Wikipedia

Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/Archive 6

< Talk:2011 Tucson shooting
Latest comment: 11 years ago by 68.19.212.249 in topic Third Paragraph
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DEADLINK, the information should not be removed simply because the url link stopped working. I checked at Internet Archive, and didn't see a copy there. Next, someone can look for a different reliable source that has reported this same material. After that, I'm not sure what to do, but I don't feel that removing the material is the answer. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links says, "If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the webpage (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you are unable to find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverifiable." Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Article title issues

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I take exception with the title of this article. One is that the shooting did not happen in Tucson, but from start to finish was in the unincorporated suburb of Casas Adobes, a town that is geographically, physically, and politically different from Tucson proper. As read, 2011 Tucson shooting could refer to any firing of a weapon in the city of Tucson, Arizona which is not what happened here. I propose that the article either be titled Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt as she was the intended target, or 2011 Casas Adobes shooting spree. Combuchan (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Both issues have been discussed before. I suggest you read through the archives before proposing any changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Loughner's atheism and criticism of religion

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I do not believe that this man's religious views belong in this article. It doesn't pertain to the shooting, and atheism is not a known factor in criminally violent behavior. I can't help but assume that someone is hoping readers will think his atheism contributed to his actions. I removed the line, and my removal was reverted. Can someone point to a policy that describes how the line either does or does not belong? The line in question is: "Classmates noted that Loughner was an atheist and actively critical of religion." Breakspirit (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Most news outlets, in trying to determine the shooter's motive, reported political and religious leanings. If there is any speculation, it's coming from verifiable sources. It belongs in the article and should stay.  M3I5K7E  21:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
There was a great deal of speculation about Loughner in the days immediately after the shootings. Given what we now know about his mental state, much of it seems no longer relevant. I think the article could do with a good cleanup to remove content based on initial speculations, and instead report the pertinent facts - of which, Loughner's religious beliefs (or lack of) aren't examples, not least because reports were based on what others claimed, rather than any hard evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
A lot regarding this topic has to do with speculation, so I don't feel that all or most of that should be removed. For example, most of what is in the Speculation on causation section is (as the title says) about speculation and the debates that arose from it. I don't feel that most of that should be removed (for reasons already gone over in past discussions, and we certainly trimmed it enough). I do feel that it should be titled back to "Political climate," though, because that title more accurately sums up this particular detail about the aftermath. As for Loughner's religious beliefs, I'm not sure. Right now, that same information is in his article (with more than one source attributed to it). So do we just leave it up to his article to cover that and remove it from this one? Or have it in both? Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Atheism is probably unlikely to be the cause of Loughner's mental state. He's just off. -- Avanu (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Nowhere does it say that atheism is the cause. Keep this article as is including speculations by the media.  M3I5K7E  16:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

no surprise

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedians got it wrong again, titling this article "tuscon shooting" when it happened in the unincorporated settlement of Casas Adobes. When is this going to be fixed?

It isn't - Wikipedia articles are named according to the common term, and we don't expect our readers to be familiar with the intimate details of municipal geography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point Andy, Casas Adobes is part of Tucson anyway.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tucson Shooting

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe the article is well-written and informative. However, it is incomplete. Head shots are normally fatal. Why is Gabrielle Giffords alive? I would like to know what type of bullet was used. Was it full metal jacket or hollow point, or some other type? Also, what path did the bullet travel through, or along her head? Obviously it didn't go through the middle of her head.

I am not being crass. This shooting was a terrible tragedy filled with sadness. I happen to be a firearms enthusiast and would like to know the facts of how a victim survived a point blank head shot. It sounds like a miracle.

Dave Salmon Sparta, NJ184.6.213.48 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There is more detail on this issue in Gabrielle_Giffords#Attempted_assassination. Also a BBC News article here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 02:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 12 years ago65 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 14:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


Comments

Pass
Query
  • Prose. The sentences are sometimes short, which, combined with a series of short paragraphs give a choppy, awkward feel when reading, and an untidy appearance. In addition, the opening sentences of the lead are not clear. From the title of the article and the first few sentences I wasn't aware that this was about the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. The shooting made the media over here in the UK, but it was the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords that made it internationally notable - the date and location are not as important. WP:MOSINTRO gives some good advice on structuring the opening paragraph and sentence of the lead. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Focus. The "Speculation on causation" section feels a little excessive and loose. There are some important observations being recorded, but there are not that many for the length and detail of the section. The "Suspect" section is equally loose, and given that there is a dedicated article on Loughner, I wonder if it needs to be that long. I also wonder if some of the information in that section might be better placed elsewhere. For example, Bryce Tierney's speculation on motive might be better placed in the "Speculation on causation" section (awkward section title that - would "Possible motives" serve better?). The info about buying a gun and ammo might appear either in the "Investigation" or "Shooting" sections, as that info is about the incident rather than background info about Loughner. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Fail
  • To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.
I have tidied up the initial sentences, and I don't think there's anything mentioned in the lead that is not mentioned in the main; the main focus here is to ensure that the lead contains an adequate summary of the main body - and that there is an appropriate balance. Currently there is a lot of information on Loughner in the main body, but little in the lead. As well as providing more detail about Loughner in the lead, some consideration should be given to how much of the information on Loughner in the main body is appropriate for this article, given that it is about the shooting itself, and there is already an article on Loughner. I'll bring this up again in relation to criteria 3(b) - Focused.
It is very common for the lead to need attention during a GAN, and this article's lead is fairly average in that respect. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your tidying. I'm giving consideration to the lead. I was thinking about adding a paragraph about the reactions to the shooting, which aren't included in the lead. What do you think about that? I'm not sure how much information about Loughner should go in the lead, especially as much of what we know comes from speculative reports from peers. He hasn't made any public statements, so all we can do is make inferences, which may not be lead-appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand the reluctance on including much info on Loughner in the lead. I tend to feel that way as well, and that feeling tends to come when the material itself is perhaps not suited to the article at all. There should be info on him, as he is the person who was seen to do the shootings. Though it's a judgement call as to how much info on him as a person to include. Info on his involvement in the incident? Yes. Info on his schooling, habits, friends, opinions? Hmmmm... Some, but how much, and what? I suppose a guide would be what the sources have focused on. "An unemployed loner with a drug habit and what police call “a mental issue”" from The Independent; "army reject with a troubled past" from The Guardian; and "a college dropout" from The Telegraph. There are others, but no real consistency - other than mental health issues. It's a tricky area. I suppose it's a case of trying out a few statements and seeing what works. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Reactions to the shooting in the lead. Yes. As there is a significant section on that. What is the situation now regarding Loughner? He has been declared unfit to stand trial, yet the article still talks in terms of a trial going to happen - "If convicted in either federal or state court....", "The federal case will be heard...", "Prosecutors representing the State of Arizona announced they intend to file murder and attempted murder charges..." SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems that it's still ongoing. He's been declared unfit to stand trial, but there are legal wranglings ongoing about his being forced to take medications. It's all unclear, and gets into WP:CRYSTAL territory at this time. Loughner's article covers this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
To clarify this, I've found that Loughner was found unfit to stand trial, but that doesn't mean he won't stand trial ever. He's due to be reevaluated by the end of this month. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
General comments
  • I have to raise the issue of the article title. I was curious about it, and did a Google search which indicated that "Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt" was the most common phrase. On looking back at the talkpage history I note that this has been a contentious issue, and that the page is locked on the present title by consensus. As the last comment on the title was four months ago, and the title is locked, I think it may be considered "stable" and the title issue shouldn't impact on the GA review, though I do feel a little uncomfortable, as the title is not clear, and is not the most common phrase used, so I can imagine that there may be future requests to have the title changed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You're right that it was contentious at the time, though as you mention, it is stable as nobody has commented on it in some time. While it may not be the best possible title, and I am open to a future discussion on renaming the article, article titles are beyond the scope of GA reviews, so I had no issues nominating the page despite the title. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The title has been disputed and queried several times. It may be disputed again in future. We don't know exactly if and when that dispute may occur. If a title dispute occurs during a GAN, the GAN is put on hold until the dispute is resolved. If the dispute is not resolved within a reasonable space of time, the GAN is closed as a fail. I am satisfied that there has been an appropriate search for consensus, that there has been a period of stability, and that the page is locked. I am just a little uncomfortable about the title. Though, having looked again, I was mistaken about "Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt" being the most common phrase. I must have done an open search, as when I looked again just now with a closed search, the results were very low. I think finding an appropriate title for news events is difficult, especially when the events are still new. I don't want this GAN to be about the title, but I am slightly uneasy about it and though I would just raise that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt," or rather "Giffords assassination attempt," or something similar to that, seemed to be the most common phrase used in the news and news sources, so I wouldn't say that you were "off" in your assertion about that being the most common title. But I never had much of an issue with any title given to this article and am of course content with the current one. It was, as you know, kept at this destination via consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Not a GA issue. The section titled "Target of the attack" is about Gabrielle Giffords rather than analysis or information about Loughner's intended target. Titling the section after the topic, "Gabrielle Giffords", might be more helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I changed it to your suggestion, but I don't like how the shooting information is covered away from this section. The Shooting section is also about Gabrielle Giffords being shot. I would suggest making the Gabrielle Giffords section a subsection of "Shooting," but I don't like it when sections only consist of one subsection. I would put both sections as subsections under a blanket heading if I could think of a good one at the moment.
As for the section not having any analysis or information about Loughner's intended target, I believe it used to include a bit. The "Speculation on causation" section maybe did at one point as well. I definitely think something used be in the article saying that it wasn't clear if Loughner intended to shoot Giffords, but that can be attributed to the fact that the story was still fresh at that point and news report were changing about it all the time. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
If there is a source saying that initially it was unclear if his intended target was Giffords that would be appropriate to use; though from my reading of sources now, there appears to be both an acceptance and evidence that he intended to shoot her. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I'll do what I can on this in the next couple days, but unfortunately I will be on vacation out of town from December 23 through January 8. Flyer22, I'm grateful for all of your help, but since I'm the nominator, I don't want to put all of this on you. If this isn't finished by Friday, would you be willing to keep it on hold until I return? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. You may need to nudge me in January though, as I'll be fully engaged in my ArbCom role by then, and already the induction is proving to be distracting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, Loughner definitely intended to shoot people, or rather just someone, but I think there was something included about about how he may not have set out to shoot Giffords. Maybe shooting anyone there would have sufficed for him? Hmm. With regard to this article, I could also be remembering wrong, but I'm almost certain that I heard that on the news in the early days of the aftermath.
Muboshgu, I of course have no problem helping out. I know you nominated the article for GA, but I just don't feel that you should be going through it alone (as in the only editor meeting the GA demands). Since others, myself included, helped in building this article, it would be preferable if they/we helped meet the GA demands. I can't help out with much, though, since I am busy with other matters on and off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
That rings a bell to me too, that the early reports on the news were that his motives/target were unclear - but I could be misremembering too. I'll see if I can find anything on that. Tvoz/talk 18:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
All help is appreciated, especially since I have to be on my way to the airport in four hours. I know we've never gotten any explicit confirmation that Giffords herself was the target of the shooting. It could have been that he targeted the event and wanted to shoot as many people as he could, as you suggested. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
With GAN it is the article that is the focus, not the nominator, so everyone is welcomed and encouraged to help out - and that includes the reviewer! The nominator does not need to have any further involvement after the nomination, and I have completed a number of successful GANs where the nominator was not available for one reason or another.However, it is preferred if either the nominator or a significant contributor is available to assist. On listing a GA, I leave a {{User Good Article}} tag on the talkpage of each significant contributor, as often it is team work. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel that it is in extremely bad taste for a person to nominate an article for GA if that person is not going to participate in bringing the article to GA standards. Unless the article already meets those standards.
I also feel that it is in bad taste to nominate an article for GA if you are not a main contributor to the article and have not posed the question (on the talk page first) to the main contributors to see what they think or if they are still around. I mean, the main contributors may not want to go through the GA process at that time. Nominating it will make them feel that they have to participate, since they most likely don't want the article to fail. Others may feel that the article doesn't meet the GA standards yet. I know that I've been in those positions, as recently as the nomination of the Asexuality article. I was pretty much left alone to get it to GA status, although the reviewer helped out a bit (which I appreciate). If an article fails GA in any case where the main contributors were not notified or were not ready, it comes down to it all likely having been avoidable...if the nominator had simply discussed the matter on the talk page first. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
You are right that I could have brought it up on the talk page before nominating the article. I'll make it a point to do that again with my future nominations.
However, I consider myself a main contributor to this article, which you can see if you look back through the edit history. As to my not being here the last couple weeks, I nominated the article some time ago, and didn't expect it to be on review while I was away. Now I'm back, so I'll finish off the work. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
My comments were not directed at you, Muboshgu. I was hoping you'd see that since you and what you did don't fit any of the examples I mentioned (notice I said "if you are not a main contributor to the article and have not posed the question to the main contributors"). I have no problem with a main contributor (and, yes, I was already aware that you are one because I remember you) nominating an article for GA, even if it is better in some cases to ask other main contributors before nominating. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah my bad, that old axiom of what happens when you "assume"... – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Unneeded references. We removed unneeded references from this article before at my advisement, because such references make the kilobyte size of articles bigger than the articles actually are and they can cause articles to open slower. This article doesn't have a lot of text, and so it's a bit silly that it has so many references, the number references that are typical of much bigger articles. I'll go ahead and remove unneeded references, leaving two references to the lines that have three or four backing them...unless three or four are actually needed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove as much as I wanted to. Too many of the references are shared, which makes the matter complicated. Therefore, I only removed some references that aren't shared.[1] The following line "Six of those shot died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll, one of Rep. Giffords' staffers, and a nine-year-old child." has five references backed to it, for example, all shared. And that's the only reason I didn't cut it down to two. It's not really going to get rid of the references since they are backing other lines in the article. However, I'll likely still cut that line and others to only two references, since readers shouldn't have to check four or five to verify the material. Only if the material is very controversial or highly likely to be contested are that many references needed. That, and if each reference covers a relevant point not mentioned in the reference before it. But even in those cases, a couple of references that go over all the points should be searched for as an alternative. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed some more of the extraneous references, but I agree that it's not a cut and dried issue. I don't think it should hold up the GA, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry that I haven't been able to help more. In addition to being focused on other things, I'm having Internet problems, which will hopefully go away soon. Flyer22 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. You did alot while I was on vacation. I'm taking it across the finish line. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

On hold

This is an informative, neutral, and well sourced article on a recent and ongoing news item. It provides a range of decent and mainly clear information about the incident in an organised manner. There are some issues of tidiness and clarity regarding the prose, there is perhaps too much detail in places, and the lead needs expanding so it can stand alone as a succinct summary of the topic. Other than that, the article meets GA criteria. On hold for an initial seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, I don't feel that any section has too much information. The Speculation on causation section has always been the heftiest section because it has to do with the effect the incident had on the political climate. In fact, the section used to be titled Political climate. See Article really needs cleanup for the discussion about having changed the heading. I still prefer that heading. But, yeah, I could try to cut a bit from it or other areas. If you specify what areas you feel need cutting, I could give it a shot. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I will take a closer look at it later. It may just need a rewrite to organise the information. Palin's name is scattered throughout the section. As for the name - reaction sections (which it appears to be) are normally named as such: Media reaction; Political reaction; International reaction, Local reaction, etc. Often there is a parent section termed "Reactions", with the other forms of reactions as subsections. The "aftermath" material is perhaps not a reaction, and could be placed elsewhere. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
SilkTork, I'm not seeing how "aftermath" is not a part of "reactions," or how we could separate the two. The reactions are what came after the shooting, which falls under the category of "aftermath." Take a look at September 11 attacks, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I like the way the September 11 attacks is organised. I've looked again at the material in this article, and made an edit reorganising the material and renaming sections. The incidents directly related to the shooting, such as the streets being cordoned off, I've moved to the shooting section and placed that alongside the material related to the victims being taken to hospital. That all seems to fit. That then leaves the Reaction section for events external to and independent of the shooting. I have put all of what appears to be political comment in the sub-section marked Political, and related incidents in a sub-section marked Incidents. I won't do any more edits to allow time to consider what I have done to see if it works. This will make a revert easier if it is felt to be a total mistake. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As this is the holiday season, I'll extend the hold to 7 Jan to allow time for work to be done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I like your reorganization. Something I don't like is the decision by an editor to not have the title of this article bolded. It looks odd because it deviates from standard practice.
Above you stated that "[t]here are some issues of tidiness and clarity regarding the prose, there is perhaps too much detail in places," but you didn't specify. Is this not a big issue? Have you decided that the tidiness and clarity are fine? You also addressed expanding the lead. In what way do you want the lead expanded? I see some stuff stated about it above and some things that were taken care of. Other than those issues, you say this article meets GA status. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I think there may still be too much detail in the Reaction section - I question the value of mentioning Governor Brewer's emergency legislation, and the amount of detail on James Eric Fuller. However, I think that is a matter for ongoing discussion, and as it is debatable I won't hold up the GAN because of it.
What does need attention is the lead. There either needs to be more info on Loughner, or the Suspect section needs to be substantially reduced - if the Suspect section is to remain as it, then it needs to be appropriately summarised in the lead. Also, there needs to be an adequate summary of the Reaction section. The Lead should be able to stand on its own as a reasonable summary of the events as detailed in the article. The holiday season is over now, and the work is not that difficult, so seven days should be enough. Once the lead is built up this will be listed. Ping me if the work is done before 12 January. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm back from my vacation now. I'll take a look at the lead and see what I can do this week. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back! I'll take a look in a couple of days. I'm always happy to extend a hold if positive work is being done, but if there has been no progress, then I'll be looking to close. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday I restructured the lead to three paragraphs (incident, suspect/legal proceedings, reactions), which I think should suffice. I'll probably trim the information on Loughner because much of that belongs on his own page (there had in the past been an issue of whether or not he should have his own page). Does that sound like it would encompass what needs to be done? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a move in the right direction. I think the summary of the political reaction could be expanded a bit more. Let me know when you've trimmed the suspect section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say that it is odd that we are sending readers to these other articles about the shooting information and aftermath when this article is supposed to be about the shooting information and aftermath, but it makes sense when you consider that this topic is shared with the Gabrielle Giffords and Jared Lee Loughner articles and certain things are more about them than the shooting. The Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech could have fit here, but including all that would have made half of this article about the speech. Of course, it could also be argued that we didn't/don't need to go into extensive detail about the speech. Anyway, I was just digressing. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to only remove information from this article that is really not relevant to the shooting itself. In doing so, I've reduced the size of the suspect section somewhat. However, I can't cut it any more, as I feel that everything there is connected to the evaluation of the suspect in light of the shooting. As for the lead, I believe it now summarizes the main parts of the article, which is the event itself, the suspect and legal proceedings to this point, and the reactions (grief, analysis of political rhetoric, talk of gun control legislation). I could expand it a little further if you feel it's necessary, but I feel this is a succinct summary of the event. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of background information about the suspect in the article that is not summarised in the lead. Either it is felt that the material about Loughner's personal history is relevant to the article, in which case it needs to be summarised in the lead, or it is not and so should be removed to the Jared Lee Loughner article. Does his schooling need to be in the article? His previous offences? The online material? If so, summarise these - "He dropped out of school after complaints of inappropriate behaviour"; "Loughner, a 22-year-old Tucson man with a criminal record, was arrested..."; "Loughner had posted material on the internet related to his political views". Whatever is decided, the paragraph on Loughner's internet activity could be reduced, and the rest of the section organised so that it doesn't present as a series of short, clipped paragraphs. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a paragraph on Palin, and she is mentioned seven times in the article and eight times in reference source titles, though she is not mentioned at all in the lead. Either she is important, and so should be mentioned in the lead, or the focus on her in the article is disproportionate and should be reduced. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Obama's speech is mentioned, but not the other memorials. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC) I've now done that one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So now Palin is mentioned in the lead, and I talked about some of Loughner's mental instability, which keeps his getting kicked out of college and attempt to enlist in the US Army in this article. Anything else? I can do more tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've trimmed the suspect section, and added in the lead that he had a fixation on Giffords. There are multiple cites in places that will need to be looked into as part of ongoing development of the article, and perhaps a little more detail on the political reaction could be summarised in the lead, however I feel that the article satisfies GA criteria, so will list as a Good Article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on using and bolding the article title in the lead

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

[Moved from GAN] Something I don't like is the decision by an editor to not have the title of this article bolded. It looks odd because it deviates from standard practice. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

When an article's title is descriptive (as opposed to a formal or de facto name for the subject), not displaying it in bold is our standard convention. Please see WP:BOLDTITLE (the relevant guideline) and WP:SBE (the page on which the reasoning behind it is explained). —David Levy 03:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of that guideline, but I've never seen it practiced until now. Unless we count editors who simply did not know we are usually supposed to bold the title. And any in case, the lead doesn't even start off with the title anymore, which is just as odd as not bolding it. I just don't feel that it's necessary to follow the "no bolding" guideline. But I can live with it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You'll see this style if you view other articles about events with no formal/de facto names. You also will see the other style, which is being gradually phased out as more editors become aware of the guideline and realize that the boldface title's omission isn't accidental and needn't be "fixed". (I regularly examine newly created articles appearing in the main page's ITN section, and I've been finding the MoS style with increasing frequency.) —David Levy 03:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The wording that descriptive titles should not appear in boldface was introduced in 2008. That it has not been altered does not in itself imply that the wording has consensus. It is interesting that most of the examples given in WP:SBE do show the descriptive title in bold. I suspect that the wording might be more appropriate as it was previously - "it need not be in boldface". These featured articles use bold type for descriptive titles: Yellowstone fires of 1988, Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, July 2009 Ürümqi riots, Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre. If the consensus among editors on this article is that the title is preferred boldened, I would support that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
This article's lead has lacked a boldface title throughout most of its existence (with its occasional insertion reverted by multiple editors), so that doesn't appear to be the case.
Incidentally, the wording used in the first sentences of Yellowstone fires of 1988 and Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre comprise natural, straightforward English. Conversely, the statements that "the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident took place in Tiananmen Square" and "the July 2009 Ürümqi riots were a series of violent riots" contain obvious redundancies. No one would ever say such a thing, except to awkwardly cram the article's title into the lead. —David Levy 12:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear that there is a consensus on bolding the title. I looked in the talk archive and found discussions on the title itself, but nothing on bolding:

I looked back at the editing history of the article to see how the bolding had come and gone:

It may be worth having a discussion to see what the consensus is, though the matter doesn't impact on this GAN, so it should really be discussed on the talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the matter is separate from the GAN.
Note, incidentally, that the lack of clear consensus regarding the article's title demonstrates that "2011 Tucson shooting" is merely descriptive (not a widely accepted name for the event). —David Levy 15:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is some discussion above in the GA review of using and bolding the title in the lead section. The guideline on the lead section in articles is WP:Lead, the section dealing with the first paragraph is WP:MOSINTRO, and that of the format of the first sentence is WP:BOLDTITLE. Actual convention on how to use article titles in the first sentence varies across Wikipedia. Where the article title is the identified name of the topic, the format is to bold the title and include it in the first sentence. Where the title may be classified as "descriptive", the title tends to be used (and bolded) when it can be used without forcing the language, and usage varies when the title cannot be used naturally. Sometimes people don't use the title, and other times they try to get it in and bold it - occasionally the words of the title are bolded even though they don't appear together in the sentence, as in The Beatles in the United States (The Beatles' rise to prominence in the United States...). As the MOS doesn't suggest that descriptive titles are avoided altogether (the wording is "does not need to appear verbatim", which means that descriptive titles should not be forced into the first sentence if they don't naturally fit), the title can appear in this article if that is the consensus. The question of the bolding is under discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above summary.
In my view, this is a textbook example of when not to force the article's title into the lead. "2011 Tucson shooting" isn't a widely accepted name for the incident. (As noted in the GA review, there isn't even strong consensus to use it as the article's title.) And unlike cases such as Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre, the phrase doesn't arise naturally when referring to the event. (In normal speech, no one would state that "the 2011 Tucson shooting was a shooting that occurred near Tucson in 2011" or similar.)
WP:SBE explains the reasoning behind the guideline. —David Levy 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

(I though I brought this up once before.) The phrase "2011 Tucson shooting" is way to vague. Tucson is very violent and there has been dozens of shooting incidents in Tucson over the past few years, including a couple by the DC snipers. Anyway this article should be called the "Safeway Massacre" as it seems to be pretty common for the people who actually liver here in the Tucson area. The "Gabriel Giffords Assassisnation Attempt" would also work but either way the "2011 Tucson shooting" title has to go.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Gabriel Giffords assassination attempt" was rejected because of the death of Judge John Roll and the other killings. "2011 Tucson shooting" is acceptable as long as it does not lead to confusion with other Wikipedia articles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This title makes it sound like the perp accidentally shot off a few rounds. "Tucson shooting" is not an acceptable title for this subject by any stretch of the imagination. Innocent people were deliberately targeted, shot, and murdered. The location of "Tucson" in the title followed by the apathetic "shooting" is not an accurate summary of the topic. Viriditas (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Source contradiction

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The text in the article

"After the gunman ran out of ammunition in the first magazine, he stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it."

is sourced from the CNN article at http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-09/justice/arizona.shooting_1_arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-people-shot-doctors that states:

Authorities said the suspect, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, was tackled by two men when he tried to reload his pistol -- while a woman in the crowd, Patricia Maisch, took away the fresh magazine Loughner had dropped.

but The New York Times article at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10reconstruct.html provides a different account

"His ammunition spent, the assailant stopped to reload, the authorities said, inserting a 31-round clip into the chamber of his Glock semiautomatic pistol before raising the gun again.
And in what was perhaps the only fortunate event of the day, the spring on the second clip failed. Two other men in the crowd lunged at the gunman and tackled him to the ground, and Ms. Maisch, responding to shouts from the crowd, grabbed the empty gun clip."

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Third Paragraph

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The third paragraph (which is probably the furthest that most people will ever read) should be altered so as to give a more accurate account of the political fallout from Tucson. It should be something more like this:

Following the shooting, there was an outpouring of grief and condemnations from American and international politicians. Attention focused on the harsh political rhetoric in the United States. Some left-leaning commentators[1] such as Paul Krugman[2]blamed members of the political right wing for the shooting; in particular, they attempted to implicate Sarah Palin because of gun-related metaphors in her speeches and because of the website of her political action committee which "targeted" the districts of Giffords and others with pictures of crosshairs on an electoral map. Later it was learned that Loughner was an anarchist who hated all politicians regardless of their affiliation, which quieted the stir on the political left against Palin. [3] Gun control advocates used the incident to renew their push for increased restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition, specifically high-capacity ammunition magazines.[4] President Barack Obama led a nationally televised memorial service on January 12, and other memorials took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.212.249 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A Safeway in Arizona

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there any objection to adding A Safeway in Arizona by Tom Zoellner to a further reading section? Viriditas (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ LA Times, "[2]"
  2. ^ NY Times, "[3]"
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference rhetoric was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference gun_control was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting/Archive_6&oldid=1140526522"