed to give context to the emergency legislation, and re-added it. Anybody else have strong feelings one way or the other? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets keep WBC's attention whoring out as much as possible --Guerillero | My Talk 17:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

time to clean up the left wing bias/garbage

Worst written article of recent events in some time. The lede has half of it dedicated to "how easilly" he got a gun, which is left wing talking point. The rest of the article follows suit with a copious amounts of bias and general bigotry. Including garbage nonse about his supposed connection to american rensance or whatverr they are called, which no one has a single shred of evidence he did. Disgustingly biased articel through and through. The guy was a leftwing adical, described as such by a "good friend", yet the article has the typical lefist media-lie filled slant that the dude wasn't a lefty at all. 66.190.31.229 (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• The thinnest of evidence that he was a "leftwing adical" is clung to by only one kind of person. Abductive (reasoning) 11:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV isn't about the left-right spectrum.173.180.214.13 (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite significant that he obtained a gun as easily as he did considering his mental health issues should have been picked up in a background check. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved it down to the "Primary suspect" section, seemed to me it fit better there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Controlling the narrative

I don't know if this is a better source or cautionary note for editors, but fwiw, http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132839585/a-scramble-to-control-narrative-of-tucson-massacre.

“ Control of what Douglas Kellner calls the post-tragedy "spectacle" has definitely been up for grabs.

"The spectacle is always contested terrain," says Kellner, author of Guys and Guns Amok: Domestic Terrorism and School Shootings from the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Virginia Tech Massacre.

"Every time there is one of these acts of domestic terrorism, or school shootings, everyone brings out their theory," says Kellner, a professor and media and violence expert at the University of Southern California.

"Everyone tries to determine one cause," he says of the practiced and predictable rush to claim the fleeting message terrain. "But there are many."

”

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Very true: "...there are many". I'm not sure this is citable in the article, but it needs remembering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Assertion that he "was legally able to carry it concealed on his person...[14]" is OR 214.4.238.180 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is becoming like a non-right version of Fox. Fox News is just arguing. In Wikipedia, there is much arguing IN the article about if political debate caused the shooting. True, it can be mentioned that there was debate after the shooting. But to go into so much detail so that it represents about 20% of the article, more than some the details of the actual shooting event, that is undue weight and just Fox News-ish. The gunman is, by most accounts, just wacko. There is no evidence that Fox News type shows caused the shooting. Instead, it is like Reagan. Hinckley though Reagan insulted Jody Foster and the gunman believed that Giffords shrugged off his question last year. Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

terrorist attack

he says it's a terrorist attack. it's an attempt to inflict terror for political reasons. why isn't this classified as a terrorist attack?

The articles says:

"Long before the shooting Loughner had posted numerous anti-government text and videos on the Internet.[50] He briefly discussed terrorism saying:

If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon. I define terrorist ... If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is ad hominem. You call me a terrorist.[50]"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.94.68 (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't been charged with terrorism by the federal government --Guerillero | My Talk 17:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been many theories about the motive for the attack, but on WP:BLP grounds it remains unclear. The "terrorist" quote from Loughner features prominently in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

7:30 am traffic stop.

Officer stopped suspect on day of Ariz. shooting. Article says he ran a red light, also acted strangely when his father asked him what he had in a bag then ran off into the desert. I wonder if these details are important? Perhaps they could go in the Investigation section instead of the main Shooting section? Abductive (reasoning) 20:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Local media has been reporting the father thing for at least 15 hours now. I hadn't heard about the traffic stop, and I'm skeptical right now since it's coming from the Game and Fish Department. (Although have no reason to doubt the AP reporting.) -Atmoz (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Treason?

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Seeing as this is the definition of it, could Loughner theoretically be charged with treason? He basically declared war by shooting a Congresswoman and Judge. Toa Nidhiki05 22:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• No. What is the name of the enemy? Abductive (reasoning) 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin's Facebook page (dubious tag)

The article contains a statement that the campaign map was pulled from Palin's Facebook page following the shooting - however, it's still there[10] and I don't believe it's ever been pulled. Kelly ^hi! 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly you're a neutral guy. I read somewhere in this talk page that you knew the website with that graph was taken down. So why tag that sentence and not just replace the word Facebook with 'website'? (http://www.takebackthe20.com/) Likeminas (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Murder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it's absurd to say that these people weren't murdered. Swarm ^X 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I am still seeing edits like this one, changing "murdered" to "killed" on a crystal ball theory. I think we need to determine community consensus as to whether we can say that these people, collectively or individually, were "murdered". bd2412 T 03:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

From the wikipedia page for murder: Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought". I'd say this fits that definition, no? Even if the malice wasn't directed to the 70 year old women and 9 year old, there was malice aforethought. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if and until anyone is tried and convicted, none of that is relevant. Yes, by reasonable standards it looks like murder, but from a legal standpoint this has yet to be decided. Why the hurry to categorise it anyway? People are quite capable of making their own minds on this issue without Wikipedia telling them how to think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But as is referenced above, would someone like JFK not be labeled a murder victim just because nobody was convicted for the crime? --Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Although murder has a legal definition, it is understood in lay terms to refer to the circumstance where one human being is intentionally (i.e. not accidentally) killed by another person. Even if the "suspect" avoids criminal liability on some mental defect theory, that does not lift his victims out of the category of people who were murdered. bd2412 T 03:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, we don't need to wait for a conviction to use the term 'murder'. Any non-accidental shootings that result in death are going to be considered murder in the public eye. Swarm ^X 03:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to use the same rules in my translation in italian, though, as a translator I add, it's obvious that Jared Loughner is the responsible for this massacre and I avoided where I could to use the word "suspect" substituing it with "the shooter" and checking the others most important wikipedias, besides the spanish who use the word suspect, french and german use the word shooter definitely (French: Le tireur) (german:Der Attentäter). --Florathewiseful (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Gun Crosshairs"

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

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

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

Actually, I'm wondering if the section should contain some mention that the images weren't intended as crosshairs at all, according to the Palin camp.[11] Kelly ^hi! 18:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Giffords herself called them gun crosshairs.[12] So has everybody, except of course the Palin people since Saturday. It's not OR to refer to them as crosshairs. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just popping my head in here: at this point the map with the sight-lines/crosshairs/etc. has actually gotten to the point that it might just be notable enough for a free-standing article (which would also help keep it from being overly discussed in this article). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's being extensively covered by the media, yet, it fails to show its WP:weight on WP. Let's stop the Palin damage control advocacy, and instead let’s focus on mirroring the discussion by the mainstream media outlets.

The facts are 1) The Palin camp posted, a map showing political 'targets' with their names. 2)Palin has allegorically used gun related rhetoric as in 'don't retreat, reload', 3)whether this individual was influenced by Palin or not is not clear yet. What we do know, however, is that the Palin camp felt the heat and immediately took down the page with the map. Those are facts, and they need to go into this article and possibly others as well. Likeminas (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That is a good idea however the wording would have to be carefully put in to keep it NPOV seeing on how many issues this has brought up here on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but the nice thing about these "hot button" topics is that they tend to bring in people from both sides, causing lots of heated argument but also bringing about pretty good NPOV articles more consistently than the more obscure topics. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think that the map itself is notable enough for a standalone article. That would certainly seem to be going a bit further than would seem reasonable here, especially given that media attention towards the map appears to have quieted significantly along with the speculation that Loughner had ever seen the map or has a clearly definable position on the political spectrum (other than "deranged"). jæs (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords YouTube subscription coverup?

Please see WP:FRINGE. jæs (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am seeing word spread around everywhere that there is some kind of attempt to cover up the fact that Giffords was a YouTube subscriber of Loughner (and had once even hired him as a staffer). Of course the cover up seems to be backfiring because the word is spreading word-of mouth and making the cover uppers look worse in the process. What part will wikipedia play, will it address this crucial factor in the article or will it go down with the philosophy of cover ups? 96.228.10.160 (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC) That's brilliant. What can you tell us about the moon landings? --FormerIP (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Clearly, logic isn't your strong suit, as you have just responded with the classical fallacy of logic. 96.228.10.160 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC) This is discussed at Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting#Gabrielle_Giffords_was_subscribed_to_Jared_Lee_Loughner.27s_YouTube_channel.2C_classitup10. Not sure about coverups, as this has been reported, although it is unclear when and by whom the subscription was added.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC) What I meant was "coverup by omission". I.e., those (most) who are leaving out of the story what would seem like a crucial piece; so may I ask if it 'has been reported', why is it not in the article? 96.228.5.192 (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Because it is crap? Wikipedia doesn't report on deranged conspiracy theories. Find reliable sources that back this up. (but they won't, because they are in on it too...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) We, and all reliable sources, are all out to cover up the truth--Guerillero | My Talk 03:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Andy's right, this is fringe stuff. Kelly hi! 03:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Andy and Kelly, so are you telling me it is untrue that Giffords' account subscribed to Loughner on YouTube? I guess I got the answer to my original question. 96.228.5.192 (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories Yep, Wikipedia doesn't report on deranged conspiracy theories, go somewhere else to talk about them. Shardok (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not saying it is untrue. I'm saying that we'd need reliable sources that stated that Giffords account subscribed before the shooting for it to be considered significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC) When I had a brand-new Twitter account, I subscribed to a bunch of politicians. Most of them subscribed to me right back, undoubtedly a friendly gesture made by some peon staffer managing the account. It doesn't mean jack. And what Andy said. Kelly hi! 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)We don't know (and you don't either) whether the account subscribed before or after the shooting. There are perfectly good reasons why it might have happened afterward, and no known reason why it would have happened beforehand. If mainstream sources cover this issue, we will cover it; if they don't, there's nothing there for us to cover. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC) But Kelly, I understand the story is that Loughner was the only subscription her account had, out of millions of constituents... So tha blows up your argument about "peons". 96.228.5.192 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC) This isn't a forum for pointless speculation. Without a reliable source for any of this it is of no significance to the article. Unless you can provide this, the topic is closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC) LOL I probly won't spend too much time looking for a source, but if anyone perchance does find any, let us know! 96.228.5.192 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Funny that you're complaining about our not including something while you are unwilling to make any effort to establish its notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC) At this point, I'd just leave this topic for the tinfoil-hat brigade. It isn't going anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Tinfoil hat brigade? Emotional name-calling? What a brilliant argument. Grow up, buddy. 96.228.5.192 (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop deleting Talk page comments/sections

I came back to check this discussion today after making some minor comments yesterday. When I tried to find my comments to see whether there was feedback/discussion/etc, I found that not only my comments but whole sections of comments seem to be deleted. given the avalanche of changes in general since then, it seems impossible to track down the revision and undo it.

With all due respect, we all have a right to have our voices heard here, especially when we have confined our comments to specifically discussing the article (my comments were apolitical, and to the topic of who the shooter should be referred to...specifically, I commented that he should not as of yet be called left or right wing). Please do not delete sections of comments in such an active article, it's almost impossible to undo, and is very bad form in general. If there is redundancy, and you want to eliminate/combine a section, then just cut/paste. Don't simply delete someone's comments.

We're all taking time to (giving the benefit of the doubt here) try to make this a better article. No one should unilaterally decide that whole sections of comments aren't worthwhile.Jbower47 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at /Archive 2 lately? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

d'oh, my bad. From the "current" view of my edit, it looked like it had been deleted, looks like it was all just archived. My apologies, carry on.Jbower47 (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request by 173.26.237.244 (talk) at 02:39, 2010 January 13

{{Edit semi-protected}}

please add the categories Murder in Arizona and Murder in 2011 173.26.237.244 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, whenever you decide to accept or reject the edit, please notify me on my talk page. 173.26.237.244 (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this raises an important point. Is there policy in using 'murder' categories prior to legal rulings? What may be 'self evident' by reasonable non-legal standards may nevertheless not be strictly 'true' legally? Any comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I added Category:Murder in Arizona and the slightly narrower Category:Mass murder in 2011 before seeing your comment. In my opinion, there's no issue with doing that here, as opposed to the suspect's page where I would oppose it, because it's not disputed that six people died of gunshot wounds after they were attacked. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

University Medical Center links

Some related content includes:

• "U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords remains in critical condition; one other patient in critical condition, one serious and three remain in fair condition"
• "Contributions in the name of Gabrielle Giffords or any others involved in the tragic incident."

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Magazine Capacity Discrepancy

One detail has been nagging me and at least one other contributor; the capacity of the extended round magazine It seems to me that the alleged shooter was using 33-round magazines with the Glock 19 pistol. I come to this consensus from the array of media sources due to the reports that the gun when retrieved had 31 rounds in the magazine. This would rule out the 30-round Glock magazine currently listed in the article, leaving only the 33-round variety as the kind being used.

I propose that the 30-round magazine be changed to a 33-round magazine as it seems the only possibility with the reports we have at this point.

Agreement, dissent?

Jasonanaggie (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times says it was a 33-round magazine [13]. I'd support changing the article to say it was a 33 round magazine at this point, because later reports are much more likely to have been checked than the first reports were. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'm not insane. Plus I've done some searching for the magazines and the 33-round variety are very available, while the few references to 30 round magazines for Glock 19 9mm magazines are old and they have been discontinued.

Jasonanaggie (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)