Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.37.132 (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been a suggestion to create Aftermath and reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting. The Reactions section is looking increasingly like a content fork, so I support splitting this off.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How can it "look like a content fork" when it is still a part of the article? A content fork is created when a group of editors with an viewpoint split off an article to avoid the scrutiny and editing of the editors that are working on the first article. If there are content problems with the section, deal with them rather than split them off to a separate article where they won't receive as much scrutiny. Racepacket (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been complaints about too many quotes and too much media punditry ever since the article was created. Anyway, the debate continues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have trimmed some of the lesser known pundits out. They all say the same thing, and nobody cares what they say anyway. Abductive (reasoning) 12:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

An Atheist and critical of religion

I have read the sources that claim that he is an atheist and this what they had to say:

An ardent atheist, he began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the government and the monotony of modern life.

I know many atheists, some of are right wingers who are for some government and some are light wingers who believe that government needs to help those who cant help themselves regardless of its size. But none whatsoever have think the government size and religion (or the lack of it) have anything to do with why the are atheists. this also goes for the monotony of modern life. The reason he said Jared Lee Loughner won't "trust in god" is because he wants money to go back on the Gold Standard. Is Ron Paul an atheist? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN on the "blood libel"

I don't know who removed this point from CNN, but please don't remove it again without a proper reason to avoid this becoming a Palin hate-fest. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

nice Obama photo at the rally added

There's now a nice Obama photo of him at the rally. With that the photo of Obama saying "sorry" at the podium in Washington is redundant, less noteworthy, and should be replaced with the above. Madrid 2020 (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Political climate section

I´ve just read this section, and I am told here that "Toby Harnden of The Daily Telegraph disputed the view that the shooting was the result of the Tea Party movement, noting that some of Loughner's stated political positions were more left-wing than right-wing, while most were unclassifiable on the political spectrum.[147] Howard Kurtz and Robert Stacy McCain also criticized efforts to connect the murders to Palin and the Tea Party.[148][149]" and "Palin responded to her critics on January 12 in a video on her Facebook page, accusing the left wing of manufacturing a "blood libel" to blame her and the right wing for the attacks.[154][155]". I lack something about what/whos statements they are responding to/disputing, shouldn´t it be there if the reaction to it is?Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now, that section looks pretty unbalanced and pre-emptily defensive in favor of Palin & co.

I previously removed a POV-template from that section, but judging by the way it is now I wouldn’t object if somebody wanted to reinsert it.Likeminas (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The other day, people were concerned the page appeared anti-Palin. Maybe it's become too pro-Palin as a result. If she's putting out a Facebook video talking about "blood libel" of all things, then the initial criticism of her becomes more pertinent than it was before. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there are too many names and newspapers saying the same thing; "guy crazy", "not Palin fault". It should be trimmed. Abductive (reasoning) 20:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Trimming back the responses would make sense if the criticisms were also trimmed back. Kelly ^hi! 20:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. One of the main points of NPOV is to 'Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.' The opposing view in this case is in no way of equal prominence. Therefore, balancing the article is not a requirement. --Jb 007clone (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems fairly balanced to me right now. Capt. Colonel (edits) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Toby Harnden of The Daily Telegraph disputed the view that the shooting was the result of the Tea Party movement" line was edited away from the fact that Harnden was talking about the left. An editor felt it violated WP:NPOV, and I don't understand that reasoning at all. It is a simple report of who Harnden is talking about. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy to remove everything about Palin. -Atmoz (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how everything about Palin can be validly removed, considering how prominently she has been tied into this incident by certain political figures and the general media in particular. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

with various opinion polls coming out showing the public isn't linking politics with the shooting and with various news outlets reporting on the background of the accused, i think the whole notion of "this is all sarah palin's fault" is dying down. the role of wikipedia is to sift through all reporting and add verifiable, accurate facts. certainly the reaction of democrats in the aftermath of the shooting should be noted, as well as republican responses, but as more time goes by it will become less relevant. eventually, the whole Political Climate section may appear absurd.Anthonymendoza (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Dying down" doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported here as having happened, as you just noted as well. The fact is...it was very prominent for several days, no matter if the whole Political climate section will seem absurd later. A lot of what's there -- what happened in the aftermath of the shooting -- already seems absurd to some people. And the polls and media also show that some of the public is still linking the shooting to politics.

On a side note, and I brought this up on NYyankees51's talk page, I feel that the information about Loughner's best friend fits better in the Public response section, as it comes out of nowhere in the Political climate section and that section is dealing more with what politicians and other prominent figures think. If you read the paragraph of the Public response section regarding whether or not the shooting was the result of politics, it makes more sense to stick Loughner's best friend's thoughts there. Especially since that is the section dealing with the general public's thoughts. I did this, but was reverted by NYyankees51. Right now, where it is, it looks trivial. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved it here. It's still in the Political climate section, but is now better placed. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a bunch of problems with this section but at the very least I think the following things should be discussed for editing.

• Remove everything the Blood libel controversy section (both sides of it) it is a reaction to phrase Sarah Palin used and has nothing to do with the article or as a reaction to the aftermath of the shooting. ( If people feel its encyclopedia worthy it should be in Public image of Sarah Palin)
• Maarten van Rossem and La Monde say the same thing, so why have both quotes?
• I fail to see why the Paul Krugman article is so significant that it should be given a whole paragraph. At the very least should be summarized and have less quotes. As it it is now it contains too much copyrighted material.
• "The shooting came at a time of an acrimonious political climate" I have numerous problems with this sentence. For one its quoting someones opinion and stating it as a fact. Two the article doesn't state this time period as any more acrimonious than any other, which the sentence implies.

Let's discuss. - examinernumber9 —Preceding undated comment added 06:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

About the "blood libel" thing, the reason it has to do with the aftermath is because some people pointed to it/Palin in the aftermath of the shooting, blaming her for the incident. Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. Which is why Sarah Palin and the map are criticized in the article (which I agree with). Blood libel is criticizing her response for using a sensitive word. How is criticizing someones response because of their language related to the tragedy?- Examinernumber9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Examinernumber9 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what the people who object to tying Palin to the tragedy in that way are asking. It's like, "Really?" Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually Sarah Palin is mentioned because the political rhetoric was initially blamed for the tragedy and Sarah Palin showed strong political rhetoric especially in the area, there is a clear logical connection there. Is there any logical connection behind including that Jewish groups that disagree with Palin's choice of words to the shooting? I do not see one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Examinernumber9 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that first part is why I feel some of that information should be in this article. As for that second part, I was specifically addressing the fact that some have tied the "blood libel" thing to the tragedy as well. That's the only reason it's even in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's such a distant relationship that it's barely worth covering. The Palin stuff is about Palin, and I wholly agree it should be covered, but I think it would be WP:UNDUE to include it here. The only value it has is that it shows, rather than tells, the climate of nasty and petty political bickering, and that's not worth more than a couple of words since there's little evidence that the climate had anything to do with the shooting (Loughner was cooking for a couple of years, and was specifically after Giffords). This is not an article about Sarah Palin or the "State of the (dis)Union" in 2011. It's about bullets. SDY (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The "blood libel" matter may be "distant," but not Palin's other political rhetoric being blamed for the tragedy. This article is about the shooting and its aftermath. And what largely happened after that shooting? Mudslinging regarding political rhetoric, especially aimed at Palin. If the political climate aspect was so distant, it wouldn't even be covered in this article. No one said the article is about Palin. But when it comes to an aspect of the shooting's aftermath, it has partly been made about her in a way that cannot be adequately summed up in a couple of words, or few sentences. What's there now isn't looking undue to me; just an accurate and summarized report of the nasty climate in the aftermath of the shooting. I have no objection to a bit of the "blood libel" material being cut back, though, but editors keep adding back whatever is cut on that matter. We clearly need WP:Consensus on a few things. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

To be Clear I'm only refering to these three sentences "A new round of controversy was sparked by her use of this phrase,[170] first used as a defense against culpability for the Arizona shootings in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal several days after the shooting[173] and quickly picked up by others on the political right.[174] Jewish groups believed Palin's reference to this historical Jewish slur was inappropriate, particularly when interjected into a discussion on the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, a Reform Jew.[175][171] However, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, himself Jewish, has defended Palin's use of the term, stating that "There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim.

I can see arguments to keeping the first sentence not that I agree with them but the last two sentence have to exclusively with Sarah Palin's choice of words, which is not the topic at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Examinernumber9 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tucson shooting Title

Consensus to change the title to something else has been reached. Now, to decide to what.

Just a minor move but I suggest that it be renamed 2011 Tucson shootings as more than one person was shot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Some more questions for thought: Would "shootings" imply a spree killing (multiple shooting events)? Does the definition of "shooting" allow for more than one target to be attacked? KimChee (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think the proposed title sounds like a shooting spree --Guerillero | My Talk 04:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm good point, leave as is then, the title needs to change though soon, I suggest a new discussion be opened on it as the one above is aged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we leave it as it is for a few weeks until things settle down. There is no deadline, and we have more important things to deal with. PhGustaf (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this section and other similar sections, it looks like there is consensus to change the title. The next thing would be to determine what the new title is.

According to Knowledgekid87, she suggested a new discussion. The old discussion should be copied (put in a collapsable box if you want) so that we can see all opinions in one place, not just the opinions of the next 12 hours.

Well done, people, for the consensus to change the title to something else! Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any 'consensus to change' at all. It is utterly unnecessary, as any sensible alternative can be made a redirect anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:WHATISCONSENSUS, folks. I also note that this is too fast and it's not a good idea for the person bringing a suggestion like this one to close the discussion. There is no consensus here yet and more time should be given - days, not hours. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There is much evidence of the consensus to change and it has been over days, not hours. Even, Knowledgekid87, once opposed to change is now for change. The anti-change people give few good reasons except the "no need to rush" reason, which is only a reason based on speed, not the actual name. There are many logical reasons to change, just see others' comments. I do concede to the anti-change people that there needs to be discussion on what to change it to. Also AndyTheGrump, redirects is not the answer, otherwise all articles could be named like "Article2011-3892342" and have many redirects. Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the argument that there is 'consensus to change' without specifying the change itself is nonsensical. Consensus needs a specific proposal first. Meanwhile, has anyone got any evidence that the current name makes the article hard to find? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty in finding is not a requirement to change the title. There is a consensus for change. The consensus is that this is a bad title. Once you accept that, there can be discussion to what to change it to. Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for a different title

AndyTheGrump seems to want to see the suggestions. Fire away. Someone suggested Giffords assassination attempt. Those who are opposed to changing the title should not be disruptive and say no, no, no as this sub-section is only to discuss possible new titles. Only those who favor a title change should comment. Those who oppose title change but think a certain title is somewhat acceptable should say so but saying no, no, no to everything is simply disruptive. Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't set the rules of debate to say "only those who agree with me can speak". --Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing resembling a consensus to change the title. The current one works just fine; I found it without trouble and apparently many others have done so too. This is getting close to stick territory. PhGustaf (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please leave the title as is.

*First -- it is accurate (unless you want to say '2011 Tuscon-area shooting').

*Second -- just because the government has charged someone doesn't mean it is the final fact. Jared Loughner seems like a very unbalanced person. BUT we have heard nothing from him, and the evidence is scant at this point, beyond a few reports about him being very odd.

*Third -- more people than just Congresswoman Giffords were shot; so please, let's not forget about them.

So, to sum up, the current title is clear and accurate. If it needs to be changed, please give a reasonable alternative, and please try and listen to those who are asking for input and advice on both sides of this discussion.

-- Avanu (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's look for sources for the FACT that Giffords' YouTube account subscribed to Loughners

I have a suggestion for this article. Why don't we look to see what kind of sources mention the fact that Giffords' YouTube account subscribed to Loughners YouTube account, according to caches, BEFORE the incident, and that he was the only constituent out of millions whom she was subscribed to.

It is quite clear that certain editors here would rather this not be talked about at all, for whatever reason. But these certain editors have no authority, and I can promise this murder evidence WILL NOT go away, no matter how arrogantly they tell the evidence to go away. 96.228.5.192 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

When you find the sources, bring them here. Until then... Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem with the subscription, but the question of when and by whom it was added remains unclear. This needs proper sourcing to prevent speculation/WP:OR from creeping in.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would note even non-RS known for strange speculation like [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=249381] [1] don't claim it was added before the incident. So yes anxiously awaiting these sources which show what the OP alleges is a fact. Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out somewhere, even if it could be demonstrated that Giffords' YouTube account subscribed to Loughners before the shooting, this might indicate nothing other than that Loughner subscribed to Giffords' account, and that someone (for whatever reason - possibly an automatic response, or maybe just curiosity) reciprocated. Even if something is a 'FACT', it may not be significant. It isn't Wikipedia's responsibility to engage in conspiracy-theory detective work. If this account business is discussed in reliable mainstream sources, then we can include it, but until then it is of no significance to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This don't mean anything and also isn't evidence for anything. I agree with Andy: this is conspiracy-theory detective work, and even thought it's a FACT, it's still insignificant. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin

Not long ago a bunch of text about accusations towards Palin were removed. Why is there now a whole paragraph on her defense? Can we not make her more of an attention whore than she already is?Nergaal (talk) 11:09 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Your point is not valid because you're arguing based on opinion, not Wikipedia policy. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just edit appropriate portions of that text back in to achieve balance; the pro-Palin people do just that without asking on the talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 22:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a simple strategy. The accusations never were valid, but the editors can still get away with implying her responsibility by defending against it. See this sentence: "Bob was and old man living in his house alone," gives you a neutral picture about Bob, while "The old man Bob is not a totally retarded person, IQ points have no meaning." seems to make you think Bob has a low IQ with out ever referencing from the invalid beliefs. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Loughner's Incident reports

Heres the incident reports from Pima Community College as reported by the New York Times. http://documents.nytimes.com/jared-loughner-pima-community-college-documents?ref=us Might be worth discussing what if any of this information is encyclopedia worthy. The supponea by Pima Community college to Youtube on page 44 asking for information regarding user 2ploy (jared Loughner) might be worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Examinernumber9 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

John Roll image

We now have a public domain image of Chief Judge John Roll. Obviously it should be in the article, but with the crowd of images already there, I'm not sure where it should be placed. I was thinking of possibly putting Giffords and Roll side by side in a gallery format. bd2412 T 04:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Added with {{double image}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont feel like the picture belongs next to Gabby as he was not the target of the attack in which thge picture is under, also the fact that the picture also appears in the victims section where it should be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We currently have the same image twice. This is clearly wrong. I'd say it should logically be in the victims' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords heath - new section

Needed section: section needed about her health, day off respirator, when she was judged to survive (one doc said one day that she was guaranteed to live), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrid 2020 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 January 2011

That should probably go in Gabrielle Giffords. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. They seem to be keeping up with it pretty well over there; duplicating it here would likely cause synchronization problems. PhGustaf (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-government"

This article claims he is "anti-government" cited on a source which stated he was anti-American. There is a BIG difference in being against a government and against America. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The article cited doesn't refer to the videos as anti-government or anti-American.Shardok (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm... Is there no consensus that pointing a gun to an American flag way more probable to be anti-American than "anti-government?" If you seriously disagree with this obvious point we can discuss... 173.180.214.13 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

High school friend quoted on Loughner's mental state

I object to the repeated removal of the sentence, "Loughner's best friend from high school rejected the notion that the shootings were motivated by politics, saying on ABC's Good Morning America that Loughner 'did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right.'" The reason given for removing the sentence, that Loughner's high school friend is not a reliable source, seems inadequate. Loughner was not long out of high school and his best friend's recollections seem not unreliable on their face. He was quoted both by ABC and Fox News and by my morning paper, and the quote doesn't seem inconsistent with anything else we know about the perpetrator or the case. If correct -- and we have no real reason to doubt this character witness -- then the quote gives an important insight into the perpetrator. Yaush (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A few, including yourself, are for the inclusion:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

I brought it up here, at the #Political climate section, and here. One editor (Abductive) strongly objects, though, as somewhat seen in the third link. I suppose because the shooter's "best friend" doesn't count as reliable, as a best friend is likely to speak positive of their friend. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is if this is "Loughner's best friend from high school" he may not be describing Loughner's recent politics - I'd say we'd have to put more weight on more recent evidence here, though that unfortunately relies rather on interpretations of Loughner's YouTube site etc. Perhaps the sentence should at least make it clear whether this is a description of Loughner's current politics, and also mace it clear that a 'best friend' isn't really ideal to 'reject' a notion - he can express an opinion, though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, what establishes him as the "best friend"? Loughner certainly hasn't made that claim lately, to my knowledge. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what news media orgs quoted him, in fact it is passing a dated primary source on to the article. There is already a secondary source saying, "Toby Harnden of The Daily Telegraph disputed the view that the shooting was the result of the Tea Party movement, noting that some of Loughner's stated political positions were more left-wing than right-wing, while most were unclassifiable on the political spectrum.[163]". That source at least used Loughner's current online ravings to arrive at his opinion. Abductive (reasoning) 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Abductive. I'm just not understanding how it's a primary source in terms of WP:PRIMARY. It's a Fox News source reporting on an interview from another network. Also, primary sources are okay for instances like this. When a channel gives an interview, we don't have to go to a website opposite that channel just to source the info. And as for "dated," most sources become dated; it doesn't mean they shouldn't be used. Again, I agree with the obvious reason for not including this little tidbit; just not understanding the "primary source" and "date" reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. Reading WP:PRIMARY a little better, I see you likely consider it a primary source because it's an account coming from the "best friend." Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence could stay, but it should be mentioned that he is no longer a highshool student. This should be necessary to prevent misleading information. His political views are only a matter a high debate because all the politicians editing Wikipedia claims his political views support their opposition. What we knowledgeable and rational editors need to do is to understand that just because someone supports your views doesn't mean the validity of your views are dependent on his/her actions. If we blindly oppose everything Satan supports we're giving him too much power. If everyone here can understand this, the pointless argument on his political views can be null. Frankly, there isn't even any need to write his political views on this page; it should be left on the article about him, not the shooting, unless there is any evidence his political views caused the shooting, and please remember: if A only causes B and C, B is not responsible for C. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment. If it's an outlet which quotes from a primary source, who is Loughner's high school friend and who said something about his worldview, then perhaps it's best if it's kept, but moved to Jared Lee Loughner page, unless it's relevant to this article and to Loughner's motivations as to the shooting. I think this article (2011 Tucson shooting) should have sentences relevant to the shooting and which accurately state what were Loughner's political views and opininons — such as 'right' or 'left' or 'more to the right' or 'more to the left' or 'undecided' or 'inconclusive', because most the favourite book titles cited on his YouTube page were about opposing oppressive systems of government and society (with the clear exceptions of "Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto"). Whereas the people who knew him well before the shooting and something about his worldview at that time could be referred to in an article that is only about him. -Mardus (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is as possible as you describe it to "accurately state what were Loughner's political views." In fact, we tried to, and it lead to a huge argument over many of the archives. If you understood my comment above, you should not see his political views as important. Nobody every describes Osama bin Ladin's political views in crimes he's responsible for. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

Wikipedia never used to protect pages like this linked from the frontpage. What is happening? 69.140.102.40 (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism and WP:BLP are likely factors. However, the one month semi-protection may be a bit too long.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That reason for protecting a page is unfalsifiable. The protection can stay forever and no one could do anything about it. Even though the bored vandal may have become bored long ago and left to some other article, it is still always an excuse that lifting the protection will bring him back. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

James Tucker

i dont know if this is a reliable source but it states info on James Tucker figure it would be good to have as we have info on most others http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/fire-academy-instructor-shot-ariz-rampage 98.199.26.139 (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Political figures reactions

I feel it's neither necessary nor desirable to list every politician who has ventured a comment or condolence. If anyone can be bothered to look hard enough, I'm sure we could find comments or press releases from every House Representative and member of legislatures at every state level. These are typical 'sweet nothings' that add nothing to the article beyond saying that "Many other politicians from Arizona and across the United States spoke publicly regarding the shooting". I pruned the list down to a few of the 'highest profile' names. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the obvious target of the shooting was Giffords, a politician, then it's natural that her co-politicians offer condolences and messages of support. The section should probably be divided into two paragraphs: Internal reactions and external reactions: The first would have that victims of the shooting and Giffords were offered support and condolences from members of both political parties (which essentially makes out the whole meaningful political spectrum in the U.S.), naming the most important (House and Senate minority and majority leaders) and the most relevant (Palin). The second paragraph would refer to external reactions from outside the U.S., such as those from traditional friends and foes (Canadian PM, Fidel Castro, etc.). -Mardus (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Reactions section is still way too long compared to the actual shooting. When I get a few moments' spare, this will have some pruning. The other option is to split this into another article, but this is controversial per Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting#Aftermath_and_reactions_article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does the information on the actual shooting have to be bigger (or about equal in size) when there is more information on the reactions than there is on the shooting? This is not a case of WP:UNDUE. It's just a fact that there is more to say about the aftermath/reactions. The section is fine to me, and we have finally gotten the Political climate section to a place where it seems most editors are now content with; it touches on all the relevant points without overdoing it, unless you count the "blood libel" info that a few feel should not be there. Rather than removing additions that other editors feel belong there, we should reach WP:Consensus on some aspects, or otherwise there will continue to be an annoying back and forth. Flyer22 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the reactions section is long but it is not too long. If it is too long, then have a separate article. It is noteworthy that a Minnesota politician released a public comment. He has not done it for the coup in Tunesia, which is also a big event of today.

If you are concerned about the length then separate the reactions into a separate article and then you can reduce the section to one sentence or longer (Reactions: Obama and Boehner were shocked and Congress closed up for a week. End of section). Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not even that big, looking over the rest of the article. It only looks like it is because of all the subheadings. But there definitely shouldn't be a split, for the reasons gone over in the link provided by ianmacm above. Consensus is currently against it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial for deletion

The article Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page watchers may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez (intern). -Atmoz (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Masonry

I just found, going through the contacts who subscribed Loughner 2nd profile, this thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5UlRQHxoN8 plz take a look at it, that scared me, as some of Jared contacts like this one http://www.youtube.com/user/MrsSarb seems to have among her own contacts Mr. Kline and the supposed vatican link listed above, and many others who recall to me Masonry Rosa Crucians, Illuminati, Templars just take a look at them it's frightening ... and this is no spam really --Florathewiseful (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about this will appear soon enough, as surely as the sparks fly upward. But it would be unwise for us to start them. PhGustaf (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but we're somehow journalists and should perhaps inquire, not just for the purpose to start something, but just to consider that there might be a possibility. As I showed up above, there are some links at least doubtful on that. For sure WE shouldn't publish things we're not sure about, as Fox news did telling ppl Gabby was dead, but well, I suggest your curiosity and a discussion about that ... --Florathewiseful (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely not worth a discussion. Move on please. -- Avanu (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We're not journalists. Contact one and see what they say, but here, this goes against the no original research policy. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Claim that the suspect legally owned/carried the weapon.

It's my understanding that a person who uses illegal or recreational drugs is disqualified from firearms ownership in the USA. It's also my understanding that in order to legally carry a weapon(firearm or not) in AZ one must be in compliance with all other regulations, state and federal, regarding ownership and possession of said weapon. If anyone can confirm this is indeed the case then this entry needs to have the claim, the one wish says that the shooter legally carried and concealed the weapon used in the attack, removed. 208.127.126.78 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC) PhotoJoeCA

Your understanding is wrong. See also [6], for example, discussing the legality of his handgun purchase. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know neither, but laws do change over time and differ among states. Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason we go out of our way to say the suspect was caryying a "legally concealed weapon"? What does it matter if it was legally concealed? IS that point really in contention? It smacks of POV. Additionally, the article cited does not state that the shooter was legally concealing the weapon, it discusses the legal concealment law. ("About 20 to 30 people were gathered around her when the gunman removed a legally‐concealed[14] pistol from his clothing and shot Giffords in the back of her head.[15]") I'd suggest this be edited. If there are no objections I will do so. Lets keep this partisan wrangling to a minimum...Jbower47 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Improvements are welcome; I think the current language is a bit awkward also. My only concern is accuracy; we should state the law, rather than editors' "understandings" that may be wrong. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Gavia - the handgun was certainly legally purchased; however, PhotoJoe is correct. If Loughner was a used of recreational drugs, he became a prohibited possessor of firearms, meaning that the handgun was neither legally possessed nor legally carried. --68.232.121.225 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And, although not mentioned in that article, he may very well have lied on the Form 4473 (which requires one to affirm that they are NOT a user of illegal drugs), lying on that form constitutes an illegal firearms purchase and is a felony. --68.232.121.225 (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We should not "state the law" or guess whther his purchase and/or carry was legal -- we should identify a reputable source that says his weapon was legally concealed, or that he legally purchased his weapon. Such sources probably do not exist - I suspect that the compexities of firearm law mean that no reputable source would risk its reputation on speculation about whether his actions were legal. (present company excepted...:-) 214.4.238.180 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to his intent, he violated Arizona Revised Statute 13-3102 by carrying a weapon. Herr Lip (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As a drug user his purchase of the firearm was illegal. He lied to purchase it. As such his carrying of it concealed was also illegal. This should be corrected in the main article.12.110.70.101 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)art

If you have a reliable source that states that Loughner lied to purchase the gun, please provide it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you have the burden of proof backwards. If Wikipedia is going to make the flat statement that the gun was legally carried, there must be a reliable source saying so, uncontested by any other credible source. But the source cited merely reports that Arizona allows concealed carry without a permit, and says nothing on the particulars of this case. In particular, it does not address the question of whether Loughner was in violation of the carry law because of his drug record. The statement should go until there is some more solid substantiation for it. Yaush (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

An article by the Washington Post 1/9/2011 by Josh White. Rejected by the Army because of drug use. Also other articles of his drug use if you care to look for them. As a SELF described drug user he would be legaly prohibited from owning a firearm. He MUST have lied on his 4473 form, ergo a felon and not alowed to LEAGALY carry a concealed firearm. 12.110.70.101 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)art

I've reverted Herr Lip (talk · contribs)'s removal of cited material after reading this thread. Cite your sources, people. Jack Merridew 19:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Another user has fixed this. The original text was "legally-concealed", which cited an article about SB 1108, that is, an article that has nothing to do with the shooting. There is no evidence that Lougher's concealment was legal. I didn't even change the text to say it was illegal; I merely removed the compound word, "legally-concealed". Herr Lip (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there even a reliable source that Loughner concealed the weapon at the event? It's not unusual in AZ to see a gun at a political rally. Herr Lip (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a reliable source on that; most eyewitness evidence would be hard to prove. It is unlikely he was brandishing it; you would think people would notice something like that. But whether it was simply carried in a holster openly or concealed is probably uncertain. We could change it to simply the word "carried". That would have to be accurate unless he knows how to teleport items. -- Avanu (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been changed to again say "concealed", but the citations given, as before, are just about Gifford's medical condition. They don't mention specifics about the shooting (as mentioned in the sentence for which they are given as citations), and don't specify if the gun was concealed. If you're going to edit "concealed" into the article, please cite a reliable source. Herr Lip (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of surviving victims

This updated report scales back the number of surviving gunshot victims to 13, according to the local sheriff. I am not sure what the criteria is to rule someone in or out (e.g. bullet fragments vs. actual bullet, etc.) but this may be worth following as the article presently states 14. KimChee (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be discrepancies throughout the article on this issue. The lead-in states "Nineteen[4] or twenty people were shot,[2] six of them fatally.." and then later the Victims section includes 6 dead and 10 wounded. Neither match the 14 statement (unless it was 20 total), nor each other. It's a bit confusing. Can we get a single confirmed RS on this, or is waiting for State filing keeping it in limbo? --Trippz 12:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the list of victims publicly released by the county sheriff, the fourteenth survivor was determined not to have been injured by gunfire. This appears to explain the discrepancy and has been noted in the article. KimChee (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article is neutral

This article really is not balanced, I would not know about the review of Loughner done since the shooting based on actual evidence, or Dupnik admitting he had no evidence to back up his claims, or the New York Times report that Loughner had a long history of mental outbreaks and other disruptive behavior from here. This article strongly suggests that the political climate caused the shootings, although could it be proven? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.212.55 (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether the shooting is connected to the political climate or not, the aftermath has involved a lot of soul searching regarding the political climate. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It has, and I agree with that being mentioned, I am just concerned that the focus is on the (technically to the case) irrelevant political climate when it should be about things more directly linked to the case. I haven't even registered yet so shouldn't give an opinion on it but it seems that a different article on political climate would make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.212.55 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to register an acocunt in order to offer criticism of the article. In fact, it's helpful to hear from people who aren't regular editors of the article or even Wikipedia - most people are not, and that is who we should be writing our articles for. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

James Eric Fuller

Read this article about one of the shooting surviviors.[7] I think the circumstances of the situation outweigh any BLP concerns, but we should discuss it. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Loughner's ex-girlfriend

• added

  w/edit summary Ashley Figueroa's assertion of faking it

• removed

  w/edit summary I think we had better discuss that, it is attaching a lot of weight to one person;s (negative) opinion, and this is a BLP

• Source is this Salon piece

I'm not fixed on that particular wording, so I'll invite comments on how that source and the statements made should be used. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling discrepancies of names

Christina-Taylor Green or Christina Taylor Green?

I am seeing it both ways in the media and in this article. Any leads on how her family prefers it? KimChee (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The first several sources I looked at showed no hyphen, so I took the hyphens out of the article. Note also that in the US, at least, hyphenated first names are not common. As always, this might have to be corrected, but at least now it's consistent. PhGustaf (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I kept checking, and found that the NYT uses no hyphen. Let's trust their proofreaders for the nonce. PhGustaf (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Her funeral program spells it with a hyphen (see NYT slideshow ). --Kenatipo (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And the NYT apparently saw the same thing, and has started using the hyphenated spelling. Let's see whether they mention it on their page-2 Corrections article tomorrow. Good eye; thanks for finding that. PhGustaf (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dorwan Stoddard or Dorwin Stoddard?

I am also seeing this name spelled both ways in the media. KimChee (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Then WP should use both as Dorwan or Dorwin Stoddard. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

New information: Safeway reopens, kidneys and organs donated

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/15/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T2

Safeway store reopens. Giffords opens her eyes for the first time Wednesday, January 12. Right eye is bandaged. This is new information. Let's look for reports of her right eye injury.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/14/father-organs-of-youngest-tucson-victim-donated-to-little-girl-in-boston/?hpt=T2

The little girl's organs went to Boston. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

None of which is significant enough to include in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, should go per WP:NOTNEWS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

By that standard, the entire article should be deleted as it is just news. By that standard, merge the entire article into the Giffords article as one line...she was shot; also mention one line in the Arizona article. The above is much more important than mentioning the killer bought ammunition at Walmart. But people love to bash Walmart so that's why it's included. Note, I don't like Walmart.

We can discuss but the organ transplant is widely reported. The reopening also but a little less so. Madrid 2020 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Aftermath section is primarily about political and media reactions. The information that was removed seemed to have borderline notability in a section that already has length issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Aftermath section was mostly a repository for every reaction in the first days of the event. Now that some time has passed and events have evolved, we can trim extraneous details that aren't timely any longer to make this more encyclopedic and avoid recentism. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In this edit, I was careful to remove only material that was saying things substantially similar or the same as what was found elsewhere. This "growed like Topsy" effect has been present in the "Reactions" section since the article was created.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was involved in writing Kauhajoki school shooting back in September 2008 and exactly the same thing happened then. People were adding long laundry lists of condolences and media pundits' assessments, and Response to Kauhajoki school shooting was created.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Make sure that you don't violate the rules. A split is done if the section is too long. Trimming is not the answer. Read WP:SPLIT I understand that some don't want a huge reaction section. That is why there can be a split. Madrid 2020 (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There can be a split. Most of the 'reactions' are of little permanent significance in an encyclopaedia, however. For this reason, I think a split is unnecessary. We don't have to include every passing comment or trivial detail, and if people were to bear this in mind the article length would be less of a problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that a split at this point in time would not be necessary nor desirable. Let's just see how it goes... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo: makeshift memorial at massacre site

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

Suggested caption: Makeshift memorial at massacre site. Photo by Steve Karp. Steve Karp (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Added. Thanks again!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Krugman quote

Re this edit: it is hard to see why being a Nobel Prize-winning economist gives a unique insight into shooting incidents. The main reason for removing this was length and similarity to sentiments expressed elsewhere in the section. At the moment, Krugman is the only person given a paragraph to himself, which is WP:UNDUE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman is a notable and regular op-ed columnist for The New York Times. I've no issue with it being part of another paragraph ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I cannot believe you are serious. Krugman started the blood libel. That also is missing from the article. Leave Krugman in, add that he started the blood libel, and remove Olbermann and Stewart. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo: *read* Blood libel. Jack Merridew 23:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarek; read the nytimes bio and our article. Jack Merridew 23:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you put in one columnist's take on it, you have to put in all the columnists' take on it. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You make that up? We prefer the notable ones, such as those with better then 750 columns in the NY Times and twenty books published. He got a Nobel Prize for some other stuff ;) Jack Merridew 23:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Merridew, I've got Alan Dershowitz and Rabbi Boteach on my side regarding "blood libel". Krugman started the blood libel on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. That also is missing from the article. Leave Krugman in, add that he started the blood libel, and remove Olbermann and Stewart. --Kenatipo (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Who cares how many columns he's written? There are plenty of others who have written thousands of columns and filmed thousands of newscasts. By that standard any columnist or Nobel Prize winner who says anything about anything should be included in the article of whatever they talk about. In that case, let's add Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and all the others to the article. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@the obvious partisans; Blood libel is an antisemitic slur, and Krugman is of Jewish descent; make a little, sense, ok? Jack Merridew 05:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

While you read this: Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (see "Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'"), I'll go find Dershowitz for you. --Kenatipo (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz's quote is in this article, in the section "Political climate". --Kenatipo (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bigmikedavis, 18 January 2011

Under the section titled 'Primary suspect', in paragraph 9, there is a grammatical error - "reported to have had an altercation with his father after the later saw his son" should be "reported to have had an altercation with his father after the latter saw his son"

Bigmikedavis (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Also reworded "the latter", as it was not really necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Genocide school" video

This article (and Jared Lee Loughner) do not currently mention the "Genocide school" video.[8] This is important, because it gives a much clearer insight into Loughner's thinking than the Classitup10 videos. This should be added to both articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How much significance are the mainstream media attaching to this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If the Los Angeles Times thinks it is significant, that alone should be enough. Google News shows other coverage, but the LAT story is the best one. Please watch this video all of the way through. It is also the only one in which we hear Loughner's voice, which is interesting in itself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it merits a sentence and link in the Loughner article. I don't think it actually tells us much about his mental state that we didn't know already, and in any case, our opinion of it is OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Also some new material about the timeline at Arizona shooting: Jared Loughner 'posed with gun in women's underwear'.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To respond to Andy: I hope there is a realization that simply because the news media thinks something is significant or not, doesn't mean we can't use judgement here to find a different significance. The media tend to be driven by viewership/advertising/corporate concerns at times, rather than just purely about fact finding. -- Avanu (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really content-focussed comments, but...looking at those sources...the college looks like a great learning environment...most people in Europe will be pretty amazed that you can pick up bullets in a Wal-Mart (!). --FormerIP (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • TRANSCRIPT OF THAT YOUTUBE VIDEO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFT_l8rKJj8)

<removed copyright material - sorry, but it's intended to be a word-for-word transcription of what's clearly copyright material> (should have been signed by Risker here when it was removed)

(hopefully I transcribed the text correctly, not sure what to do with it, but my personal impression is that he's off in the head) -- Avanu (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I not going to get dragged into an edit war, but I did take the time to transcribe the YouTube video, and since his own words make Jared Loughner a reliable source about what he says, I'm not understanding how this is unable to be used here. Jared didn't create a written version of his video. Is me writing down something that I heard a violation of copyright? -- Avanu (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are independent of the topic--Guerillero | My Talk 07:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

More precisely, because "Jared from Pima College" owns the copyright to those words: they are his words, put together uniquely by him and published by him, and his copyright is automatic. You do not have the authorization to release that material under CC-by-SA license, and since it is the text of the entire video, fair use (which generally refers to less than 10% of a copyright work) cannot be claimed. You can find more information at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Risker (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well OK, just trying to be helpful. -- Avanu (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, Avanu; I understand that your addition of this material was done with good faith, in the hope that it would be useful. Readding the material before getting the explanation wasn't the best practice, but asking for the explanation certainly was. We encourage our editors to be bold. I can see from your contributions that you had decided to give Wikipedia another try just before the events around which this article focuses, and I hope you'll decide to stick it out, though I'll admit that participating in the construction of an article about a fast-moving and somewhat volatile topic can be a bit of a baptism by fire. Risker (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• This was added to the article, because according to the LAT, it was one of the direct reasons why he was suspended from school in the fall of 2010.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Video was too laggy, can't you explain what it's about? 173.180.214.13 (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Moment of silence in space

Can someone write about this to English article too? Here is some links for the writers: 1, 2 and 3. I translated and add something to article in Finnish, under subject Hiljainen hetki avaruudessa (eng. Momet of silence in space). Arto Alanenpää (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Shooting - dropped magazine

The statement that the shooter dropped the magazine doesn't appear in the reference for that sentence. The sentence should be reworded to match the source unless a WP:RS can be found that backs up the current wording. --Footwarrior (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo: La Toscana Village shopping center

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

Suggested caption: La Toscana Village shopping center. The attack occurred near the Safeway main entrance, which is below the peaked roof in the middle of the photo.

References: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/08/us/giffords-graphic.html?ref=us http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/09/us/reconstruct-graphic.html?ref=us

Photo by Steve Karp.

Steve Karp (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead people should not be listed

Judge Roll and maybe the kid can be listed. But the others should not be listed.

WP:LISTPEOPLE says not to list the others. Madrid 2020 (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Will you please discuss changes on the talk page first before making controversial edits - you are being disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:LISTPEOPLE is quite okay with listing them all because "An exception to [the notability] requirement may be made if the person is especially important in the list's group; for example, if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met" --Muboshgu (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

All those 70 year old people are not "famous for a specific event". Therefore, I can invoke WP:LISTPEOPLE. Andy, do not be disruptive and take things out just because you don't like it...Andy, you do this without any discussion, unlike me. Also, Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone watching the news would know that they're all famous for this event. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:LISTPEOPLE refers to stand-alone lists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And WP:MEMORIAL refers to stand-alone articles. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Show me where. This is a stand-alone article but that doesn't matter. Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ask 100 people to name the victims besides Giffords, Roll, and the kid. You will get 0% answers. Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopaedias are written so people can find out things they don't already know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. Now that they have been listed by the media, we should report that. TFD (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. The six victims should all be listed. bd2412 T 03:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, the victims are notable for being killed in the event and thus should be listed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump says that facts are "so people can find thikngs they don't already know." Seems to be there was a huge fight over the street address. So maybe that should be in the article...I think it should. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Chalk me up as someone else who thinks the victims' names should be listed. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:LISTPEOPLE only applies to stand-alone lists. It does not apply to lists within the context of a larger article. —Designate (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

List of victims should be included. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:BLPNAME: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated (...), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm supporting including the names but it's questionable if BLPNAME really applies here since the dead people are not living obviously. There may be some concern for their families but BLPNAME is usually more concerned with the specific individuals privacy Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No BLP policy is applicable when discussing the deceased. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The crowd has spoken and so has the law. Enric Naval informs of the law. We should abide by the law. This has happened to some degree in history. On the very extreme, mob rule says to lynch someone contrary to the law. On the other end (less extreme), would be breaking of a regulation, not a criminal offense, which is this case. Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Mjroots, an administrator, tells me (when asked about a different article) that the dead victims cannot be listed. Therefore, the dead victims in this case cannot be listed except in the case of Judge Roll, since the judge has a Wikipedia article. The rules are very clear, no names. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please give a link to where this statement about a 'different article' is made. In any case, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and cases are not always ruled by precident. I've seen no real arguments so far as to why including victims' names is actually harmful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We should list those whose names have been widely released to the press. News reports have been quite clear regarding the hospital, for example, not releasing the names of other victims. There is no impediment to respecting the same here unless we love to hear ourselves endlessly debating WP:ALPHABETSOUP. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the dead should not be explicitly listed but instead a news article referenced which gives these names and a comment in this article that says the names can be found through this reference.(86.161.222.26 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC))

List of the wounded

In a related matter, I'm not quite sure the list of the wounded victims is necessary. Comments? Capt. Colonel (edits) 15:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Not needed, except for Giffords, and anyone else receiving significant media attention in mainstream sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The list of dead is already bending the rules, I say the wounded list goes. Abductive (reasoning) 16:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, unless the person is notable the others should be removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Add me. No wounded except Giffords. Maybe not even the dead, except Roll and Taylor. 07:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan White Jr. (talk • contribs)

Except now one of the wounded has recieved significant media attention. I am going to restore the list as I disagree. Arzel (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about Badger, he is already mentioned in the shooting section. KimChee (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

How does one of the victims receiving 'significant media attention' justify going against consensus and restoring the list, given that it has already been pointed out that WP:BLP strongly discourages such things? I'm going to remove it again until this has been properly discussed. (And BTW, it would have been helpful to state which victim had received attention, and given the relevant link here). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just where is your concensus? This issue has been hardly discussed and you are now claiming concensus? Each of the wounded has been reported on in the news, and there doesn't appear to be any BLP concerns. Arzel (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the list for completeness as the sheriff did publicly release this information, but am willing to wait and observe what level of recognition the survivors receive as a result of their involvement in the event. I believe BLP rules are meant to protect subjects from negative material and in this case the event does not cast a bad light on the victims. KimChee (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see how it looks, I'll make the edit. Also BLP is not negative only. You can't write "so and so is gay" That is a BLP violation but being gay is NOT negative. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not a great fan of lists in any article, the list of victims, at least the dead, is short and could be given without a problem. The wounded should be left to a citation. Also, let's try to get a consensus on this and not go round in circles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Our President Named all of the Slain; their names should be displayed and be mourned. To take down their names would do these people a disservice; none of the family of the killed have asked for the names to be stricken from the media. If it's alright for POTUS to name them it is fine for the article to name them, if it is respectfully. Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

NYTimes apologizes for blood libel (sort of?)

Just heard on Fox that the New York Times has apologized (see NYT public editor Brisbane) for its blood libel of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. Why is it that our articles don't even mention Krugman and the NYT libeling SP and the TPM? Whose POV is this article reflecting? --Kenatipo (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

People who actually know what "blood libel" means. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's just one editor at the NYT, the "public editor". --Kenatipo (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (see "Sarah Palin Is Right About 'Blood Libel'") know what it means, too. --Kenatipo (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I think it's also meant for people who actually read the links they post. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Touché, Sarek. It really does turn out to be a half-assed apology after all. I plead partially guilty to one count of Krugmanism. The first half of the article sort of apologizes for reporting that Giffords was dead (does this mean the NYT loses its RS status, along with NPR and CNN?). Then it sort of apologizes for playing up the political angle when in fact there was no political motivation for the shooting. Hey, I know, I'll use the NYT's own excuses: I was just too busy to read the article carefully before I posted about it, and, only 15 of my 50 recent edits have been really lamebrained so give me a break! But, can you answer my question: why is there no mention in this WP article of Krugman, NYT, Durbin, Dupnik, et. al., sliming the Tea Party without a shred of evidence and then not being big enough to apologize for it? Even Obama himself refudiated their line of attack. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is "there was no political motivation for the shooting" factual, Kenatipo? Loughner seems to have some bizarre ideas about politics, but given his ramblings about the constitution, and about 'genocide' on his videos etc, he seems to have seen himself as motivated by politics. If, as seems most likely, he is found 'guilty but insane' this doesn't mean that his insanity wasn't affected by the political climate in any case. Of course, we should wait for the trial first, before making any assumptions. (and BTW, in spite of Palin's efforts, the word 'refudiate' is still not recognised English) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse someone or a group of complicity in 6 murders, shouldn't you have some evidence first? And, you understood what refudiate meant, didn't you? --Kenatipo (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I haven't accused anyone of complicity in anything. I've merely noted that there has been an ongoing debate about the use of aggressive rhetoric in US politics, often using weapon-based imagery, and that recent events in Tucson have been seen by many in that light. Somehow you seem to think that this debate is closed, and that the Palin camp has been completely exonerated. It hasn't. It probably never will be, in that it very likely impossible to prove a direct connection between political rhetoric and the actions of individuals. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to expect a politician to accept that their rhetoric is intended to affect peoples' behaviour (in the polling booth at least), and that they cannot then claim immunity when possible negative effects of such rhetoric are pointed out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(Before I forget, be sure to watch the Sarah Palin interview on Hannity tonight, 9pm eastern, on Fox, of course.) Loughner lived in his own world, mostly divorced from reality. His behavior toward Giffords seems to be the result of a personal grudge formed in 2007. There is nothing political about it except that she happens to be a politician. No, I don't think this debate will ever be closed for you until you get your Palin Derangement Syndrome treated. But, polls indicate that most Americans (including our Commander-in-Chief) don't think political rhetoric had anything to do with it. Does the left really believe the lies it keeps telling about SP and the Tea Party? --Kenatipo (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what 'most Americans' think (I'm British), and this is beside the point in any case. I do know that there was commentary on the dangers of inflammatory political rhetoric leading to violence, before the shootings. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan - on British channel 4 news - "American rhetoric is very over-heated --it is time really to tone down the rhetoric.." (..falling on your deaf ears..) Sayerslle (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

People seem to be confusing the USA with, say, Rwanda a few years ago. The streets here, believe it or not, are NOT strewn with the mutilated bodies of Democrat or Republican politicians. Don't believe the hype. The Tucson shooting had nothing to do with political rhetoric. Just to keep you up to date, Sarah Palin said on Hannity tonight that she and her children have been receiving death threats. --Kenatipo (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Is there violent political rhetoric in the US, or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if there is, people are not killing each other because of it. --Kenatipo (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting a little off topic. Please focus on the article. SDY (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Kenatipo seems to have attracted little support for his suggestion of a specifically anti-Palin bias in the article. He is perfectly entitled to suggest that it exists, provided he can come up with real evidence. For now though, I'd say that the article reflects reasonably accurately the media response to the shootings, with regard to the issue in question (political rhetoric). The media discussed the Palin camp's use of 'gunsight' imagery (or what was seen as such), and noted that this had been raised before the shooting. Palin's response, and the subsequent question as to whether her use of the 'blood libel' analogy was appropriate, have also been noted in Wikipedia articles. His objections seem to be based around an assumption that only positive reporting of Palin, the Tea Party etc are permissible, as anything else is evidence of bias. Fair enough, he can say that. I don't believe it, and I'd say we'd need evidence to accept it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that since there was no political component to the act of the shooter (much to the embarassment of the mainstream media who were so certain he had to be a Tea Party sympathizer), all the stuff about "cross-hairs" and "vitriolic rhetoric" is IRRELEVANT, and therefore is given UNDUE emphasis in the article. With all its emphasis on what is now irrelevant, the article mostly reflects the disappointed hopes of the left. But, they keep hoping against hope. Another thing that puzzles me about the whole incident is this: If Giffords and Dupnik were so concerned about violence, why didn't they do anything to protect the congresswoman from it? --Kenatipo (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"No political component" -- that's WP:OR if I've ever heard it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please tell us what the political component was, then, Sarek. Perhaps a hatred of all politicians. Loughner seemed to act funny when Dubya's name was mentioned. But, his grudge against Giffords was PERSONAL, not political. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If I put something in the article that is OR, you are welcome to revert it. This is just a Talk page. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What might be needed is a better rationale of why certain items are included within this article. As Kenatipo seems to be saying, we don't have much evidence that politics or political rhetorical actually motivated his attack.

Any event can have political implications, and what we have seen in the media is a lot of people, for whatever reason, using the event to justify their point of view or vilify another's point of view. Among the calls for civility, some may be legitimate, and others may not.

We don't have any publically-shared evidence yet that conclusively proves Loughner had a personal grudge against Giffords.

In modest defense of Kenatipo, this article currently is very little about the actual event, and a lot about how people responded to it. Maybe that is appropriate, maybe it isn't. I tend to feel that Kenatipo seems a little far to one side on this issue, and maybe there is a comfortable middle ground for the article to settle toward. -- Avanu (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does an article about a shooting that had nothing to do with Sarah Palin have so much about Sarah Palin in it? --Kenatipo (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, original research. Until Loughner starts talking, we can't say it had "nothing to do with Palin". On the other hand, we can't say she was responsible -- but lots of commentary, national and international, has drawn a link between her rhetoric and the conditions that encourage violent solutions to political problems.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is the inescapable black hole of political rhetoric. (according to Stephen Colbert and Bernard-Henri Levy, French Philosopher) -- Avanu (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, you would take the word of Loughner the lunatic? As evidence of what? Are you sure you're from Vulcan? Real encyclopedias do not over-report, if they report at all, the agenda-driven speculations of the mainstream media. You really should spend more time reading Britannica articles (from bound volumes, not online). --Kenatipo (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) is the inescapable affliction of the lamestream media. (according to kenatipo). --Kenatipo (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you agree she's deranged. Good to know. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Vulcan. There's an apostrophe ess missing somewhere. Maybe it's orbiting Uranus. --Kenatipo (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I've been too abrupt with Sarek. I should have remembered that being an alien, English isn't his first language. Sarek, are you a legal alien or an illegal alien? You see, it's not Palin's Derangement Syndrome but Palin Derangement Syndrome, and that's a big difference. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion could get back on track? In my opinion, the Palin (and other) stuff is really noise surrounding the actual story. Maybe it would help to get all of that type of content out of the article and into a "Predictable Media Response in 2011" article. Take a cue from Joe Scarborough in his editorial: Moving past right-wing rhetoric

-- Avanu (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Scarborough got this part right: "Beck and Palin aside, I do understand why other conservatives pushed back on the media’s initial response to the Giffords shooting. The avalanche of condemnations that came pouring down on Palin, Fox News and the tea party were off base and offensive. Most of the same outlets calling for restraint after the Fort Hood shooting showed no such discipline after Tucson. The fact that the left predictably played to type did more to unite the conservative movement than any event since President Barack Obama’s election." (Excepting, of course, the passage of Obamacare). --Kenatipo (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

BE BOLD, Avanu. Let's see how much Palin stuff the other editors (all perfectly objective types who couldn't possibly have a point of view) will let you remove. Good luck! --Kenatipo (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My goodness some of the things I've heard in this discussion are borderline embarrassing. Did somebody really say "Somehow you seem to think that this debate is closed, and that the Palin camp has been completely exonerated. It hasn't. It probably never will be"? This quote really reveals the mindset that some editors of this article have that Palin is on trial for a massacre that she had nothing to do with. Do some editors really think the link between this shooting and Palin is so strong that she has to be "exonerated"? Use of the word exonerated I believe reveals a mindset that looks at Palin as something near criminally responsible for what happened. The word exonerated implies a level of guilt or responsibility for the crime that is just not backed by facts. Even if Loughner comes out and said I was influenced to do this crime because of Palin, would still not mean she needs to be exonerated from the crime. Whether you want to say that heated rhetoric has an association with his event is one thing, but implying that Palin holds so much responsibility that her side must be exonerated is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Also this quote "Until Loughner starts talking, we can't say it had 'nothing to do with Palin.' " So this is the justification for having so much content about Palin in this Tuscon Shooting article? Is this the new standard for wikipedia, things are included (especially something as strong as an implied link or cause for a massacre )until they are COMPLETELY disproven? I understand the media reaction about rhetoric (particularly dealing with Palin) whether factual or speculative should be included in some form because it in and of itself is an event that has been publicly prevalent and has dominated the media whether you agree with it or not. However it should be included in the article for the sake of simply reporting reaction itself as it has happened. It should not be included or presented in the form of "evidence" for some debate or accusation that Palin holds some responsibility. It appears from some of these comments that the intention of the Palins pieces in the article has gone beyond simple encyclopedic reporting of events and has ventured into the realm of serving as support pieces for a specific side of an argument or debate. I also am not a conservative or a republican and don't like Palin, but this has gotten ridiculous. 76.102.188.95 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We have reported what the media were discussing in the aftermath of the shooting, which included commentary about heated political rhetoric, 'gunsight' imagery etc from the Palin camp. Not to have reported this at all would have been a clear breach of NPOV, but several contributors still insisted that this was some kind of indication of 'bias'. Having failed to censor the article to suit their POV, some have since gone on to unequivocally claim that political rhetoric has been shown to have had no influence whatever on Loughner. Pointing out (on the talk page, not in the article) that this has not been demonstrated is clearly not the same as suggesting that Palin is complicit in murder. Frankly, the heated language used by some pro-Palin contributors tends to suggest to me that they are less concerned with presenting facts than with spinning the article to support their own POV, which seems to be largely based around suggestions that 'the media' are out to get her. I don't think that this is true, but even if it was, Wikipedia would still have to report what was said. We are not journalists. We have to base our articles on what is reported elsewhere. If the media in general are negative about Palin, then so will we be. To try to distort reality for 'balance' would be a breach of our readers' trust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Readers Trust! Ha! Would that be the same reader trust within the MSM that implicated Palin without a shread of evidence? Don't give me that crap, it is clear that Palin haters dominate these articles to the point that those that only mildly dislike Palin are viewed as pro-Palin. Arzel (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Arzel, Andy the Grump has encapsulated for us a systemic weakness in Wikipedia, to wit, that the sources of information for current events are mostly left of center. A real encyclopedia, Andy, would compensate for media bias if most of its sources were left of center. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be neutral and objective and shouldn't just reflect the bias of the mainstream media. I disagree with Andy that our hands are pretty much tied. No, this is when real editing and objectivity come into play -- when you know most of your sources have an ax to grind. (Andy may not even realize the bias of the NYTimes, Washington Post, LATimes, the AP, Reuters, the BBC, the old TV networks, etc. Thank God for Fox and the internet.) There really are two stories -- the shooting itself and the media rush to condemn Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and conservatives in general for the shooting. But, from what I remember, the "Reactions to" article has a long way to go. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

And how exactly have you determined that "sources of information for current events are mostly left of center". You haven't. All you've done is expressed an opinion about this. A minority opinion, based on little more than a conspiracy theory pushed by Fox, Palin, the Tea Party etc whenever things don't go their way. Unless you are proposing a concrete revision to the article based on verifiable evidence, I can see no point in discussing this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

All research into the main stream media has shown that they are slanted left on average. Journalists are overwhelmingly liberal/democrat. Most journalists have/did present their information in a neutral tone, but it is quite obvious of their bias whenever they present opinion (journalist anyone?) and this bias has become unavoidably obvious over the past two years (gitmo anyone?, patriot act anyone?) Pretty much everything that the media railed Bush about that is still ongoing has somehow just disapeared into thin air. You can pretend it doesn't exist if you want, most here do. Arzel (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said: Andy may not even realize the bias of the NYTimes, Washington Post, LATimes, the AP, Reuters, the BBC, the old TV networks, etc. And, at the moment, anyway, things are going our way! --Kenatipo (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Our way"? Which way is our way?   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, are you one of those people that pretends he doesn't have a point of view? --Kenatipo (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Or worse, are you one of those who, when discovering that another editor HORRORS! has a point of view, is no longer able to Assume Good Faith? --Kenatipo (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, things are going our way -- the US House just repealed Obamacare. HURRAH! --Kenatipo (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BATTLEFIELD. Also, please see WP:AGF - implying that editors are "pretending" to be neutral is not civil.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, are you one of those people who makes the mistake of thinking that someone with a point of view must therefore be incapable of editing neutrally? "Our way"? Which way is our way? I would have thought my POV was pretty obvious. --Kenatipo (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If an editor has a mindset 'This is war', tricorne, funny trousers, muskets, a 'don't retreat - instead RELOAD', malignant rage, neutral editing would be harder than if one were say, a taoist. 92.8.207.33 (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol I knew this would happen. Just because I disagree with how some of this article is being handled particularly with regards to the political response section, I'm labeled some pro Palin activist on some mission for her. Isn't it possible that maybe I disagree with the specifics of the article and don't have some wide sweeping pro palin agenda? guess not lol? I voted for Obama by the way not that I should even have to bring that up to justify my argument. By the way can somebody tell me why certain quotes are included but not others? It seems arbitrary which ones are included. I'm a fan of the Daily Show, but I really don't get why a comedian (granted a very politically aware comedian) on a COMEDY CENTRAL show gets a whole quote in an important part of the article and krugmen, typically an economics columnist, gets a whole paragraph? Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Bill O'reilly and the Boston Globe had strong reactions and eloquent quotes on the issue but they are not included. It seems that only quotes that strongly promote the POV that political rhetoric is the real issue of these attacks gets prevalence in the article. Even the moderate quotes about rhetoric from sources such as CNN don't get inclusion.76.102.188.95 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

76, he wasn't talking about you, he was talking about me, I think. We can't close this yet, I'm still waiting for Beback's answers to my questions. --Kenatipo (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever answer my question? Which way is "our way"?   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Andy was talking about people who watch Fox, admire Sarah Palin and agree with the aims of the Tea Party. I plead guilty on all three counts. Since we're playing "I'll show you mine if you show me yours", please describe for us your political sympathies. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I try not to discuss my political views on Wikipedia. They are irrelevant here. I'm concerned when users start making "battlefield"-type declarations about "our way" winning. That's contrary to Wikipedia policies and community norms. Please avoid partisan language like that in the future.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I just KNEW you would run and hide! No need to be ashamed of telling us what you believe politically -- you're among friends here. Personally, I think it's more honest to lay your cards on the table. Just for the record, I didn't start the US vs THEM thing, Andythegrump did: A minority opinion, based on little more than a conspiracy theory pushed by Fox, Palin, the Tea Party etc whenever things don't go their way. As we say, them's fightin' words. So, please feel free to lecture "the Grump" while you're dispensing free advice. --Kenatipo (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Unless substantive issues of article content are being discussed, any debate here is off-topic, and can arguably be deleted per WP:NOT#FORUM etc. Does anyone have any objections to me doing this, with the suggestion that those who wish to complain about alleged bias raise it in the proper place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This thread is based on a faulty premise, but I don't think it's necessary to delete it.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

External Links Section

Can we all please be cautious of adding more external links. The section has grown since that last time I have visited the article. We are more then a repository of links. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We are up to 15 links now. Does anyone else thing this is a bit excessive? --Guerillero | My Talk 11:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than tag this section for cleanup (the lazy way to do it) I was WP:BOLD and removed some of the links. With 178 (!) citations, there is little to be said in the EL section that is not already there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Memorials section images

Do we really need two images for this small section of the article? There are two options to display the images one would be to sandwich them together on one side and the other is how I have placed them one on each side both ways that are wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Try this layout, which would nicely accommodate both photos: put the Obama memorial photo in the top right corner of the section (which is where it is already located), and put the Safeway memorial photo in the bottom left corner of the section. And the layout would be further improved by shortening the caption under the Obama photo by deleting the quote. I'm not against using lengthy quotes, but a photo caption is not a good place to do it. Reznako (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Memorials section has a short text, and is currently sandwiched between two images, against good practice. One should definitely be moved or removed. How about removing the John Boehner/Ohio delegation photo, and using the Safeway photo here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. As seen in the edit history, I also had a problem with the sandwiching. Thanks for taking action. I was thinking of doing exactly that, since both sections do talk about the losses. Of course, I was also thinking of blending the Memorials section back into the Political figures section, once the deletion debate (which currently favors deletion) over its separate article is over, since it's such a small section and also has to do with the political figures' responses. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pep rally"

A Google News search of the term "pep rally" within the topic of the shooting yields 1,060 results. It should be included. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Tucson Republican Mayor Bob Walkup told Politico that the mood of the rally was appropriate.

'If there was one thing that was appropriate, it was cheering,' he said. 'I've been in the hospital, and the people that are healing, they want to hear people cheer.'" So, if the Republican mayor of Tuscon thinks it was appropriate, I don't think we need to quote people who are in the business of tearing Obama down saying it wasn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, it is possible to find criticism/controversy cites for anything if you look hard enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A Google News search result count is WP:OR. It cannot be included. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not saying we should include the Google News search result in the article, I meant that the result is proof that this story is not WP:UNDUE. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Google hits are cheap anyway. I get about 114,000 hits on "<my real first name> <my real last name> penis". By NY's standards, someone should be writing an article about my penis right now. PhGustaf (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Some conservative commentators criticize everything that Obama does, so criticism of the speech is not a big deal. I am still not convinced that this needs to be in the article, as it does not really add to an understanding of the shooting. It could be in a separate Reactions article. There seems to be a lack of consensus about whether a critical reaction to the speech is really necessary for this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Google hits mean nothing really because with those hits it includes spam, and forum links with the reliable sources sites (If any are out there) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that it wasn't just conservative commentators, and the ones included praised Obama's speech. Both the AP and ABC News objectively called it a "pep rally". NYyankees51 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

At 98 kilobytes long, the article is getting to the point where WP:SIZERULE applies. This means that it needs to avoid eye candy quotes from media pundits, which has already led to criticism. This paragraph adds little to the article. Obama gave a speech, some people liked it, some didn't, so what?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This material is getting way off-topic. At most, it should be mentioned within another sentence. Abductive (reasoning) 20:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am still sorely tempted to remove this on WP:TOPIC grounds. It just does not fit in with a brief section about the speech.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to shorten it. Perhaps somebody can find a way to remove the names of the commentators on either side of the issue, I really dislike such constructions. Also, if a bit more could be included about Obama's speech itself and reactions to the speech itself, then the weighting will be better. Abductive (reasoning) 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this work? NYyankees51 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath and reactions article

Also note that there is no consensus for other proposals, namely a medium sized section or a short section or a long section. Just a lot of "I don't like it" Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was No Consensus/Proposal Withdrawn I am just going to end it here, while there is some support for a split I clearly see a strong oppose here and there is already an AfD on an article that was made reguarding reactions to the event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am proposing that this section be split into a new article to cut down on the article's length, any imput on the matter? My thought for a title is Aftermath and reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting unless someone else has one better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support The section is getting huge and all signs show its only going to get longer. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Open to the idea if/when the article surpasses 100KB. The title itself may require another discussion. KimChee (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support split The reactions section is larger that the description of the shooting. That is like the tail wagging the dog. Madrid 2020 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Open, eventually, but four days down the pike is nowhere long enough for there to be an evaluable "aftermath". The article is going to be a mess for a while; best to keep it more or less decent for a month or so and then worry about the details. PhGustaf (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  Please see WP:NOTAVOTE. WereWolf (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose -- The article is not that long. We can keep things together. Racepacket (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- It's gonna be a huge thing after Paulin and Obama speeches so I vote for the section to be split into a new article indeed, gotta make italians understand this thing is a necessity for many other voices too (hard job)--Florathewiseful (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, just because users add every single statement made by every pundit and blogger that is no reason to make a huge page full of it. Instead, editors should make an effort to trim out lesser known persons and anything duplicative. And there is tons of duplication to be trimmed. For example, I just removed a lengthy non-statement from Paul Jay. Does anybody know who the f*ck Paul Jay is??? Abductive (reasoning) 12:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with above, though the Channel Four quote was ace. Sayerslle (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, this section should be kept in check on this page. It isn't significant enough at this point to warrant its own page. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Turning Wikipedia into a forum-by-proxy is inappropriate, and this kind of "reactions" information should only be included when it is informative to the reader. For example, the comments blaming Palin are informative, because they are not just another "expected" response of comfort and support. SDY (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of course the Aftermath and reactions section is going to be bigger than details on the shooting. There are still things we do not know about why the shooting occurred, etc., and plenty of prominent people have weighed in on the matter (hence the reactions being more informative). A separate article about this would get even more out of hand. We are doing a good job of keeping the information about it in this article under control. If it eventually requires a separate article, I'll be for it. Though some of that info should still be covered here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Analysis for everyone Some are saying the section is too big and should be split to another article. Some are purposely removing things to prove that it is not too big. The non-disruptive thing would be to keep everything other than vandalism and poorly written stuff. It is disruptive for some people to try to trim the size while others advocate splitting the article to a separate article. Please, let's try to work together. The most non-disruptive thing would be to let the section grow and then, if it is decided not to split it, then consider trimming, not before. Madrid 2020 (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  I have been noticing that too, the so called tiding up edits have sourced sections being deleted from the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  No sections have been deleted. There are too many "reactions", making it imperative to use some judgement to achieve WP:SUMMARY style. Abductive (reasoning) 21:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  If there is a separate article, then there are not too many reactions. The fact that there are so many reactions means something. Castro did not comment on the huge storm that paralyzed the South 2 days ago. The Minnesota congressman did not comment on the Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as per SDY. WereWolf (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose If it's directly related to reaction to the attempted assassination and incidents around the shooting, it belongs here. There are other side discussions that probably belong in other existing or new articles.--Utahredrock (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeToo soon, and likely to make adequate oversight of content harder. In any case, endless branching into sub-articles tends to encourage a 'throw-everything-in' attitude, whereas space constraints encourage conciseness and staying on-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete most of it or move it. This section needs some major editing/deleting or moving. Lets take a look at the logic behind including "blood libel" for example. In the wake of a tragedy, a sheriff comments on a possible motive for the shooter, the media ask is political rhetoric a motive, some media members point to a former politician who had strong political rhetoric and blame her. Said former politician retorts those claims and in that retort uses a word. Some group feels that using said word is not appropriate. And this is all connected to the tragedy? -examiner number 9

  As long as we keep this kind of stuff to a minimum, there's no need for a separate article. The specific issue about the Palin circus is really more part of the Palin article, and a link and one-line summary (i.e. she was blamed, many people disagreed she was responsible) is really all that's necessary. Keeping this kind of garbage out of the "reactions and aftermath" section will mean it's kept short enough to not require a subarticle. SDY (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  It can be kept to a minimum with the way it is now, though the blood libel stuff should probably be trimmed just a bit. The problem is that much of the media have made the tragedy largely about Palin. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  Because something is in the on the news and is talked about in the context of the event does not mean its worth reporting. I agree with SDY it's probably worth noting in a 1-3 sentence summary. The only quote that is relevant is the sheriff's quote as it was the only quote that was a direct reaction to the event and is notable because it started this Palin circus. What some of these tv personalities and editors think is not notable, they are paid to talk and have reactions to every news event. -examiner number 9

  I did not state that. I and a lot of others here have stated, however, that the Palin aspect is worth reporting in this article because of the degree to which it has been reported in relation to this tragedy. Whether people like it or not, it and the other heated reactions regarding the aftermath have become prominent aspects of this incident. Saying "what the media thinks is not notable" is an opinion. Completely disagree that a 1-3 sentence summary would suffice. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  We can discuss it in the appropriate section above -examinernumber9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Examinernumber9 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  You mean a section of the Sarah Palin article? My point is that some of the information belongs here just as much as it belongs there. Flyer22 (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose split for now. One event, one set of reactions. The section should be organized more faithfully to the chronology of reactions, however. bd2412 T 03:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is the beginning and the continuation/end of one story. Interested readers for either part will be looking for the same source. Lengthy articles are no hindrance and are frequent in Wikipedia anyway. Alandeus (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The article looks good at the moment, but the "Aftermath and reactions" section is still disproportionately long and needs to be pruned back. This has been the single biggest complaint about the article since it was created.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  No, instead of pruning because the other sections are too short, consider either spinning it off to a separate article or beefing up the other sections. Book burning is usually thought of as bad. Madrid 2020 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The 'aftermath and reactions' is an arbitrary clumping; the aftermath is, and will remain, an intrinsic part of this topic; the 'reactions' is full of non-notable mentions by the PR-minded around the US and the world and should be pruned to mention only the truly significant ones. Jack Merridew 19:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack, how is the aftermath too distinct from the reactions? The aftermath is all about reactions (which include physical actions) to the shooting. The only reason I titled the section Aftermath and reactions is because the different titles were becoming puzzling. To have a section titled Aftermath, which is full of reactions, separated from the Reactions section made/makes no sense to me. Having the Reactions section as a subsection of the Aftermath section also made/makes no sense to me in this case either. Thus I combined them, even though it seems "off" to me to have the two terms in the title as though they are necessarily distinct. Considering this new title (Aftermath and reactions) has stayed without tampering for a few days, however, and we now have this proposal for an article with the same words as its title, I would say it is working for editors. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Reminder of the rules - please read WP: SPLIT says "If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split be carried out." You cannot be for or against just "because I like it or I don't like it". You must decide whether the article is too large (no, it isn't) or if the section is too big for the article (let's decide). You should NOT remove things because you think it is too big. If too, big, then split is what Wikipedia says we must do (WP:SPLIT). These are not my rules, but Wikipedia's rules. Let us focus on the rules rather than say "I don't like it". Madrid 2020 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE is a policy. WP:SPLIT is a guideline, and not a very strict one. Not that the rules really control what we do. SDY (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support split That way we can concentrate on writing, not trying to cut out things for the sake of making it smaller. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Flaw

This discussion is flawed. There are actually two questions that people are commenting about. As such, there are 3 scenarios.

1. Section size is ok, should be kept here.

2. Section size is not ok, should be kept here.

3. Section should be split and cut down in size.

4. Section should be split and not necessarily cut down in size.

Few people probably want 1 and 3. So 2 and 4 remain. 4 can be a compromise since it is what supporters want and addresses half of what supporters of 2 want.

This is logic. However, sometimes the public does not follow logic (like in electing Hitler and liking Palin). Hitler was elected, remember. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

How a short version would look like

Being bold one time only, here's how a shortened reactions section looks like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Tucson_shooting&action=historysubmit&diff=408167419&oldid=408165561 Ryan White Jr. (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a major improvement to me. I might tweak a few words here and there, (e.g. "foreign politicians" sounds awkward), but the idea is sound. SDY (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it. It also made the Political climate section even more about Palin without the other material there. I reverted because of that, as it was only a trial run, the cut is not needed (in my view), and because every time something is cut that drastically...editors start adding back what they feel should be there anyway. This has happened time and time again. What's there now seems to be the consensus version, as it stays in that version or close to that version more than any other. I did tweak a few things, though. We don't need a whole bunch of subtitles for that section; it's unnecessary, especially regarding one or two paragraphs, and makes the section look longer than it actually is. Some people want a separate article on Aftermath and reactions not just because they felt the section in this article was/or is too big, but also because they feel that not enough is covered here. Those complaints, and the back and forth, will only increase with such as drastic trim as that. Flyer22 (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Some people don't like the length, so I've moved some sections to the reactions article to see how this article would look like. Ryan's use of the diff is a great idea. Here's this diff. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Tucson_shooting&action=historysubmit&diff=408426365&oldid=408425860 Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

While it's not quite in WP:SNOW territory, it looks like the separate article is not going to happen, so it's probably best to focus on what we're going to do here. SDY (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Its fairly close though --Guerillero | My Talk 17:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

I suggest that this be added to the article.

Like a harp needs a string (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This may well be true, but the evidence suggests that he was prone to irrational dislike of all politicians (Giffords was a Democrat). This would need to be handled with care, and may be more suitable for Jared Lee Loughner.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does mention Sarah Palin, even though no reliable source has ever connected Loughner to her. But the article does not mention Bush, even though a reliable source has connected Loughner to him. That seems like a huge double standard. Like a harp needs a string (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The question here is WP:WEIGHT. There was a bitter debate about whether to mention Sarah Palin at the BLP noticeboard, and the article now mentions the controversy over the crosshairs map. Incidentally, do you have to pay to read the NYT article, as it has a login screen.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Go to the home page and search for "Loughner Bush", it should come up accessibly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

More or less the same article is available without a login in the Boston Globe here. The Bush part says "His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government." This seems to confirm the general dislike of politicians rather than GW Bush in particular. Arguably the most interesting part of the NYT article is Clarence Dupnik's outright statement that he believes Loughner is mentally ill.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't take George Bush... any human will make him angry. Saying he hates George Bush is like saying ants like eating hamburgers with cheese when they would eat anything. Criminals, since ancient times, have claimed to be involved with various organizations to shift people's attention to those groups instead of the criminals themselves. His supposed positions on the political left-right spectrum and supposed belief in "grammar" theories was quite successful at distracting people from seeing his plain taste for mass murder. 173.183.66.173 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you personally know the man? He had friends and family and acquaintances that didn't make him angry. He was mentally ill. However, the article talks at length about the political right being a motivating factor, as was initially assumed and reported. It turns out that much of his anger could be rooted in the politically far left rhetoric of anti-Bush and 9/11 conspirators. I think this should be included. PRONIZ (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your the person sounding like you know him. If he really was only against George Bush, why do you say he shot Gabrielle Giffords and other random people instead??? Hell, if this mass murderer really wanted a chance at George Bush he wouldn't be at Arizona. He put a load of completely unrelated people to death and all you can think of's "is George Bush O.K?" BTW, Gabrielle Giffords appears to be more center-left than center-right, although that has absolutly nothing to do with the shooting. Maybe you should think before you throw in all the political fringe accusations in. Now I finally understand why Palin compared the accusations borne of political fringe to Blood Libel. 173.183.66.173 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're being inscrutable. PRONIZ (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Article size

This article as we can all see is nearing 100KB in length, is there any clear consensus that can be formed reguarding trimming down and forking of the sections here, or are people just fine with having the article grow into a long mess? May I also add that there is a slant towards merge over at the obama's speech AfD debate that would add at least another 10KB or so to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• There is much that can be trimmed. I object to any forking. The merge, if done right, shouldn't add that much to the article. Is there any duplication in the refs that can be cleaned up? Abductive (reasoning) 20:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There is still the 100KB problem though,if nobody really objects I will drop it I just find the bigger an article gets the more hard it is to manage right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE is a guide, but it is not written in stone. Featured articles are often far longer than 100 kilobytes (eg Barack Obama at 183 kilobytes). The main issue here at the moment is WP:TOPIC. The article could afford to go over 100k as long as it was not digressing into areas that would be better split off into other articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• If everybody would read the article and simplify the English just a little bit, it would be shorter. There is too much quoting, too many names of peripheral people and worst, names of news orgs that belong in the refs, but not inline. Cut duplicate wikilinks, etc. It all adds (subtracts) up. Abductive (reasoning) 21:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I wonder if there is a bot that could do some of the work here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The article size is fine to me, for the reasons ianmacm mentioned above. I'm not seeing how this article could have been expected to stay under 80 kilobytes or right at 80. While this topic isn't on the same scale as the 9/11 attacks, for the same reason that article needed to go over the recommended article size, this one needed to go over it as well. It's more about keeping unnecessary fat out of this article, and things that stray too much. I'm liking the way the article is at the moment. We've done a good job of keeping what's relevant, or good summaries of the issues, in without cutting too much out. The things Abductive mentioned do add up, though, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I just did an AWB run to cut out the dup wikilinks, and I trimmed down a lot of the "New York Times/New York Times Corporation" redundancy, and shortened the accessdates. Helped to the tune of several K, but there's probably more we can get. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
        • This is really two articles: the shooting and the political reaction to the shooting. The problem is the "Reactions" article is in a sorry state and may be deleted. --Kenatipo (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
          • To me, it's one article covering aspects of the same topic. Reactions to the shooting should definitely be covered in the article about the shooting. I'm not seeing why a separate article is needed simply for the reactions. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
            • I should have been more specific. The two articles are "the shooting" and "the left trying to blame SP, the Tea Party, et.al. for the shooting". Since the shooting had nothing to do with SP et.al. and vice versa, the shooting article should mention the blood libel and ensuing controversy in one sentence with a ref to the blood libel/overheated rhetoric article. --Kenatipo (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
              • The reactions have to do with the shooting, though. Even though the shooting is said to have had nothing to do with Palin. The reactions partly focus on blaming Palin and others for the shooting. Thus, it has to do with an aspect of this topic. We've done a good job of summarizing that. I'm not seeing why any of the significant stuff needs to/should be cut. Or why it should be downsized to one lone sentence, which I don't believe would suffice. I have, however, been a little for cutting a bit of the blood libel information. When you say "blood libel/overheated rhetoric article," do you mean the separate Wikipedia article, or just a url reference? Even if we were to direct people to an article covering the reactions, more than just a sentence about the blame should be covered here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
                • I meant 2 articles total -- the shooting article and the "blame Palin for it" article. The "blame Palin" article would be a "sub-article" (or whatever it's called) of the shooting article. The shooting article would have 2 or 3 sentences summarizing the "blame Palin" article. --Kenatipo (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • And I disagree, per what I stated above. I see no reason we should have a Blame Palin article, which would eventually become a WP:ATTACK page anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Based on Abductive's comments, I removed some of the unnecessary pundit titles and affiliations, because those indeed don't belong. If you want to know more about Alan Dershowitz or Keith Olbermann, that's why the wikilink is there. I had wondered about article size a while ago and I tried removing some of the excess spaces and other html characters that don't change the appearance of the article, but increase character size, and I was assured by another editor that it doesn't make a difference on performance, at least not in the 90k range. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job. Looks a lot cleaner. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

One more time. What I was trying to say is that the "Political climate" section plus "Public opinion" plus "Shooting victims" should be a condensed roll-up of an article called "Media reaction to the shooting". If we are size-constrained, then the "Prime suspect" section should be condensed to 3 or 4 paragraphs rolled up from the "Jared Lee Loughner" article. (I'm not volunteering, just suggesting). --Kenatipo (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And I get what you are saying, and still disagree, per what has been stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The size when edition includes everything. This is this prosesize.js readout.

• File size: 339 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 48 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 16 kB
• Wiki text: 91 kB
• Prose size (text only): 25 kB (4173 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 971 B

It may be helpful at sheading light at where most of the size is coming from. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Any trial, verdict and sentence are many months in the future (it took 15 months for a verdict over the Reagan assassination attempt). By then, a lot of the "Aftermath and media reactions" section here will look like WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. In the long run, a lot of this should either be removed or placed in a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree that a lot of it will look like WP:RECENTISIM and WP:NOTNEWS. It's on-topic and is a summary of the most significant issues in the aftermath of the shooting. It should be here, per the statements above. There are articles far longer than this, and there is no valid reason that any aspect of this article needs to be cut and made into a separate article. Yes, the majority of this information was reported in the news, the same as the majority of the information for 9/11. That cannot be helped. We are not reporting on every news aspect of this story, only summarizing its key points. What we should be focusing on is keeping any trivial detail out. Right now, I see no reason that any of the current sections need expansion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The article Reagan assassination attempt is around 30k, and there is no article called Reactions to the Reagan assassination attempt. This shows a degree of historical perspective and restraint which has been lacking in this article. Things will calm down here, and eventually some of the bloat from the media pundits will be removed or split off.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That is an example. Not one we have to follow. And it has nothing to do with constraint. Things have already calmed down here. The bloat? I see none. You stated above that WP:SIZE is only a guide and that there are featured articles longer than this one. Well, that is true. "The article could afford to go over 100k as long as it was not digressing into areas that would be better split off into other articles." Your words. And per your words, I see nothing digressing into areas that would be better split off into other articles. All the sections are of relatively controlled size. Yes, even the Political climate section. People removing things from that section that others have felt belong there is what has caused half of the revert wars. And now that section is designed in a way that seems to have WP:Consensus, covering all the aspects that others have wanted covered. Any time Paul Krugman is removed, for example, he is added back. To me, the matter is settled. Editors complaining of this article's size just so that they can remove things they feel shouldn't be in this article is not a valid excuse to downsize. The article needs no downsizing, in my opinion, and my feelings on that will not change. If this article ever wants to be featured, it will likely need to be longer than 30 or 80 kilobytes anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not saying WP:OSE, because as an example Virginia Tech massacre is 86k. Overall, this article is well written, but there is still some overextension in the Reactions section. The trial (if and when it comes) will be far more important.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I know you were only giving an example. We all do that in discussions/debates. And I understand what you are saying, even if/though I disagree a bit. Just to point out something, though, the Reagan assassination attempt article uses far less references than we use here at this one. References add a lot to articles as well, and we are using more than one or two references just to source one line or paragraph. Sometimes that is needed, but other times...no. Flyer22 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, shouldn't the "Prime suspect" section be a summary of the "Jared Lee Loughner" article? --Kenatipo (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It should, and I just now looked at his article for the first time. Was too busy and not too interested to look at it before. This article seems to summarize it. Sometimes a summary is two to three or four paragraphs, because that is needed to adequately summarize the larger article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Guerillero for running the script. The most important number there is the readable prose size, which is only 25K. According to the rule of thumb in WP:SIZE, "length alone does not justify division" of an article this small. Please do not confuse the readable prose size with other article sizes you see on article history pages or elsewhere in Wikipedia.-- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, JTSchreiber. That is exactly what I was stating about the references adding a lot to articles. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)