Jump to content

Talk:2011 Tucson shooting: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanup
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|search=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=y}}
{{Article history
{{WPBS|blpo=yes|
|action1=GAN
{{WikiProject Crime|class=B|importance=mid}}
|action1date=15:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Death|class=B|importance=low}}
|action1link=Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/GA1
{{WPARIZONA|class=B|importance=mid}}
|action1result=listed
{{WikiProject United States Congress|class=B|importance=mid}}
|action1oldid=471508833
|currentstatus=GA
|topic=law

|itn1date=2011-01-08
|otd1date=2013-01-08|otd1oldid=532038756
|otd2date=2021-01-08|otd2oldid=999126616
|otd3date=2024-01-08|otd3oldid=1194026812
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=GA|collapsed=yes|
{{afd-merged-from|Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords|Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords|08 January 2011}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}}
{{ITNtalk|January 8|2011|alt=yes}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid|American=yes|American-importance=mid}}
== Casualty Count Needs Updating ==
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|subject=event|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject United States courts and judges|importance=Low}}
http://www.keyc.com/node/45899
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|AZ=yes|AZ-importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=mid}}
(CBS News-Tucson)
}}

{{Afd-merged-from|Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords|Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords|08 January 2011}}
"Six people are dead and 13 <<not '12'>> wounded after a gunman opened fire at a public meeting held by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona."
{{Afd-merged-from|Daniel Hernandez, Jr.|Daniel Hernandez Jr.|12 March 2011}}

{{Press |date=December 18, 2012 |url= http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/12/how-does-wikipedia-deal-with-a-mass-shooting-a-frenzied-start-gives-way-to-a-few-core-editors/ |title=How does Wikipedia deal with a mass shooting? A frenzied start gives way to a few core editors |org=Nieman Journalism Lab}}
[[Special:Contributions/68.5.76.19|68.5.76.19]] ([[User talk:68.5.76.19|talk]]) 15:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Terrorism? ==

Doesn't this fit the accepted definiton of a terrorist act? If so, it should also be put under "terrorism in the United States."[[Special:Contributions/174.101.121.203|174.101.121.203]] ([[User talk:174.101.121.203|talk]]) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:I would hold off until we know more about the motivation. The [[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?src=mv new york times]] gives a description of the shooter.--[[User:Banana04131|Banana]] ([[User talk:Banana04131|talk]]) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:{{ec}}There ''is'' no widely agreed-upon [[definition of terrorism]]. Let's hold off on that for now until we get a number of news organizations calling it that. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:It ''might'', but it's too soon to say. We don't know the motivations of the shooter (though I can't help but wonder if it's a tea party sympathizer taking to those "second amendment remedies"). I was thinking about whether or not it belongs on [[List of events named massacres]], but it's too soon to say. --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 20:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::Just read this. It seems political with the targeting of all her aides, bear in mind it doesnt have to be by an organised group per [[Lone wolf terrorism]] (emphasis on "terrorism"(([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)).
:Terrorism would seem to be a loaded term to add to any article. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 20:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::[[WP:OR|Original research]] at this point to call the shootings terrorism, since law enforcement, government, and the press have so far not called it that. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::The [[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?src=mv new york times]] made it clear the motives were uncertain in "The shootings raised ''questions'' about potential political motives"(italic added)[[Special:Contributions/173.180.214.13|173.180.214.13]] ([[User talk:173.180.214.13|talk]]) 06:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Palin's Map Notable? ==

I think the [http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/08/congresswoman-gabrie.html map] that is being circulated all over the place which appeared (up until a few moments ago) on S. Palin's website is notable and should be a part of this article. I'm not sure in what light it should be painted, but it is certainly relevant to the situation whether or not the shooters are right-wing, etc. The controversy surrounding Giffords in AZ has went on for awhile. Her stance on border control could be listed under the same sub-heading. [[Special:Contributions/216.26.124.22|216.26.124.22]] ([[User talk:216.26.124.22|talk]]) 20:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:And her 2010 opponent ran a campaign heavy on the violent metaphors with his military experience. It's too soon to make assumptions like this. There was a federal judge there, for all we know he was the main target and Giffords was caught in the crossfire. Analysis of this shooting will surely be coming in the future, after the dust settles. --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 20:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:Appears now that the shooter to be a soldier who served in Afghanistan, hardly the usual occupation of an anarchist or communist in America. --[[User:Rarian rakista|Rarian rakista]] ([[User talk:Rarian rakista|talk]]) 21:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::Here's an video of an interview with Gifford, where she was complaining about the the gun rhetoric of the tea party, and mentioned this very image. This was 9 months ago. http://kateoplis.tumblr.com/post/2655554409/msnbc-talks-to-rep-gabrielle-gifford-about-the Highlighting it here for possible future inclusion in the article, if right wing/tea party involvement in the shooting is established.[[User:CardboardGuru|CardboardGuru]] ([[User talk:CardboardGuru|talk]]) 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::The soldier's military experience appears to be grossly exaggerated. Several news outlets are reporting there is no record he ever made it to the military, and the only passing note was something on a suspected YouTube video where he says he was given a bible at MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station). This does not mean he joined the military, he could have been deemed unacceptable or applied and changed his mind. [[User:Zenmastervex|Zenmastervex]] ([[User talk:Zenmastervex|talk]]) 01:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::NBC and The Arizona Republic are reporting the shooter tried to enlist in the Army, but was rejected for unspecified reasons. This is why patience and prudence should prevail in a wiki article. [[User:Zenmastervex|Zenmastervex]] ([[User talk:Zenmastervex|talk]]) 01:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:Agreed, the fact it's been removed from the SarahPAC page is itself notable.[[User:CardboardGuru|CardboardGuru]] ([[User talk:CardboardGuru|talk]]) 20:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::Has it been removed? The server could be overloaded due to the traffic. --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 20:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::A few minutes ago, the SarahPAC page at http://www.takebackthe20.com/ displayed perfectly, except for an error for the image in question. Now, the URL does not respond at all. It's pretty clearly a rapid attempt to remove the evidence.[[User:CardboardGuru|CardboardGuru]] ([[User talk:CardboardGuru|talk]]) 20:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, this edit should be allowed:
"Her opponent in last year’s election held a campaign event at a gun range, to “get on target” to “remove Gabrielle Giffords from office”.<ref name="dailykos">{{cite news|url=http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2011/1/8/13371/41091/21#c21|title=Second Amendment Solutions |publisher=Daily Kos|date=2011-01-08}}</ref>"[[User:CardboardGuru|CardboardGuru]] ([[User talk:CardboardGuru|talk]]) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

::I concur with the above. For all we know, this could by an anarchist or a communist, or just a random shooting by a deranged man. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|''<font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa</font>'']] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|''<font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki</font>'']][[User:Toa Nidhiki05/Userboxes|''<font color="green" face="Mistral">05</font>'']]''' 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Say what? She was a fairly liberal Democratic representative. If it was political, it was from the other side. [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 00:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::: Actually she's fairly centrist, with demonstrated stances being pro-gun and tough on illegal immigration.[[User:Zenmastervex|Zenmastervex]] ([[User talk:Zenmastervex|talk]]) 01:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::: A Daily Kos diarist recently posted an entry titled, "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And now is DEAD to me!" The Kos diarist's congresswoman is Gabrielle Giffords. dKos has removed the post but a screenshot has been saved at http://twitpic.com/3o7s5c [[Special:Contributions/24.178.119.61|24.178.119.61]] ([[User talk:24.178.119.61|talk]]) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:Whether this was politically motivated or not I think that there is little question that there is a significant amount of speculation to that end. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.26.124.22|216.26.124.22]] ([[User talk:216.26.124.22|talk]]) 20:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The mainstream press are [http://www.voanews.com/english/news/US-Lawmaker-Shot-in-Arizona-113135089.html noting the map], so it seems appropriate to mention it in the article. It is not original research or synthesis if the newsmedia are noting it. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 21:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::In that case, I agree with adding it. How to do it is a touchy issue though. --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 21:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:Don't add it yet. It would imply that Palin ordered a hit or something. Let's wait until we get all of the facts. --[[User:BurtAlert|BurtAlert]] ([[User talk:BurtAlert|talk]]) 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::The [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?src=mv NY Times] and the Voice of America mentioned the Palin map in the article. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::: I have to agree not to add the map. Sarah Palin, as far as all evidence suggests, had absolutely nothing to do with this shooting. The article needs to remain about people who were actually there, people who actually witnessed the event, the victims and the shooters, and the investigation. Any assumptions about the motive or mindset of the shooter prior to official reports being released is unnecessary and irresponsible.[[User:Zenmastervex|Zenmastervex]] ([[User talk:Zenmastervex|talk]]) 01:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::You are quite wrong per policies and practices in what is included in Wikipedia articles. See [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]]. We absolutely do not wait months or years for "official reports being released" before including material in an article if it is included in coverage of the subject by mainstream news media and other reliable sources. We are not reporting "truth;" we are reporting what is noted by reliable sources, with appropriate weight. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 02:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Since you're so dead set on including mention of the Palin map, don't you also think it's relevant that the Democrats have used similar maps in the past? I think it's important to make known that this type of campaign map isn't new to American politics, and it contributes to NPOV. [[User:Zenmastervex|Zenmastervex]] ([[User talk:Zenmastervex|talk]]) 09:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
*Please see discussion at [[WP:BLPN#Alleged connection of Sarah Palin to Gabrielle Giffords shooting]]. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Note also that Palin has decried the violence and expressed sympathy to the victims and their families. (cite removed from article for some reason). [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 00:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:That could be mentioned in the "reactions" section, but in no way takes away the need to include the map, as news media worldwide have seen fit to in their coverage. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 02:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::But those media outlets are only including the map in their stories because they have nothing else to write about and they have already displayed a political interest in embarrassing Sarah Palin. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.27.166.239|66.27.166.239]] ([[User talk:66.27.166.239|talk]]) 04:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

As of right now this quote is found in a large number of articles in one form or another:
<blockquote>"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC. "When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action." [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-08-giffords-bio_N.htm?csp=34news USA Today]</blockquote>--[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 06:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::Even fox used the quote that I quoted. You can't get anoy more widespread then that. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 06:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Not arguing it hasn't been covered extensively by the media. No, I don't have a reference Palin wasn't involved in the shooting, I'm just using common sense. The fact that Palin's name is even brought up in this shooting just shows you how the liberal media works. Using tragedies to make a point. How sick.[[User:Philipmj24|Philipmj24]] ([[User talk:Philipmj24|talk]]) 07:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::this isn't a [[WP:NOTAFORUM|forum]] about the media --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 07:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
=== References ===
{{reflist}}

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

== Categories ==

I think that Mass murders in 2011 and Assassination attempts in 2011 cats should be removed since we don't know the actual number of dead for sure yet and until more about the motivation is known we do not know that this was an assassination or assassination attempt. There has to be more conservative categories we can use until we know all the facts. Is there a shootings in 2011 category? [[User:Cat-five|Cat-five]] - [[User talk:Cat-five|talk]] 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Murder is being misused. Technically, it is a BLP violation. Killings, yes. Murder is a legal term. Let's be precise. [[User:Nesteoil|Nesteoil]] ([[User talk:Nesteoil|talk]]) 20:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:''Murder - The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another'' '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|''<font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa</font>'']] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|''<font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki</font>'']][[User:Toa Nidhiki05/Userboxes|''<font color="green" face="Mistral">05</font>'']]''' 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

::My issue was more with the use of it being '''mass''' murder, since that's a bit unclear especially when the number dead isn't concretely known. [[User:Cat-five|Cat-five]] - [[User talk:Cat-five|talk]] 20:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:: I went ahead and removed [[:Category:Assassination attempts]] and [[:Category:Mass murder in 2011]] per the above. [[User:Cat-five|Cat-five]] - [[User talk:Cat-five|talk]] 20:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:: It is amazing to me that ''anyone'' here would debate this was not a mass murder or even a murder. Premeditation is not required for murder, murder is simply the unlawful killing of a human being. Can anyone to argue the killing was lawful, and if six killings isn't mass murder, then what number is? [[User:KeptSouth|KeptSouth]] ([[User talk:KeptSouth|talk]]) 09:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:::See the present [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWOuvq7wWchGfkEwrlhTFi5MJlCA?docId=1e73680dffc641608ca58f9e590e0742 AP coverage] of the shootings. They call it "in an attempted assassination." Good enough to include the categorization. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 04:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== "See also" links ==

I blanked the section after Anna Lindh and JFK were both added; JFK is definitely not relevant, plenty of other politicians have been assassinated. Anna Lindh was readded; it may make sense to keep her IF this turns out to be an assassination attempt, as she was a woman in a similar political position. But I'm not sure if that's enough similarity to qualify for relevance; by the same token, any US congressperson assassinated might be notable. However, the motives have not been reported yet, so we cannot assume that this is an assassination attempt (even if it looks very certain to be one.) Thus, I believe nobody should be listed here until we know more about the motive and such. [[Special:Contributions/99.55.199.47|99.55.199.47]] ([[User talk:99.55.199.47|talk]]) 21:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:Sorry about that, I accidentally deleted comments, this is a section that got lost in the restoration. [[User:Cat-five|Cat-five]] - [[User talk:Cat-five|talk]] 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

::Lindh was a attacked in a store as was the congresswoman, both had no security, both attacks raised questions about the security of public officials, really the only major differences between this incident and the Lindh incident is that there were multiple fatalities in this attack, the persumed target of the attack has not died and the other attack was in Sweeden. The see also section is to link articles of similar nature which both have. JFK certainly has no relation to this incident, but Anna Lindh's murder, assassination or whatever you call it is actually quite similar to this particular event. --[[User:Kuzwa|Kuzwa]] ([[User talk:Kuzwa|talk]]) 21:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Lindh was stabbed, her attacker initially fled, she was shopping inside a department store, and not at a political event outside a grocery store, is from another country, etc. (Just to note some major differences.) I'm sure we could come up with plenty of other figures who are as relevant as she is. Also, this article is about the attack, not directly about Ms. Giffords. Links to descriptions of very similar attacks themselves might be appropriate, but not links to the figures involved in my opinion. Those belong on the Gabrielle Giffords page, if anywhere. [[Special:Contributions/99.55.199.47|99.55.199.47]] ([[User talk:99.55.199.47|talk]]) 21:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Well the details of Lindh's killing are on her own page. She does not have an individual article on her death. Essentially all I did was add a See Also link. It certainly isn't taking away from the article infact it adds context with similar events in the past. --[[User:Kuzwa|Kuzwa]] ([[User talk:Kuzwa|talk]]) 21:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::Would a compromise be if I directly linked to the murder section on Anna Lindh's page? I don't think that Anna Lindh and Gabrielle Giffords should be linked on each other's pages because other than these attacks they both have nothing in common. --[[User:Kuzwa|Kuzwa]] ([[User talk:Kuzwa|talk]]) 21:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::I'd say we need input from more than the two of us to decide whether to include that. Opinions? [[Special:Contributions/99.55.199.47|99.55.199.47]] ([[User talk:99.55.199.47|talk]]) 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::Right, which is why I'm saying if linked, it should be from Gifford's page. For example, there are no "see also" links to other people, or even other assassinations, from the [[JFK Assassination]] page. However, the [[JFK]] page has "see also" links to Robert Kennedy, lists of other assassinated public figures, etc. I believe that is reasonable precedent to follow. This page should remain about the assassination event, especially when there is a page for the specific person who you're trying to add information about. [[Special:Contributions/99.55.199.47|99.55.199.47]] ([[User talk:99.55.199.47|talk]]) 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:See I find that strange, but perhaps the Kennedy ''Brothers'' are not a great example as this circumstance as they were brothers, you would think they would have mention of one's brothers as something that might be important to see also on their page. I'm looking through MLK and other assassination victims and found that in the [[Assassination of Benazir Bhutto]] there is a link in the See Also section to [[Liaquat Ali Khan]] who was also assassinated but does not have an article on his death. So I'm kind of of the opinion that it really does not matter either way? --[[User:Kuzwa|Kuzwa]] ([[User talk:Kuzwa|talk]]) 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking JFK, but now I think thats not really related. Oklahoma City is probably something to consider putting. The theme of See Also should be incidents related to right wing anti-government violence. Do we have an article on that guy who brought a gun to the Obama rally? Anna Lindh is most definitely irrelevant. Our goal in See also should be articles that people might think of when reading this.--[[User:Metallurgist|Metallurgist]] ([[User talk:Metallurgist|talk]]) 22:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:Whoa. We don't know this was right wing anti-government violence. We really don't know the motivations of the shooter at all. But regardless the ideaology behind does not have to be the exact same, the circumstances under which the attack occured however are similar between Lindh and Giffords. --[[User:Kuzwa|Kuzwa]] ([[User talk:Kuzwa|talk]]) 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

== Youtube channel of shooter ==

Is this legit? [http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10 Classitup10] --[[User:BurtAlert|BurtAlert]] ([[User talk:BurtAlert|talk]]) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:Maybe, join date and video post dates indicate that it is indeed a youtube page of A Jared Loughner but if it is the youtube channel of THE Jared Loughner is another matter. Hackers may have got there etc. etc. [[Special:Contributions/86.134.88.250|86.134.88.250]] ([[User talk:86.134.88.250|talk]]) 21:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::

Craziness he posted on a girl's Myspace page :www.myspace.com/28299026+%22fallenasleep%22+az&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" target="_blank"&gt ;http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca..." target="_blank"&gt; :www.myspace.com/28299026+%22fallenasleep%22+az&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

" =| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L1lsLU-kUw
If there's no flag in the constitution then the flag in the film is unknown.
There's no flag in the constitution.
Therefore, the flag in the film is unknown.
Burn every new and old flag that you see.
Burn your flag!
I bet you can imagine this in your mind with a faster speed.
Watch this protest in reverse!
Ask the local police; "What's your illegal activity on duty?".
If you protest the government then there's a new government from protesting.
There's not a new government from protesting.
Thus, you aren't protesting the government.
There's something important in this video: There's no communication to anyone in this location.
You shouldn't be afraid of the stars.
There's a new bird on my right shoulder. The beak is two feet and lime green. The rarest bird on earth, there's no feathers, but small grey scales all over the body. It's with one large red eye with a light blue iris. The bird feet are the same as a woodpecker. This new bird and there's only one, the gender is not female or male. The wings of this bird are beautiful; 3 feet wide with the shape of a bald eagle that you could die for. If you can see this bird then you will understand. You think this bird is able to chat about a government?
I want you to imagine a comet or meteoroid coming through the atmosphere.
On the other hand, welcome yourself to the desert: Maybe your ability to protest is from the brainwash of the current government " --[[User:Rarian rakista|Rarian rakista]] ([[User talk:Rarian rakista|talk]]) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:Wow, this guy was pretty insane. I will be on the lookout for more. --[[User:BurtAlert|BurtAlert]] ([[User talk:BurtAlert|talk]]) 21:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

::He lists all of his literarry inspirations: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

Notice he has Animal Farm, Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Meno in that reading list. Is philosphy must be quite interesting... --[[User:Kuzwa|Kuzwa]] ([[User talk:Kuzwa|talk]]) 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's leave this out until a reliable source connects the channel to him, ok? --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:What Sarek said. See [[WP:PRIMARY]] for more. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 21:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

::Sounds good. Also, I just searched for him on Facebook, there was a troll account and [http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001959394831 this]. Could be him. It says he lives in Tuscon, Arizona and it has a picture. --[[User:BurtAlert|BurtAlert]] ([[User talk:BurtAlert|talk]]) 21:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:None of this should be linked from or added to the Wikipedia article until it has been in the mainstream news media. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 22:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

::Reuters has [http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0824532520110108?pageNumber=1 mentioned] the Youtube account. [[User:Nanobear|Nanobear]] ([[User talk:Nanobear|talk]]) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:CNN has [http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shootings.suspect.social/index.html referred] repeatedly to the Youtube videos themselves as well as the biographical information included therein (the books Loughner is referenced as listing as favorites). For this article it is a primary source (more important than the MySpace profile), duty is to inform. [[User:Danny42378|danielkennedy74]] ([[User talk:Danny42378|talk]]) 07:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If the shooter's alleged page on YouTube is genuine, then the user name under the investigation section should reflect "Classitup10" instead of "ClassItUp10". Amidst dispute over the authenticity of YouTube page, an inconsistency such as this only serves in furthering confusion since YouTube does not allow the creation of a new account if the intended user name is spelled the same way as a preexisting one regardless of the choice of case. -- [[User:Smarfling|smarfling]] ([[User talk:Smarfling|talk]]) 12:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:Done, since this is clearly the YouTube channel involved and the spelling is "Classitup10".--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 12:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Jared Lee Loughner ==

http://azstarnet.com/image_e2eb0f94-2fb9-11df-8820-001cc4c002e0.html
His picture is on the azstarnet page for an unrelated event.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/e/2e/b0f/e2eb0f94-2fb9-11df-8820-001cc4c002e0.image.jpg <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bryancpe|Bryancpe]] ([[User talk:Bryancpe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bryancpe|contribs]]) 22:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Just heard it on CNN that it is confirmed of the shooter's name as mentioned above. –[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 22:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:Still not mentioned on their website, though. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 22:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::Does this count as a reliable source then? [http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/01/az_shooting.html] Its New York magazine, there are also 2 other sources in the article that say he did it. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

== YouTube videos ==

Loughner apparently has a YouTube video channel at [http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10], under the name of Classitup10. This is reminiscent of the [[Kauhajoki school shooting]], prior to which Matti Saari had posted videos on YouTube. I've had a look at the three Loughner videos and there is nothing disturbing in them, although they are weird. Take a look quickly, YouTube may pull this channel.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

:{{ec}} See above. We are not including it at this point. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

::Same comment as above, news sources have continually referenced the Youtube videos, such as CNN: [http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shootings.suspect.social/index.html]. For this article, Youtube is (perhaps unfortunately) a primary source, most of the data about the shooter has come from there. [[User:Danny42378|danielkennedy74]] ([[User talk:Danny42378|talk]]) 07:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:::The YouTube videos are still up, which is something of a surprise. The Myspace profile was pulled almost immediately. However, the YouTube channel is a primary source, which is not ideal as a citation.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 11:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Reactions ==

The Reactions section is ridiculously long now, and there's a separate page for it that's linked.

Edit request due to protection: please cut out most of these. It makes sense to me to keep the following: Obama, Boehner, Pelosi, McCain, Governor Brewer. (Obama is obvious, Boehner as the speaker, Pelosi as the Democratic majority leader since Giffords is a Democrat, McCain and Brewer since they're the highest profile Arizonans to comment.) [[Special:Contributions/99.55.199.47|99.55.199.47]] ([[User talk:99.55.199.47|talk]]) 22:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:{{done}}, now has a separate article for the reactions.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 22:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:Much better, but can we please get rid of Sarah Palin? Her only political connection, unlike the other folks who're there now, is that she targeted Giffords for defeat. I don't think she should be quoted prominently with the other folks there just because she likes to be on TV a lot these days. That does make her a notable figure somewhat, sure, but again...no real political connection unlike the others, nor is she a real politician anymore like the others. [[Special:Contributions/99.55.199.47|99.55.199.47]] ([[User talk:99.55.199.47|talk]]) 23:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

::Someone has untrimmed this. It is way too long, classic recentism and listcruft. However, Sarah Palin's reaction is notable.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 23:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Well, there was a call for merge/deletion of the reactions article, and I do guess that other article isn't notable on its own. (So I supported it, even though I agree it is excessive.) It'd be nice to see it trimmed again. I posted this [http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/08/reactions-to-shooting-of-rep-giffords/| CNN link] as a way to keep a reference to some extra comments easily reachable. Some of the comments on there are from even more notable people than some of the ones listed. Should they all be added? By the precedent of what's already on the page...the answer would be yes, some should. But then we get an even longer list...so this does need to be trimmed. I agree, it's recentism, and I still don't see any reason to keep many more quotes than the ones I originally listed. (But just nuking them instantly when merging the reactions article seemed too quick.) Perhaps when this settles down the cruft can be cut out. [[Special:Contributions/99.55.199.47|99.55.199.47]] ([[User talk:99.55.199.47|talk]]) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Re [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2011_Tucson_shooting&diff=next&oldid=406769448 this edit]. Yes, seriously. This is an important news story, but listing every reaction is non-encyclopedic. This always happens when there is a major news story, things will quieten down.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

← The current layout is needlessly crowded. Reference the volume of reactions and pointing out the noteables (including President Obama) is suffcient. We don't need something that looks like "List of people who have reacted to 2011 shooting". -- '''[[User:TRTX|TRTX]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:TRTX|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TRTX|C]]</small></sup>''' 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The citation provided does not match the quote in the wiki that is attributed to Gov. Jan Brewer ["Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot: reaction". Azcentral.com. 2010-12-29. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/08/20110108arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-shot-reaction08-ON.html#ixzz1AU9Fxfsb]. In fact, it seems to be a misquote from "Rodney Glassman" from the same page. Retrieved 2011-01-08.]<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Closewagon|Closewagon]] ([[User talk:Closewagon|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Closewagon|contribs]]) 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Title ==

Lots of people are shot in Tucson.

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

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

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

Did not the shooting happen at an event called, Congress on Your Corner ? Would that not be needed in the title ? Just as a shooting at the Superbowl would have Superbowl in the title[[Special:Contributions/110.174.238.120|110.174.238.120]] ([[User talk:110.174.238.120|talk]]) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
{{hat|Not how we do things}}
'''2011''' Is this important. Don't assume that it is.
====Neutral====
# 2011 is not a major feature of the event. [[User:Hakkapeliitta|Hakkapeliitta]] ([[User talk:Hakkapeliitta|talk]]) 22:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

'''Tucson, AZ'''
====Oppose====
#Reliable sources, like CNN, point to Gifford's shooting more prominently than Tucson. Besides, it may be Casas Adobes, AZ. [[User:Hakkapeliitta|Hakkapeliitta]] ([[User talk:Hakkapeliitta|talk]]) 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

'''Safeway'''
====Neutral====
#No reports of anti-Safeway yet but the Safeway shootings may become popularized as a term later. [[User:Hakkapeliitta|Hakkapeliitta]] ([[User talk:Hakkapeliitta|talk]]) 22:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

'''Gabrielle Giffords'''
====Support====
#Reliable sources, like CNN, point to this as the event. [[User:Hakkapeliitta|Hakkapeliitta]] ([[User talk:Hakkapeliitta|talk]]) 22:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}

====Comments====

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


What the hell is this? The page move should be undone. We don't even know Giffords was the target. It could have been Roll. --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShooting_of_Gabrielle_Giffords_and_others&action=historysubmit&diff=406762754&oldid=406762618 Per consensus?] You were the '''only one''' to vote for a change! This needs to be undone.--[[user:White Shadows|<font style="color:#191970">'''White Shadows'''</font>]] <sup>[[user talk:White Shadows|<font style="color:#DC143C">'''We live in a beautiful world'''</font>]]</sup> 22:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::I reverted the change I feel that this should be move protected until this dispute can be resolved, there is anotehr way to present the information too. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 22:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

====Survey====
I'd keep it at 2011 Tucson shooting for now. Year+place has often been the standard formula for names of articles about shootings. [[User:Nanobear|Nanobear]] ([[User talk:Nanobear|talk]]) 23:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:Thank you for stopping the move war. Do we need all 50 heading on this page. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::Agreed to keep it as [[2011 Tucson shooting]] - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Support move-protection. The current title is not ideal, but Hakkapeliitta has <s>twice</s>repeatedly moved this page to random-seeming titles, and the above is a textbook example of how not to conduct a move discussion. If there's no obvious new title, we discuss it, we do not force things to proceed through incomprehensible polls. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::::I feel that this discussion shoul be removed too so there isnt 50 headings here. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 23:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::I cut as much of it as I could without altering Hakkapeliitta's comments and hid the rest. Again, let's ''discuss'' things. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose moves''' Current title is fine. I would support move protection as well. '''Yoenit''' ([[user talk:Yoenit|talk]]) 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose moves''' Agreed current title is fine, it sums up what the article is about without being overlly too detailed. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose Moves''' If this is moved again it needs to be locked in place. This wheel warring is crazy. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
*Can we at least get the article title to match the correct city (It was not in Tuscon) or reference one of the more significant victims (the Senator)? -- '''[[User:TRTX|TRTX]] <sup><small>[[User_talk:TRTX|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TRTX|C]]</small></sup>''' 00:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

====Move protection====
*Please move protect for the time being.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is illegal Wikipedia Original Research.

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

CNN says http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 a reference to "grocery store" so maybe "Tucson grocery store shootings (2011)".
[[User:Hakkapeliitta|Hakkapeliitta]] ([[User talk:Hakkapeliitta|talk]]) 02:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:Please give it a rest. --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 02:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Other Congressional/Senate Assassination Attempts ==
Have there been any others? If so there should be links. [[User:Professor water|Professor water]] ([[User talk:Professor water|talk]]) 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
*Last one was [[Leo Ryan]] in Jonestown, Guyana. Also, Arkansas state chair [[Bill Gwatney]]. Not that these should be added to the article; I suggest [[List of assassinated American politicians]] be put in a see also section. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 23:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:We don't need anything until we know more. She wasn't assassinated, we don't even know for sure it was an assassination attempt. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] ([[User talk:Trebor|talk]]) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::The [[List of assassinated American politicians]] includes federal judges, so it is a nice workaround. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::We don't know he was "assassinated" either - we don't know motives yet. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] ([[User talk:Trebor|talk]]) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Trebor beat me to it with the edit conflict, until we know and have a confirmed source saying that she or Judge Rolls was the target we can't really call it an assassination or assassination attempt. [[User:Cat-five|Cat-five]] - [[User talk:Cat-five|talk]] 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::If we need them later the categories I removed a few hours ago right after the shooting was reported were [[:Category:Assassination attempts]] and [[:Category:Mass murder in 2011]] although I think the second one is inaccurate and there's a better category out there for spree killings. [[User:Cat-five|Cat-five]] - [[User talk:Cat-five|talk]]
:::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8248267/American-congresswoman-Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-in-head.html It is believed to be the first time that a woman politician has been the object of an assassination attempt in America]. Given that the gunman approached and shot her first, it seems clear that she war targeted. But you can still leave it out if you wish. One role of a lead section is to make clear why the topic of the article is notable. Possibly being the first assassination attempt against a female politician in the US would therefore be one important thing to mention. [[User:Nanobear|Nanobear]] ([[User talk:Nanobear|talk]]) 23:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::If I thought that the article needed a link to [[List of assassinated American politicians]] ''now'', I would have added it to the article already. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 23:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Nanobear, most sources are not yet reporting it as that. Notability is hardly an issue (with regards to deletion), and we can afford to wait until more information becomes available. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] ([[User talk:Trebor|talk]]) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Assassination does not necessarily need motivation - see [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assassination] [[User:Professor water|Professor water]] ([[User talk:Professor water|talk]]) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Jared Laughner ==

I noticed that [[Jared Laughner]] redirects here, shouldn't [[Jared Lee Laughner]] also redirect here? KVOA said that was his name. [[Special:Contributions/65.94.44.243|65.94.44.243]] ([[User talk:65.94.44.243|talk]]) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:It is [[Jared Lee Loughner]] with an ''o''. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

::As more information comes out I am sure [[Jared Lee Loughner]] will have his own article here on wikipedia as this is a major event (1) and (2) at least 5 people were killed and he was captured alive. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 23:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Only if there is enough info to make it worthwhile. If everything important can be covered here, then that would be preferred. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] ([[User talk:Trebor|talk]]) 23:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
::::We'll just have to wait and see. He's almost certainly in a "black bag" somewhere for at least the next 24 hours. Shooting a congressperson is not exactly a minor event and the Feds are sure to want to know if he acted alone or not. Why he did this will probably take a day or two to come out. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On a similar note, since he redirects here can people not make his name a link in the article. I've removed one already. [[User:Prokhorovka|Prokhorovka]] ([[User talk:Prokhorovka|talk]]) 23:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

:Given [[WP:ONEEVENT]] it seems unlikely he'll have a separate article unless and until it becomes useful just as a subarticle because this one is getting too long. [[User:SDY|SDY]] ([[User talk:SDY|talk]]) 10:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Vandalism alert and merging ==

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

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

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

:[[WP:SOFIXIT]]. The current Reactions section is long enough in proportion to the article.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::It was my mistake in the parsing of unnecessarily detailed information and I fixed it. Simple. --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 00:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
So see below for 3 proposals. [[User:Hakkapeliitta|Hakkapeliitta]] ([[User talk:Hakkapeliitta|talk]]) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

===Proposals===
{{hat}}
====No reactions section====
After all, no politician is going to say "great!" Most major politicians, like the President, Congressmen, Senators is going to express some sort of shock or sympathy.

====Encyclopedic section====
After all, an encyclopedia is information. So we should catalog it as years from now, we'll see who was notable enough that a reliable source reported on the reaction. Wikipedia editors should not do original research and decide who they like to be featured. Let the reliable sources decide and we report it.

====Cliff notes version====
Spoon feed people and force people to accept our idea on whose reaction is important. By golly, I deem Pelosi, Obama, and Boehner to be important and hell with the Governor and Palin (who some blame for the violent atmosphere).

#I support the encyclopedic section but can see the no reacions section viewpoint. [[User:Hakkapeliitta|Hakkapeliitta]] ([[User talk:Hakkapeliitta|talk]]) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}

:Please stop creating polls (particularly horribly biased ones). We are not going to insert a vastly out-of-proportion 'reaction' section unless (somehow) there is consensus for it here. Consensus is formed through discussions, not polls. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] ([[User talk:Trebor|talk]]) 00:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:I've closed this poll. Please discuss changes rather than just starting polls. [[User:Nakon|<font color="#C50">'''Nakon'''</font>]] 00:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::Hakkapeliitta please read up on [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] also [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion]]. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Screed from shooter before Myspace page pulled ==

Myspace Qoute before yanked, '''need''' confirmation, might imply motive.

"Classitup10 writes --> Hello, and welcome my classified leak of information that's of the United States Military to the student body and you. Firstly, I want you to understand this from the start. Did you know grammar is double blind, listener? Secondly, if you want to understand the start of revelatory thoughts then listen to this video. I'll look at you mother fuckin Anarchists who have a problem with them illegal illiterate pigs. :-D If you're a citizen in the United States as of now, then your constitution is the United States. You're a citizen in the United States as of now. Thus, your constitution is the United States. Laugh. I'll let you in on their little cruel joke that's genocidal. They're argument is appeal to force on their jurisdiction with lack of proof of evidence. Each subject is in question for the location! The police don't quite get paid correctly with them dirty front runners under section 10? Their country's alliances are able to make illegal trades under section 10. Eh! I'm a Nihilist, not someone who put who put trust in god! What is section 10 you ask? If you make a purchase then it's illegal under section 10 and amendment 1 of the United States constitution. You make a purchase. Therefore, it's illegal under section 10 and amendment 1 of the United States constitution. We need a drum roll for those front runners in the election; those illegal teachers, pigs, and politicians of yours are under illegal authority of their constitution. Those dirty pigs think they know the damn year. Thirdly, tell them mother fuckers to count from 0 to whenever they feel a threat to stop their count. We can all hope they add new numbers and letters to their count down. Did you run out of breath around the trillions, listener? Well, B.C.E is yet to start for Ad to begin! What does this mean for a citizen in any country? Those illegal military personal are able to sign into a country that they can't find with an impossible date! How did you trust your child with them fraud teachers and front runners, listener? Did you now know that the teachers, pigs, and front runners are treasonous! You shouldn't jump to conclusion with your education plan. The constitution as of now, which is in use by the current power pigs, aren't able to protect the bill of rights! Do you now have enough information to know the two wars are illegal! What is your date of time, listener? Fourthly, those applications that are with background checks break the United States constitution! What's your riot name? I'll catch you! Top secret: Why don't people control the money system? Their Current Currency(1/1) / Your new infinite currency (1/~infinte) This is a selcte information of revoluntary thoughts! Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Each subject is unlocatible!" --[[User:Rarian rakista|Rarian rakista]] ([[User talk:Rarian rakista|talk]]) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:Lets wait for the media to announce it first. primary sources are discouraged. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 00:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::It is not Wikipedia's mandate to determine the motive. --[[User:Diannaa|<span style="color:teal;">Diannaa</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Diannaa|Talk]])</sup> 00:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::Unabomber's page(s) should be taken as a guide for dealing with any manifesto this guy put out. Once a reliable source has reproduced what was on his myspace page, be it the above text or otherwise, it should be reproduced and referenced in the article. Good job so far with this article, fellas. - Gwopy 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gwopy|Gwopy]] ([[User talk:Gwopy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gwopy|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Suspicious package ==

Not only are they investigating the package, but they are also preparing to detonate it, according to CNN. However, I couldn't find a textual source yet. [[User:Nanobear|Nanobear]] ([[User talk:Nanobear|talk]]) 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Check Tucson Sentinel, on-line news-site: Package has already been detonated by Sheriff's Dept.

==Attack Type==

In addition to shooting, should include assassination attempt, as the congresswoman was the target of the attack which was reported on fox news. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.176.137.14|24.176.137.14]] ([[User talk:24.176.137.14|talk]]) 02:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:That is unconfirmed at this time. If the investigation determines that this was indeed an assassination attempt, it will be added. --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 02:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:: The Pima County Sheriff mentioned something to that effect. Trying to find a hyperlink. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:::[http://www.jconline.com/article/20110108/NEWS03/110108009/Sheriff-Shooter-targeted-Arizona-Rep-Gabrielle-Giffords-update- She was the target] according to the Pima County Sheriff. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 02:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Or here it is on [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110109/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot Yahoo news] -- it's AP. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::It says he "believes" she was the target. That's unconfirmed. --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 02:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is still early days on the motive, so "shooting incident" is probably the best category per [[WP:BLP]] until more comes out.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 02:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::It is absurd to imagine it was a Dick Cheney "hunting accident" or some other type of shooting when the sheriff and the Associated Press call it an attempted assassination. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 04:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwhOE32ijkc&feature=related] YT video of pt 2 of Sheriff Dupnik's press conference. Towards the beginning he states he is unsure whether she was shot first but that yes, he "thinks" she was the target. Think is generally a bit stronger than believe, I think. -[[User:Kasreyn|Kasreyn]] ([[User talk:Kasreyn|talk]]) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::"Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said Giffords was the target of a gunman whom he described as mentally unstable and possibly acting along with an accomplice." I don't see the word "believes" in there. (That's from the more recent AP item.) [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 02:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::"Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said at a Saturday evening news conference that “I don’t have information about whether she was the first person shot, but yes, I believe she was the target.”[http://www.jconline.com/article/20110108/NEWS03/110108009/Sheriff-Shooter-targeted-Arizona-Rep-Gabrielle-Giffords-update-] Let's not be certain about the motive, things are still confused.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 02:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Agree. The motive is not yet known, it's better to include just the facts. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] ([[User talk:Trebor|talk]]) 02:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I second (or third) that. "Assassination" is a pretty loaded word that needs to be well sourced. That said, I believe there should be some discussion of the political implications of this event; I'm working on a paragraph to the reactions section for this.[[User:Erudy|Erudy]] ([[User talk:Erudy|talk]]) 02:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWOuvq7wWchGfkEwrlhTFi5MJlCA?docId=1e73680dffc641608ca58f9e590e0742 AP], a [[WP:RES|reliable source]], calls it an attempted assassination of the congresswoman. That is adequate sourcing. Wikipedia does not have to wait for months or years before calling it mainstream news media call it. The guy was not duck hunting. We have not waited for the conclusion of court proceedings in countless other similar stories, and no guideline or policy requires that. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 04:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::There does seem to be a growing consensus that this was an assassination attempt --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 04:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Motive doesn't matter for calling a shooting an assassination. Bobby Kennedy was killed by a crazy person, Reagan was shot by a crazy person. Assassins don't have to have political motives. This was clearly an assassination attempt. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.23.168.136|24.23.168.136]] ([[User talk:24.23.168.136|talk]]) 05:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Agreed, even though the word "assassin" has some overtones of a political motive. It may emerge that the shooter had a crazy motive, although it would still be best to wait for a few days to see what comes out about the motive.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 05:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::Agree with both of the above, and curious what others in this discussion who disagree believe would constitute "confirmation"? What if this kid turns out to be too crazy to give an interview or coherently explain his motivations? Not every terrorist or anarchist is as well-spoken as Ted Kaczynski. Most stories I'm seeing online today are either calling it an assassination attempt, or referencing Sheriff Dupnik's verbiage re: targeting. I think ultimately we will need to go with a standard of how many reliable sources are calling it an assassination attempt, not whether or not the kid believed that was what he was doing. -[[User:Kasreyn|Kasreyn]] ([[User talk:Kasreyn|talk]]) 14:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:Not speaking to this specific case so much, I note that while "motive" does not matter for an "''assasination''," targeting '''does'''. Someone who comes up to a crowd of a people and chooses to "whack" the speaker and then fire into the crowd, without knowing whom the victim was, is '''not,''' strictly speaking, an "''assassin''." Until it is clear that
:#Jared Loughner recognized Congresswoman Giffords
:#He knew who she was
:#She was his primary target
:then we can '''not''' say that it was an "''assasination''." And I think that last point is also crucial. If, as seems possible from his warped writings and YouTube videos, he hated '''all''' members of the government (whether just the Fed or all levels,) and that he was interested in killing '''anyone''' associated with the government, then I don't think this would qualify as an "''assasination''" ''per se''. It would just be a psycho killing government employees, like the Unabomber, and in such case the coincidental victim was the Congresswoman. That may well prove to be the case, if the only reason he knew she was "with the government" was because of some signs at the table outside the Safeway. In such an instant he hadn't gone looking '''for her''', he just wanted to "whack a Fed," and that would '''not''' be an "''assasination''." -- [[User:Eliyahu S|Eliyahu S]] <sup>[[User_talk:Eliyahu S|Talk]]</sup> 10:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


See my comment above - assassination does not necessarily imply motivation. See [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assassination] [[User:Professor water|Professor water]] ([[User talk:Professor water|talk]]) 12:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Section on "other victims" ==

I think we should create a new section about the other victims. I just read that the nine-year-old girl had just been elected to her student council, and was brought to the event by a neighbor who thought she'd enjoy it. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/08/20110108arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-shooting-victims-brk08-ON.html [[User:Chadlupkes|Chadlupkes]] ([[User talk:Chadlupkes|talk]]) 03:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:I've added a list of known victims, in alphabetical order. Although there's little question that Giffords was the primary target, the article should not discriminate between her and "other" victims, particularly with others more severely injured (i.e. killed). -[[User:JasonAQuest|Jason A. Quest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Image of Judge Roll ==

Per [[WP:NFCC]]#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Best to find a free image or leave it for the time being.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 03:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:He was a federal judge. Shouldn't there be an official image which is in the public domain because it's a work of the federal government? --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::However this is resolved, we certainly should have an image of the judge in this article. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:tan">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::If a copyright free image turns up, it can be used without a problem, the LIFE magazine image is unsuitable. As a judge, there may be a public domain image somewhere.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 04:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== News overwhelmingly says "in Tucson" ==

Per a comment at [[Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords#In.2Fnear_Tucson]], the news outlets are overwhelmingly calling the site of the shooting "in" as opposed to "near" Tucson. Relevant links include [http://the-chamber.com/casas-adobes-northern-pima-county-communities.html Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce] and [http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ReferenceMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-zip=85704&-PANEL_ID=rm_geo_title&-street=&-city=&-rm_config=|b=50|l=en|t=420|zf=0.0|ms=ref_zip_00dec|dw=0.0474632092987431|dh=0.030335810564423075|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent|if=gif|cx=-110.97676461415628|cy=32.33696540925523|zl=3|pz=3|bo=313:314:315:319:323:211:328|bl=354:355:392:393:362:212:366|ft=331:332:335:388:350:389:349|fl=368:369:204:403:381:379:380|g=01000US&-redoLog=false&-errMsg=&-geo_id=86000US87504&-_lang=en&-states=# U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder]. The address of the Safeway store is listed as Tucson, and the ZIP code of the area is 85704, Tucson. I edited the text, but again reliable sources are heavily in favor of "in Tucson". [[User:Sswonk|Sswonk]] ([[User talk:Sswonk|talk]]) 04:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:A trend toward revising the location to "near" or just outside Tucson has been observed and discussed in great detail at the talk topic linked above and at the end here. The tragedy happened outside Tucson limits in an unincorporated area that, due to the discretion of the [[USPS]], is nevertheless addressed as Tucson. However, "near" now seems to be more accurate and supported in my view. Please see [[Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords#In.2Fnear_Tucson]]. [[User:Sswonk|Sswonk]] ([[User talk:Sswonk|talk]]) 07:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

==Recentism==
I am sorry but this article is full of recentism. I feel like half of things won't be relevant in 6 months. Thanks --[[User:Camilo Sanchez|Camilo Sanchez]] ([[User talk:Camilo Sanchez|talk]]) 04:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::(EC):Today's version is not the "final edition." Early on, an article about a current event grows by accretion from each subsequent news story. In a few days, a major rewrite would be desirable. What are you saying here? Do you claim that the shooting death of a federal judge, the killings of several other bystanders, and the attempted assassination of a US Representative are just of passing interest? What part of the article would you leave out? [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 04:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:Claiming recentism on an event that happened 12 hours ago? That's funny. I think most of this info will still be relevant, except that which is changed by further developments. --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 04:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see [[WP:NTEMP]]. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::Major news story per [[WP:GNG]]. Articles like this always get off to a shaky start, but things will settle down.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 04:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::From my experiences working on similar breaking stories, I'd say this one has gone rather smoothly so far. --[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu|talk]]) 04:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Removal from Main Page "In the news'' ==

Should this event really be featured on the Main Page, seeing as it is a US-centric focus and not a world point-of-view, seeing as similar events happen all the time around the world but not featured? [[User:OOODDD|OOODDD]] ([[User talk:OOODDD|talk]]) 04:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:Yes of course it should, I am in the UK and it is the top BBC news story at the moment.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 04:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Tracking top on Deuschte Welle, ABC (AU), New Zealand Herald. It should stay. --[[User:Rarian rakista|Rarian rakista]] ([[User talk:Rarian rakista|talk]]) 06:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:OOODDD, you could equally argue we shouldn't feature anything at all in the ITN section because "similar events happen all the time around the world but [are] not featured." <font style="font-family:Impact">[[User:Wackywace|<font color="black">wacky</font>]][[User talk:Wackywace|<font color="grey">wace</font>]]</font> 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== AZCENTRAL.COM as a source ==

Citations to azcentral.com probably need to be deleted from the article, azcentral keeps changing the text, it's not static. They keep deleting material, many of the citations in our article can no longer be verified, the azcentral source no longer says what it's supposed to say. Previous editors have commented on this up-page. This is not a small problem because much of our article is sourced to azcentral.com, I think it's the most common source used in the article -- it should be banned as an unreliable. [[User:Green Cardamom|Green Cardamom]] ([[User talk:Green Cardamom|talk]]) 04:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:Even CNN, BBC etc do this sometimes. Again, best to wait for things to settle down as this is breaking news. Using [[WebCite]] might lead to out of date information, better to update the links as required.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:I view it as a good thing when a source tries to be more reliable by updating as new info comes in.--[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 04:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
: AZcentral contains content from the [[Arizona Republic]], the [[Tucson Citizen]], and [[KPNX-TV]], among others. Those all meet [[WP:RS]]. Webcite if needed, but I don't see why the source should be considered unreliable. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 04:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:: And the specific [http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/08/20110108arizona-giffords-brk.html piece] used in this article was written by "The Arizona Republic/12News Breaking News Team". I don't think rapid updating is really an issue; other news sites also continously update their pages when information changes. Also, the page seems to have been stable for a long time now. [[User:Nanobear|Nanobear]] ([[User talk:Nanobear|talk]]) 13:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
: The NYTimes is doing that for this story, as well. I had a browser tab open to that page (an NYT article) and I just kept refreshing it every once in a while to get new details. First she was dead, then they changed the text that she may be alive, with a note about conflicting reports. Then they changed the note and said that she was definitely alive, in unknown condition. Then they added hospital comments about her condition. I think that this is a fairly common practice in the Internet news world. Otherwise, people would still run around linking to a page that said she was dead, for example, as "proof" of a report of her death that was an exaggeration. --[[User:Eliyahu S|Eliyahu S]] <sup>[[User_talk:Eliyahu S|Talk]]</sup> 10:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably the best way for these types of breaking events, with dynamically changing content at a URL, is to quote the relevant fact in the citation. Here's a nicely done example from the article, whoever did this understood that YouTube videos don't stick around forever:
:<nowiki><ref name="ap-hospital-update">{{cite news | last = Rhee | first = Peter | date = 2011-01-08 | title = Hospital Update on Tucson Shooting | url = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olRzqPvcetI | language = English | publisher = YouTube | agency = [[Associated Press]] | location = [[Tuscon, Arizona]] | at = 01m0s | quote = "I'm very optimistic about [Giffords'] recovery. [...] The person that did die here at the hospital was a young child. [...] Gabrielle Gifford's condition was very optimistic and she was following commands. }} This press conference was also replayed on [[CNN]] in the United States, including at 23:00 [[UTC]]/6:02 p.m. [[Eastern time (United States)|EST]]/4:02 p.m. [[Mountain time|MST]].</ref></nowiki>
Thus if for whatever reason the content at the URL changes or disappears, it can still be verified by Googleing the quoted sentence in the cite to find another source. Without the quoted sentence, it's much harder to verify and thus more likely, over time, to be deleted from the article. [[User:Green Cardamom|Green Cardamom]] ([[User talk:Green Cardamom|talk]]) 08:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Judge or judge? ==

Minor point, but I've seen both "Federal Judge" and "Federal judge" used in the article; which is correct? One should be picked and stuck with throughout the article. [[User:Melicans|Melicans]] <small>([[User talk:Melicans|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Melicans|contributions]])</small> 04:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
: Generally speaking, "federal judge" would be best, unless it is part of a title. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Number wounded ==

The claim made by azcentral.com that 19 were wounded (though it's used to source the number 18) is erroneous and I've removed it. Other news agencies are saying that there were 18-19 people shot in total. The sheriff reported that 19 were shot, and his spokesman said it was at least 18[http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-congresswoman-shot-in-head-by-gunman-20110109-19jmp.html], but that should be the only confusion. All other agencies are reporting six deaths. See below for further evidence.
{{collapsetop|List of the reported wounded from other major news agencies}}
*[http://us.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 CNN] - 12
*[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/08/arizona-congresswoman-reportedly-shot-public-event/ Fox News] - 13+ ("more than a dozen")
*[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ MSNBC] - 13
*[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-gabrielle-giffords-shot-grocery-store-event/story?id=12571452 ABC News] - 13
*[http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Gabrielle-Giffords-US-Shooting-Gunman-Shoots-US-Congresswoman-Kills-Six-Others-In-Tucson-Arizona/Article/201101215889111?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15889111_Gabrielle_Giffords%2C_US_Shooting%3A_Gunman_Shoots_US_Congresswoman%2C_Kills_Six_Others_In_Tucson%2C_Arizona Sky News] - 13
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp NY Times] - 13
*[http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2011/01/report-arizona-congresswoman-shot.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChicagoBreakingNews+%28Chicago+Breaking+News%29 Chicago Tribune] - 13
*[http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-congresswoman-shot-in-head-by-gunman-20110109-19jmp.html Sydney Morning Herald] - "at least 12" or 13
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-tucson-arizona The Guardian] - 13
{{collapsebottom}}
:I would put in the article that 13 were wounded then as that is what most sources agree on. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 04:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:I would put a range until the final numbers come out. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 04:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The azcentral claim is consistent with the other ones. 19 victims = 6 deaths + 13 wounded. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
: Actually, I see they reworded it, yet KPNX is saying 19 total. So somebody probably screwed up the last version of the article. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 05:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


== Pima County Sheriff ==
== External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
The article has it that Pima County Sheriff is Dave Alpert, but [http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/08/several-people-shot-at-arizona-store-police-official-says two] [http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting.suspect separate] CNN articles say that the sheriff is '''Clarence Dupnik.''' A google search on [http://www.google.ee/search?hl=et&q=%22dave+alpert%22+%22pima+county%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= "dave alpert" "pima county"] only yields this Wikipedia article and another, unrelated link. -[[User:Mardus|Mardus]] ([[User talk:Mardus|talk]]) 05:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
: It's [http://pimasheriff.org/about-us/meet-the-sheriff/ Dupnik]. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 05:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[2011 Tucson shooting]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=702733119 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
looks like someone else got to it before me. Its done nevertheless. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] &#124; [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 05:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110111053542/http://www.tagesschau.de:80/ausland/schiessereituscon110.html to http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/schiessereituscon110.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
:The issue at hand was that there was a reference titled "Press Conference CNN, 1829 EST 08January2011", which linked to Loughner's YouTube channel, but I couldn't find the press conference, where the Pima County Sheriff would actually name the YouTube account ClassItUp10. I understand the authorities divulged the detained suspect's name, after which it would have been relatively easy for everyone else to find the YouTube channel. (I added two other CNN sources citing both the Pima County Sheriff and Loughner's YouTube content.) -[[User:Mardus|Mardus]] ([[User talk:Mardus|talk]]) 05:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}
:Since I still saw Dave Alpert (for some reason both when reloading and in later editions), I changed it to Clarence Dupnik, because this is the sheriff's name. -[[User:Mardus|Mardus]] ([[User talk:Mardus|talk]]) 05:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 10:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It is unclear if the Pima Country Sheriff actually stated the username of Loughner's YouTube account as the current wording says. The sources cited at that point do mention both the YouTube account name and statements by the sheriff, but not that the sheriff divulged the account name. -[[User:Mardus|Mardus]] ([[User talk:Mardus|talk]]) 06:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


== Who was shot first ==
== External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I removed the claim that the gunman shot Giffords first because,
# The source is [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8248267/American-congresswoman-Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-in-head.html this Telegraph article] which itself merely quotes Gawker, which I don't think is a Reliable Source, quoting a witness.
# This [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html NY Times article] quotes another witness who says that Judge Roll was shot first.
[[User:Guanxi|guanxi]] ([[User talk:Guanxi|talk]]) 06:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


I have just modified 5 external links on [[2011 Tucson shooting]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=780016063 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:I don't think there's any definitive source right now for who was shot in what order. There probably will be eventually, but until we have sourcing that's beyond question, I agree that we can and should simply not address who was shot first. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111092955/http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/suspect-jared-loughner-faces-federal-charges-in-tucson-shooting to http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/suspect-jared-loughner-faces-federal-charges-in-tucson-shooting
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0120-loughner-indictment-20110120%2C0%2C7054779.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110117041554/http://wildcat.arizona.edu/news/giffords-can-move-legs-begins-physical-therapy-1.1843099 to http://wildcat.arizona.edu/news/giffords-can-move-legs-begins-physical-therapy-1.1843099
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103061454/http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-23/us/us_north-carolina-giffords-rehab_1_gabrielle-giffords-jared-loughner-intensive-therapy?_s=PM%3AUS to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-23/us/us_north-carolina-giffords-rehab_1_gabrielle-giffords-jared-loughner-intensive-therapy?_s=PM%3AUS
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/01/08/statement-from-chief-justice-roberts-on-death-of-judge-roll/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:Correction to my above post: The NY Times reports both Kimble, who describes Judge Roll being shot first (though it's not 100% clear) and Rayle, who is also Gawker's witness, saying it was Giffords. [[User:Guanxi|guanxi]] ([[User talk:Guanxi|talk]]) 06:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
==Target map==
I know there is a discussion regarding the obvious relationship between Sarah Palin's map and the shooting. Here it is. Thanks --[[User:Camilo Sanchez|Camilo Sanchez]] ([[User talk:Camilo Sanchez|talk]]) 06:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:Non-free image removed from talk page per [[WP:NFCC#9]]. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 06:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::The source of the non-free image is [http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/15645 here]. -[[User:Mardus|Mardus]] ([[User talk:Mardus|talk]]) 07:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW here is [http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171|a similar map used by Democrats in 2004]. Camilo, you don't want to go down that road.--[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''King Bedford I'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="green">Seek his grace</font>]]</sup> 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:It doesn't matter what Wikipedia editors think about roads to go down, if reliable secondary sources make a connection between this shooting and Sarah Palin's crosshairs, or Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies", it's fair game for the article. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 08:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not a "similiar map", you desperate tea bagger. Gun crosshairs are VASTLY different than establishing which political candidate you are against and where their constituents are. On top of which no-one has used the ridiculous, disgusting display of "you think of the means" word play Palin used. A nine year old girl was killed and you're trying to disregard Palin's impact on this? This is as bad and pathetic as you conservatives trying to claim the kid was "hurr librals!". [[Special:Contributions/124.169.190.97|124.169.190.97]] ([[User talk:124.169.190.97|talk]]) 10:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane
:"Hey, a kid died, so my lying is justified and your truth-telling is disgusting!" [[Special:Contributions/131.210.93.58|131.210.93.58]] ([[User talk:131.210.93.58|talk]]) 10:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:: Sutter, you may want to excuse yourself from any further discussion here. You've crossed the line into personal attacks and nonsensical bashing, and you're not contributing anything with your extreme hatred.[[User:Zenmastervex|Zenmastervex]] ([[User talk:Zenmastervex|talk]]) 11:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"Yous lying cause I say so a durr". Strange since we can factually compare the map and they are not even remotely the same. Sorry moron, nobody (ever) is ripping into Palin for having the same political opponent map as every other politicians. Come back when Palins map doesn't contain gun crosshairs and doesn't repeatedly mention vague threats, including "you think of the means", you sad little right winger. No amount of crying is going to make a factual observation somehow, magically, a lie. [[Special:Contributions/124.169.190.97|124.169.190.97]] ([[User talk:124.169.190.97|talk]]) 10:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 12:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Please try to be civil, this is not a political blog. "Desperate tea-bagger", "moron", "you conservatives", and "sad little right winger" are all breaches of [[WP:CIVIL]] and probably [[WP:AGF]]. Wikipedia is filled with editors who have different political views and backgrounds, which is exactly what allows us to write NPOV articles. We can work together, here.


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


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas, writing on his website, the Daily Kos, in a [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568 June 25, 2008 posting titled "2010 will be primary season,"] placed Giffords on something he referred to as a "target list." The list includes the names of many Democrat congresspeople; however, the names of Blue Dog Democrats, including Giffords, have been bolded. Markos writes that these congresspeople have a "bulls eye" on them as a result of votes they have taken in Congress. An [http://web.archive.org/web/20080803220453re_/www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568 archived version of the Daily Kos posting] is available. [[User:Pediawiki123|Pediawiki123]] ([[User talk:Pediawiki123|talk]]) 12:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


I have just modified 9 external links on [[2011 Tucson shooting]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=786423910 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:I'm trying to understand how that's relevant in the least bit to this article. Are you trying to say that Democrats have created similar maps? No argument from me. Are you trying to say that Democrats have even "targetted" Representative Giffords on such maps? Sure, why not, I'd buy it. But if you're saying that because Democrats have made similar maps that Palin's cannot be relevant, you are engaging in [[WP:OR]]. ''We'' don't decide whether something is relevant, we let reliable sources decide if those things are relevant. So for example, you may be of the opinion that the mainstream media picking on Palin for a map that featured Giffords is unfair because liberals have produced similar maps in the past, and that's a perfectly defensible position. Unfortunately, it is not WP's job to enforce consistency on the mainstream media.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015225901/http://www.startribune.com/nation/113181349.html to http://www.startribune.com/nation/113181349.html
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-09/justice/arizona.shooting_1_arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-people-shot-doctors
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315072846/http://www.wnep.com/wnep-schyl-man-tackled-az-gunman-schuylkill-ties%2C0%2C7811918.story to http://www.wnep.com/wnep-schyl-man-tackled-az-gunman-schuylkill-ties%2C0%2C7811918.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110024213/http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_central_southern_az/tucson/911-call%3A-%22i-do-believe-gabby-giffords-was-hit%22 to http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_central_southern_az/tucson/911-call%3A-%22i-do-believe-gabby-giffords-was-hit%22
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130713155438/http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=62420 to http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62420
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111041225/http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/48881/ to http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/48881/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928222914/http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Loughners-black-bag-found-113613454.html to http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Loughners-black-bag-found-113613454.html
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Judge-Burns-asks-for-evaluation-by-Jan-25-137054358.html
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.yucatan.com.mx/20110109/nota-11/59809-expresa-rodriguez-zapatero-a-obama-su-solidaridad-tras-atentado.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128213422/http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte to http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130827221717/http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/09/arizona-shootings-it-was-a-col to http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/09/arizona-shootings-it-was-a-col
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113134139/http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/01/tucson_shooting_gabrielle_giffords_olbermann.php to http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/01/tucson_shooting_gabrielle_giffords_olbermann.php


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


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
=="Mass murder"?==
In the first sentence of the article, the event is described as a mass murder, but nobody has been convicted of a murder charge for these crimes in a U.S. court. It's homicide at the moment, and homicide isn't necessarily murder.[[User:Fdssdf|<font color="orange">fds</font>]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Fdssdf|<font color="red">Talk</font>]]</sup></small> 07:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::Good point, for all we know it could have been a targeted [[assassination]] attempt.--<span style="background:burlywood; color:red;font-size:small;;font-family:Arial;">[[User:Terra Novus|Novus]]</span><span style="background:yellowgreen; color:white;font-size:small;;font-family:Arial;"> [[User talk:Terra Novus|Orator]]</span> 07:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 11:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
:::The "mass murder" phrase was removed from the [[WP:LEAD]], as it makes an excessive judgment about the motive and verdict in any future court case.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 09:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


== List of Victims ==


== New video, audio, photographs from the shooting released by FBI April 2018 ==
Anything wrong with putting a list up of names/ages of victims? --<font color="001E6E">[[User:Wslack|\/\/slack]]</font> <small>(''<font color="001E6E">[[User talk:Wslack|talk]]</font>'')</small> 07:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, unless you have multiple reliable sources that have released that information. Personally, I think for privacy reasons, it would be wiser to wait for a few more days.--<span style="background:burlywood; color:red;font-size:small;;font-family:Arial;">[[User:Terra Novus|Novus]]</span><span style="background:yellowgreen; color:white;font-size:small;;font-family:Arial;"> [[User talk:Terra Novus|Orator]]</span> 07:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Such sources are already available for some victims. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 08:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps we could name the victims, but there shouldn't be something like a bulleted list per [[WP:NOTMEMORIAL]]. <font style="font-family:Impact">[[User:Wackywace|<font color="black">wacky</font>]][[User talk:Wackywace|<font color="grey">wace</font>]]</font> 09:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Identifying the victims in an easy-to-read format is not a "memorial"; it's simply information about the incident. [[WP:NOTMEMORIAL]] contains no mention whatsoever of bullet lists. -[[User:JasonAQuest|Jason A. Quest]] ([[User talk:JasonAQuest|talk]]) 13:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


The FBI just released a whole load of evidence from the shooting which can be found here:[ https://vault.fbi.gov/2011-tucson-shooting/2011-tucson-shooting-media?b_start:int=0 ]. It's a lot to go through and i've just started looking through the documents myself. I'm still pretty dang new to contributing to Wikipedia, so with as much information as this is and with such an important page I don't really feel comfortable adding all the new information myself...
== Glock gun image ==
I hope that sharing this helps!
[[Special:Contributions/2601:647:4500:EE3E:AC6A:17E8:F6D0:776F|2601:647:4500:EE3E:AC6A:17E8:F6D0:776F]] ([[User talk:2601:647:4500:EE3E:AC6A:17E8:F6D0:776F|talk]]) 07:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
:Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, It would take the average person a month of Sundays to look at everything in this archive, and there is no summary or thumbnails to help with sifting through it. I'm not sure if this is suitable as a cite or an external link for this reason.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 15:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


I quickly skimmed the list. Here are some potentially usable photos, but someone would need to upload them to commons:
I removed the second crime scene image to avoid repetition. The style of the gun used is important, and although copyright free, the second image of the crime scene is not really adding anything new.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 15:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


*https://vault.fbi.gov/2011-tucson-shooting/2011-tucson-shooting-media/p3288157.jpg/view - weapon used in the shooting
:It is OK to have both images as long as the text is not being crowded.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 15:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
*https://vault.fbi.gov/2011-tucson-shooting/2011-tucson-shooting-media/p3288170.jpg/view - perpetrator being apprehended
*https://vault.fbi.gov/2011-tucson-shooting/2011-tucson-shooting-media/dsc0026.jpg/view - unused ammunition recovered at the scene
*https://vault.fbi.gov/2011-tucson-shooting/2011-tucson-shooting-media/dsc_2491.jpg/view - receipt for the Glock 19 showing price & date of purchase
--[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 00:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
:As for using the images in the article, the [https://vault.fbi.gov/2011-tucson-shooting/2011-tucson-shooting-media/p3288157.jpg/view weapon] is the one that could be added. The others aren't all that useful for adding to the article. The images are public domain.[https://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies#copyright]--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


== [[WP:Citation overkill]] ==
== Babies born on 9/11'. That is fake! ==


[[User:ChaseK7|ChaseK7]], regarding your edits to this article, there is no need for citation overkill. See [[WP:Citation overkill]]. Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2011_Tucson_shooting&diff=852284180&oldid=852284049 your tag], I'm not sure what is meant by "outdated sources," unless the article is actually reporting on outdated matters that newer sources have shown to be in error, but as for broken links, it's easy enough to replace them or change them. Also see [[WP:Dead links]]. And keep in mind that this is a [[WP:Good article]]. Your contribution history shows that despite your account being new, you are not a new editor. So you perhaps do not need to be told any of this (except for the citation overkill part). [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 06:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I have that book and that picture is not in the book. It looks like that is only a hoax. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.131.147.117|82.131.147.117]] ([[User talk:82.131.147.117|talk]]) 15:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I see that ChaseK7 was, unsurpsingly, blocked as a sock. [[User:Springee|Springee]] has reduced the material ChaseK7 added. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
:It has been reported that Christina Green was born on September 11, 2001.[http://www.smh.com.au/world/born-on-september-11-she-died-on-another-dark-day-for-america-20110109-19jy1.html?from=smh_sb] What does the "hoax" mean?--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 15:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


== Loughner's political views ==
::She does seem to appear on page 41. Please re-check your copy. [[User:Kuru|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#cd853f; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Kuru</span>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<span style="color:#f5deb3">''(talk)''</span>]] 15:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2011_Tucson_shooting&oldid=prev&diff=1055750421 this edit]: A single source does not "prove the claims misplaced", it is simply a contrary viewpoint. I'm concerned about the style and tone of this edit, and also that it relies on a source that clearly dislikes other media sources and is largely based on Paul Bond's personal opinion.[https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/sarah-palin-msnbcs-obsession-75184/]--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 16:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
== "Unbalanced" tags ==


:The edit was in clear violation of [[MOS:WEASEL]] and [[WP:NPOV]], hence my modification to it. Incidentally I didn't realise it was a new addition. I hadn't heard of this shooting before yesterday and when I read this article for the first time that wording just clearly stuck out as extremely biased and problematic. How do you feel about the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2011_Tucson_shooting&type=revision&diff=1055752748&oldid=1055750421 current wording] {{u|ianmacm}}? I was almost going to move the sentence out of the lead and into the body myself, and probably would have done so if I had realised it was a recent addition. [[User:Damien Linnane|Damien Linnane]] ([[User talk:Damien Linnane|talk]]) 23:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The addition of the {{tlx|unbalanced}} tags would be acceptable in good faith, except that the tagging editor had [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Agcala never participated in the editing nor discussion] of the article. I have invited this editor to comment on here to make sure it is not a case of [[WP:DRIVEBY]]. [[User:KimChee|KimChee]] ([[User talk:KimChee|talk]]) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


::There is a much better source discussing this [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/15/the-bogus-claim-that-a-map-of-crosshairs-by-sarah-palins-pac-incited-rep-gabby-giffordss-shooting/ here]. What often happens after mass shootings is that the media comes up with theories about the motive that are subsequently disproved. This is why [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Current Template:Current] exists. Sarah Palin faced criticism for the crosshairs map which was regarded as tasteless political debate, but it is not seen as a motive for the shooting; Loughner may never even have seen it, as the ''Washington Post'' source says. I wasn't very keen on the [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/sarah-palin-msnbcs-obsession-75184/ Hollywood Reporter] source because most of it is taken up by Paul Bond launching into criticism of other media outlets. The article should make clear that the theory that the crosshairs map was somehow a motive for the shooting is now disproven, but it doesn't need to be in the [[WP:LEAD]] and is probably best to have it in the main body instead.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 11:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
You certainly have a point but I intended to participate in the discussion. Actually I am.[[User:Agcala|Agcala]] ([[User talk:Agcala|talk]])


:That seems like a good neutral solution; however, if we include the allegations against Palin, should we also not include that they (at least appear to be) misplaced? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Viktory02|Viktory02]] ([[User talk:Viktory02#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Viktory02|contribs]]) 21:28, November 18, 2021 (UTC)</span>
== Assault or Assasination ==
Hi. What could this shooting be called so ? Is it an '''Assault''' or an '''Assasination''' ? [[User:Gary Dee|Gary Dee]] ([[User talk:Gary Dee|talk]]) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::I think that has been included. "No link was proven between the crosshairs map and the shooting, and it is unclear whether Loughner ever saw the map." [[User:Damien Linnane|Damien Linnane]] ([[User talk:Damien Linnane|talk]]) 22:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:24, 12 November 2024

Good article2011 Tucson shooting has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 15, 2012Good article nomineeListed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 8, 2011.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 8, 2013, January 8, 2021, and January 8, 2024.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 Tucson shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 Tucson shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2011 Tucson shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


New video, audio, photographs from the shooting released by FBI April 2018

[edit]

The FBI just released a whole load of evidence from the shooting which can be found here:[ https://vault.fbi.gov/2011-tucson-shooting/2011-tucson-shooting-media?b_start:int=0 ]. It's a lot to go through and i've just started looking through the documents myself. I'm still pretty dang new to contributing to Wikipedia, so with as much information as this is and with such an important page I don't really feel comfortable adding all the new information myself... I hope that sharing this helps! 2601:647:4500:EE3E:AC6A:17E8:F6D0:776F (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, It would take the average person a month of Sundays to look at everything in this archive, and there is no summary or thumbnails to help with sifting through it. I'm not sure if this is suitable as a cite or an external link for this reason.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly skimmed the list. Here are some potentially usable photos, but someone would need to upload them to commons:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for using the images in the article, the weapon is the one that could be added. The others aren't all that useful for adding to the article. The images are public domain.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Citation overkill

[edit]

ChaseK7, regarding your edits to this article, there is no need for citation overkill. See WP:Citation overkill. Regarding your tag, I'm not sure what is meant by "outdated sources," unless the article is actually reporting on outdated matters that newer sources have shown to be in error, but as for broken links, it's easy enough to replace them or change them. Also see WP:Dead links. And keep in mind that this is a WP:Good article. Your contribution history shows that despite your account being new, you are not a new editor. So you perhaps do not need to be told any of this (except for the citation overkill part). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that ChaseK7 was, unsurpsingly, blocked as a sock. Springee has reduced the material ChaseK7 added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loughner's political views

[edit]

Re this edit: A single source does not "prove the claims misplaced", it is simply a contrary viewpoint. I'm concerned about the style and tone of this edit, and also that it relies on a source that clearly dislikes other media sources and is largely based on Paul Bond's personal opinion.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was in clear violation of MOS:WEASEL and WP:NPOV, hence my modification to it. Incidentally I didn't realise it was a new addition. I hadn't heard of this shooting before yesterday and when I read this article for the first time that wording just clearly stuck out as extremely biased and problematic. How do you feel about the current wording ianmacm? I was almost going to move the sentence out of the lead and into the body myself, and probably would have done so if I had realised it was a recent addition. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a much better source discussing this here. What often happens after mass shootings is that the media comes up with theories about the motive that are subsequently disproved. This is why Template:Current exists. Sarah Palin faced criticism for the crosshairs map which was regarded as tasteless political debate, but it is not seen as a motive for the shooting; Loughner may never even have seen it, as the Washington Post source says. I wasn't very keen on the Hollywood Reporter source because most of it is taken up by Paul Bond launching into criticism of other media outlets. The article should make clear that the theory that the crosshairs map was somehow a motive for the shooting is now disproven, but it doesn't need to be in the WP:LEAD and is probably best to have it in the main body instead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good neutral solution; however, if we include the allegations against Palin, should we also not include that they (at least appear to be) misplaced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktory02 (talk • contribs) 21:28, November 18, 2021 (UTC)
I think that has been included. "No link was proven between the crosshairs map and the shooting, and it is unclear whether Loughner ever saw the map." Damien Linnane (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting&oldid=1256972417"