Talk:Gabby Giffords

Congresswoman reported shot

UPDATE 16:00 EST (21:00 UTC) Live report from hospital: Giffords alive after surgery, critical, shot through one side of head (via radio. live press conference at hospital). Alanbrowne (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR reports that the congresswoman has been shot http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona The article should perhaps be protected until there are more information? --Kristjan Wager (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if the speculation/addition of unsourced information gets out of hand, or if it starts to be a target for vandalism. That said, I've moved the blurb about her being shot to the section on her Congressional tenure, because it happened at a "Congress on Your Corner" event. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of reports of the shooting (e.g. by CNN) that make no mention of Giffords. We should exercise great caution while there are still conflicting and unclear reports. CIreland (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN says that Pima County sheriff has confirmed 12 people injured. As for Rep. Giffords, all they say is, "It is feared that Congresswoman Giffords is one of them." Apparently there is no official confirmation about the Rep. Gifford's condition.--Janus657 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN has also run a banner headline echoing the Tucson Citizen report that she was shot in the head. Accordingly, we should wait to be sure that what's going into an encyclopedia article about Giffords is backed up by multiple reliable sources, and preferably sources that cite the Sheriff or other official sources rather than parroting other media reports. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But the article definitely needs to be edited in current-event/go-slow mode. KOLD is reporting that she was injured in the shooting but that the Pima Sheriff will not confirm that she was shot.[1] Per Google News, the Tucson Citizen reports she was shot point blank in the head; their website is down, so the story can't be checked for updates.[2] —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This really should be semi protected..... --Found5dollar (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I put in request for pending changes at ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this is a case for semi-protection. I was about to boldly semi-protect it myself, but at least two other admins had the same idea. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'll be tempted to up to to full protection if some confirmed editors continue on in the way they have been. It may be necessary to enforce the go slow approach which I thoroughly agree with. --Slp1 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw this as confirmed by Reuters (though wasn't a print / web medium so not reference-able. Happy to now await second source; sad news in any event. -AlisonW (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I for one definitely endorse the slow, sourced approach here. We aren't a news service, we're a repository of confirmed facts, and waiting for confirmation is a much higher priority than split-second status updates. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Per this article and the 11:01 PT (?19:01 UTC?) National Public Radio newscast, Giffords died. That is what I based my edit on, and I think that there is now enough sourced material to add that she died in the article 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark Twain comes to mind for some reason or another. --Absolut1966 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Too Much Revision?

Looks like electoral history section got wiped out in the furious edit storm. Gripdamage (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I just ran a diff to the 5 Jan version, and I don't see anything missing, unless there's an unclosed ref tag or something eating the seciton. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There was an "Electoral history" section header at one point, but no actual content that I can find. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, the issue is that when the "electoral history" material was added, the editor who added it mangled the formatting and mixed the "Electoral history" and "References" material together [3]. The material is in the article now, it just need to be sorted out from the references, if someone with the bits would like to do that. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, NPR, the one source the whole section is based on, just posed that "Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and six others died after a gunman opened fire at a public event on Saturday, the Pima County, Ariz., sheriff's office confirms." [4] --Found5dollar (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Only NPR says she was killed. Politico.com and CNN.com do not say she is dead and CNN TV says it is unclear. --Metallurgist (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reuters is echoing NPR. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN TV confirms it too now.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reuters has just reversed itself and said she is alive and in surgery. --AlisonW (talk) 19

36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

AP reporting that she is in critical condition in hospital. Not DEAD yet. (unsigned)

Current event

According to the article, she is a "current event".

Can we agree people are never "current events "? Greswik (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Changed to {{Current person}}. Adambro (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

She was just shot. That must count for something. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/01/breaking_arizon.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.227.175 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I have upped this to full protection for six hours. There are too many BLP violating edits from confirmed users, and managing this is too difficult. There are plenty of admins watching this who can edit the page when concrete, non-news reporting becomes available. Feel free to make suggestions here. We can go slow and assess the sources more calmly this way. --Slp1 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Has She Died?

Multiple sources are now confirming that she's been killed. You need to unprotect the page or update it with relevant information.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What are the other sources? Do they all quote NPR? All the ones I've seen say "according to NPR". --Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR should be enough. Not to mention the fact that they cite a statement made by the Pima County Sheriff.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

{{recent death|Last name, First name}} Time tragically The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This would suggest she is dead; and that the {{died}} template should be added. I request that my last edit be restored, with the link as a source Purplebackpack89 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you add the date of death to the infobox? It looks strange mentioning it in the intro, but not in the infobox

Also, as she is deceased, the term needs to be shown as ended in the Member of the House part. Hello3202019:18, January 8, 2011

A number of sources are saying she's in the hospital with unknown status, so marking her as dead should probably wait a bit. Also, shouldn't there be a template saying that the article is locked? The Teddy Bear Blogger 19:21, January 8, 2011

So when the world comes here, we're out of date. Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.94.3 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a little bit. When the world comes here, we try to give them solid, reliable information. When facts are unclear, we let the sources settle down. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:V. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC is saying that her Doctors are now "optimistic" that she will pull through.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please

I see NPR reports she has died, and that's a good source, but at least one more independent reliable source would be better. Please link them here. Jonathunder (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New York Times, says medical condition unclear: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN confirms NPR's report that Rep. Giffords has been killed.--Janus657 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the CNN report independent? Can you provide a link, please? Jonathunder (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Link Purplebackpack89 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

At this time it says, "CNN could not confirm conditions for Giffords or any of the others wounded..." Jonathunder (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

[5] Reuters confirms that she is dead, though CNN Live TV still says that they have unconfirmed reports and are waiting for the news coverage

Edit request from Willtim, 8 January 2011

{{edit protected}} Reports of Gabrielle Giffords death have not yet been confirmed. It is only sure that she was shot in the head at close proximity during a "Congress on Your Corner" early morning event. At least 12 other people were injured in the attack.

Willtim 19:21, January 8, 2011 (UTC) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8248267/American-congresswoman-Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-dead.html

 Not done This is not evidence of the contrary, and there are other news organizations (NPR, CNN, see below) confirming the death at this point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR is no longer confirming her death [6] KOLD [7] reporting live in surgery

Is She Dead?

LA Times and WashPo both show her in surgery as of 14:49 EST (19:49 UTC). Let's chill on the edits to the article until everything settles. Wikipedia is not a news source. There is no glory in editing the article over and over just to be "first". Alanbrowne (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As of 1439hrs/EST on January 8, 2011, CNN has not yet confirmed that she has died. They are reporting that she was last scene being transported by paramedics and that she was "responsive" at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.29.12 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR no longer confirming she is dead [8] KOLD (on air) reporting she is in surgery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.29.65 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Huffington Post and NPR, Giffords was shot around 1:19 PM ET. Now, Huffington Post says that it is confirmed that she is dead. So is she really dead? User:Katemorganishere 19:23, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is not a reliable source. They're a publisher of opinion. WP:NOTRELIABLE. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• And here's confirmation via the Arizona Daily-Star here. May God have mercy on her soul. (PS: please unprotect or at least switch to semi-protect so that I can add the relevant new categories such as Assassinated American politicians) Tom Danson (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Confirmation from CNN and NPR [9], [10]

• Major news outlets are confirming that she has died. CNN, Fox, NPR, etc. Thekithless (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is also reporting her death independently. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345386/Gabrielle-Giffords-dies-shot-head-public-event.html?ITO=socialnet-twitter-mailonline --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching MSNBC now. They've reported she's dead but the sheriff says she's still alive, but critical. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC retracted the statement. Houstonbuildings (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So did NY Times NY Times Houstonbuildings (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting: I recently created {{Reported death editnotice}} specifically for situations like this. If it looks usable, that could be used in the article editnotice to discourage churning the article with material related to this incident. In the meantime, I notice that administrators are making edits of substance through the full protection, so I would also ask that some consideration is given to reducing the article to semiprotection. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC Now reporting her death http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143774 - PJ 84.13.243.211 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Al jazeera English reporting her dead http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/01/20111818478375413.html Lilaac (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Al jazeera has now revised their news to 'shot' instead of 'shot dead', they say there are conflicting reports. Lilaac (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Electoral history

Someone needs to fix the electoral history box. Just add a } or a |} to the bottom. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any content for that section. Could you post it here, please? Jonathunder (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the table. Can you be more clear? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR is now retracting her death saying there are conflicting reports. -anon

BBC Now reporting her death http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143774 - PJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.243.211 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Assassinated?

I feel we should refer to her as not Shot Dead, but rather Assassinated.--Subman758 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That's going to be a tough sell, especially with the event less than two hours old. We need to wait on that until the District Attorney announces what specific charges will be lodged against the shooter. Doing anything before then is speculative at best. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not certain if it was an assassination or not, the poster with the targets was a call to vote republican, not to literally shoot them. Bad PR, yes. CONFIRMED call to assassinate them? No, and hopefully that's not the case or we'll see 19 other dead senators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.114.255 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

First, they are Representatives not Senators, second, the District Attorney has nothing to do with whether or not it is an assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.10.169 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Did I say anything about a district attorney...? Also yeah, my mistake, but regardless, we can't say it was an assassination until all the facts are in 173.22.114.255 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure we can. Whether or not the shooter was inspired by some poster has nothing to do with whether or not it was an assassination. Wikipedia's own definition of assassination is very broad: "Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives. Additionally, assassins may be prompted by financial gain, revenge, a desire to acquire status within a group, or a psychological need to garner personal public recognition." (emphasis added) By this definition, any intentional killing of a political figure qualifies, even if the motivation is as apolitical as trying to impress Jodie Foster.

Skotoseme (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange when I suggested this I didn't know anything about posters. I just figured as she is a sitting member of Congress, it would be an Assassination.--Subman758 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Often when someone is brain dead the media miscommunicates this as dead. Not the first time it has happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.18.52 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Words near the bottom of article

The words "she was shot in the Head" appears near the bottom of the article, needs to be fixed. Greswik (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And her being dead. Sheriff on MSNBC says she's still alive and MSNBC is retracting their claim that she is dead. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that as well, but I can't figure out where it's coming from. It's not in the article itself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done It was in {{USCongRep-end}} Adambro (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR cites several reports of her death at [11]. -- 92.225.77.206 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN had a telephone interview with a spokeswoman from a hospital, saying that the congresswoman was currently in surgery. There will be a press conference at the hospital updating what they know. I think it's unclear at this time if she is alive or not, but the most probable answer is that she has not died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorillatheape (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Would somebody update the infobox section concerning her being a US representative? GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What update is needed? Please be specific. Jonathunder (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Her tenure ended today & the seat is now vacant. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And the "birth date and age" template should be changed to "birth date" Bcperson89 (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He probably means that it needs to be changed to a box for FORMER political figures, rather than current ones. 173.22.114.255 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

electoral history

{{editprotected}}

The electoral history section is messed up, it is appearing after the references, with its own section appearing blank. I think this is the result of an unclosed table or unclosed ref 65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

someone fixed it. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NPR now says "conflicting reports" about giffords death

• [12]--j⚛e decker^talk 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

When someone is brain dead, the media often jumps the gun and accidently reports them dead. This is because relatives of the victim often refer to her in the past tense in this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.18.52 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

azstarnews.com "critically wounded"

• [ http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_88b4b436-1b53-11e0-8354-001cc4c002e0.html]

January 11th?

Wasn't it January 8th? S51438 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Today is January 8th, yes. Are you perhaps reading a date wrong, though? Dates are done in US format, (MM-DD-YYYY) not like they are done in Europe, (DD-MM-YYYY)

not dead in surgery

getting reports - not dead in surgery Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix Journal reports that she has died. Condolences to Arizona...

MSNBC has hospital spokesperson saying she is in surgery, not dead. --Crunch (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, local news here in Tucson (KOLD 13) is reporting from the University Medical Center that she is in surgery and she is not dead, at least as of 12:30pm MST. --Volcanopele (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Caution re alive/dead

BBC now saying Reuters quoting hospital spokewoman saying she's alive. Other news orgs are also suggesting she might actually still be alive. Adambro (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN as well is now retracting their earlier statement of her death, simply saying reports are "conflicting." --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

Edit request - get the dead claim out of the article - Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC and MSNBC are both saying dead. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143774 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/politics/

BBC just updated again reflecting the 'in surgery' line. Definitely wait and see on this, there is no deadline after all--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Earlier claims are being retracted. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree - the news reports are retracting fast. Our reports of the death were perfectly appropriate based on those news reports, but the situation has now changed. I'd be happy to do it but I want a few more to agree first so we don't start having mass reversions all over the shop. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Earlier claims are being retracted. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

She is in surgery, not dead source, local CBS affiliate KOLD 13 --Volcanopele (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reuters latest: "FLASH: Congresswoman Giffords still alive, in surgery, nine other patients brought in from shooting: hospital spokeswoman" [13] Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I supporting reverting to the alive version. --Slp1 (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done It all seems to be reverted now. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. Her office is reporting she is in surgery. I hope for the sake of hope that she is still alive. FROM THE AZ STAR ARTICLE: Some national media are reporting that she was killed, but a spokeman for her office said after noon today that Giffords was in surgery. "The reports that the congreswoman has died are not accurate she's in surgery," CJ Karamargin told the Star this afternoon. milonica (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice one - perhaps a prayer would be in order if users are that way inclined. Off2riorob (talk) 7:54 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Just got word that a news conference is to be held within an hour to discuss the situation. More info on her condition may be available at that time. I suggest we hold off on switching back and forth between "dead" and "alive" until that news conference concludes. I'll see if I can find a good feed for it since I'm not near a working TV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Shooting article

Is there an article on this mass shooting? Considering that 6 people have died, and a dozen were shot, it appears to be on the face of it notable enough for its own article, even without Giffords being shot. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly at some point, when/if there's more coverage. -- 92.225.77.206 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A basic stub can be stubbed up for it. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is now a shooting article, courtesy of WP:ITN/C. see 2011 Tucson shooting ... 65.94.69.242 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

About the death

I think the date of death until more sources can confirm that she died. Right now they are having unconfirmed reports of death and there are sources that say that she is still alive. I recommend we wait and see the outcome --Chrismaster1 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We should remove the death date until we have absolute evidence as to her condition Bcperson89 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Be bold, guys, this anon can't edit. ^^ -- 92.225.77.206 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The official release from her staff is that she is alive and in surgery. Not dead. This needs to be changed ASAP! Andrewman327 (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the events of today should be placed in their own section in the article. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Took me a while to get everything, sorry if it seemed like I was ignoring you.  Done --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hospital has also confirmed that she is alive, in surgery. Lahaun (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The anon above removed this post Exxolon (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Death confirmed by reliable source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8248267/American-congresswoman-Gabrielle-Giffords-shot-dead.html Exxolon (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources confirm her death. [14][15][16] This page needs to be unlocked.--Oakshade (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article is now messy, says she was in office until 2010, (not even 2011), and it also still talks about her death... Greswik (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Oakshade, there is multiple sources saying that she is alive, let's just wait this out until all network say she is dead, they announced on MSNBC and CNN and USAToday that she is alive and in surgery. --Chrismaster1 (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. The reports from reliable sources are conflicting. But the article should remain unlocked as it can state there were reports of her death.--Oakshade (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

UMC officials confirm Rep. Giffords is in surgery. She has not been declared dead. --Sheitan (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC) http://www.kold.com/global/story.asp?s=13807790

Multiple reliable sources have confirmed death but then retracted it, wait and see. Wikipedia is not news, there is no deadline, so why the hurry?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fox now confirming she is still alive, but in critical condition.--Subman758 (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pauldara, 8 January 2011

{{edit protected}}

Year of death wrong in small box at right. Pauldara (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Year of death should be non-existent. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Infobox

{{editprotected}} Could you add the date of death to the infobox, it is missing there in the bottom still. 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Conflicting reports, we cannot be sure. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Who was the last Congressperson to be assassinated?

Am I right in thinking that this is the first assassination of a Congressperson since Leo Ryan back in 1978? Prioryman (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it has yet to be confirmed that she is dead, I think this as a little premature. Even Fox News has retracted the death announcement and is saying that they have "...independent sources, Fox News has a source that says Rep. Giffords is in the hospital, in critical condition and is being attended to." NoloMoto (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing may have been poor, but the question is still valid. Let's rephrase it to "When was the most recent previous attempted assassination of a US Congressman?". Better? CFLeon (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends on whether you limit yourself to sitting Representatives. Allard K. Lowenstein was killed by a deranged acquaintence some 9 years after leaving office. Whether his death counts as an assassination could make a semantic debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.76.157 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Gage (talk)

{{editprotected}}

MSNBC and her staff are still reporting that she is alive, why was her death date added? Gage (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC) BBC is reporting her death Matthew Stuckwisch (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It was removed, unless I missed something. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC isn't reporting her death[17]... last updated 19:42. [stwalkerster|talk] 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

They were at 19:30 (I still have the window open, and can send you a screeny if you like). Not that that is relevant, 'cus they changed it. News 24 also reported that several sources had (note past tense) confirmed her death, but that other information subsequently refuted this. Guinness2702 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing a fully protected page

There appears to be quite a few edits on this fully protected page, while there appears to be very little requests to do so. Why is this page protected and why are admins misusing their tools to edit on this page without consensus? This continued editing goes against WP:FULL and should be stopped immediately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 19:43, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I'm only making edits based on what I see here. I can't speak to anyone else. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to, as we seem to be heading, get back to not saying she's dead and then not edit the article to say that she's dead until (and if) it is confirmed she has died and there is consensus here that it is reliable. Adambro (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, which also seems to be what people have been saying here as well. It's better to take a conservative approach. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be done properly and within policy or it should be unlocked ASAP. Otherwise this goes to ANI. I know that some edits are based on requests here, but there needs to be discussion and consensus first.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I made one edit to fix a dash, which is now gone anyway because she might not be dead. Is that a misuse of tools? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

All that's happening is our article is being affected by movements in news reporting. 20 minutes or so ago the news reports were 100% certain of her death. Now they're not. The article has kept pace with that reasonably well. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this a news website or a encyclopedia?99.164.84.26 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news agency. No changes should be made regarding what is currently a contentious issue until there are reliable news sources. So shortly after the event that is unlikely for now, no matter what news organisation the information is coming from. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The world's largest news gathering organisation states clearly and unambiguously that she is dead Guinness (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha! even they just changed their mind. If they can get it wrong, I guess you can call it confusion Guinness2702 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And other respected sources say she's alive, or that we don't know. One RS isn't better than another. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) With all the uncertainty that we've already seen, I'm not going to make a change back to "dead" until we start seeing agreement among both editors and news agencies. Just because they're the biggest doesn't mean they're 100% right. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 5)The material to which you've linked doesn't say that at all. Quite the opposite. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This whole situation is a bit of a clusterfuck. Not unlike this talk page at the moment. We just need to wait for concrete confirmation. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The spokeswoman of the hospital confirmed she is alive and in surgery. That was maybe twenty minutes ago. --StormCommander (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The policy says, Any Edit, so even if you admins think your making a harmless edit, you are still violating policy. I haven't seen one edit made that falls within the wording of WP:FULL.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 20:00, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

It's been a bit discouraging that we've seen so many back and forths, without discussion here, by admins no less! Personally I think that in a situation of likely confusion we should lock the article, forbid even admins to edit it, and wait 30-60 mins after the first reports of death, to be sure that it isn't a mistake, as it appears to have been here. I was quite suspicious of everybody citing NPR, quite rightly it seems. --Slp1 (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this provides a good opportunity to improve this relatively weak article. There's a good chance that it'll end up being visited many thousands of times now, so we should spend the time making it a decent article, so locking it entirely is not a good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, stop all the editing until consensus is reached, or unlock the page. Another editor made a report at ANI, and I plan to sift through all of this later and make an official report on the violators.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but the edits appear to all have been made in good faith, and now there's a edit message and semi-protection, the problem seems entirely under control. So now it's time to improve the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Full protection applies to administrators as well as all other editors, and having looked at a majority of the edits that took place during full protection, there are an awful lot of administrators who were part of the problem, not the solution. Edits like adding categories, correcting minor MOS issues or repositioning paragraphs so they are consistent with similar articles were inappropriate to have been carried out during what was clearly intended to be full protection, and repeated insertions and removals of statements she had been killed, injured, alive or dead, should invariably have been discussed on this page before inclusion. I am very concerned at the number of administrators who misunderstand the purpose of protecting an article. Risker (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from VinnieCool, 8 January 2011

Apparently someone did a find-replace on the whole article for changing 'is' to 'was' thereby changing the tense even where it was not for Gabrielle.

Vinnie (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific? Or are there many places? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Shooting

The portion of the shooting has been removed. The link showed that she died, which hasn't been confirmed and is currently in surgery. Any word on who the federal judge is?--Hourick (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect immediately

Since full protection was implemented, 40+ edits have been done by admins - this article should not be locked out of normal editing if admins are going to edit it willy nilly. That's not acceptable. Exxolon (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The last few edits demonstrate it should be bumped back up to full protection. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We are an enyclopaedia. We are not a news source. It is OK for us to be a little out-of-date. The purpose of the full protection was to prevent the premature use of unconfirmed breaking news reports. Admins ghoulishly editing through protection in disregard of this have acted irresponsibly and against the protection policy. I'm not going to lift the full protection because I think no-one should be editing this for the moment, but I understand your annoyance. CIreland (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well put and absolutely right. Russ London (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bravo!--99.164.84.26 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - link to the shooting article

{{editprotected}}

Please link to the shooting article in the paragraph that describes that she was shot. 2011 Tucson shooting

Also add a current related banner

{{current related|victim|2011 Tucson shooting}}

65.94.69.242 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, but is this good English? "Information in this victim[...]]" Greswik (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a template, there's not a whole lot one can do about the formatting. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like someone updated the article, and eliminated the shooting paragraph. Which is now just a sentence in the intro 65.94.69.242 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be censoring things by putting the padlock on

I fully understand that we don't want to say she is dead if she is not. However, we don't want to say she is alive when she is dead.

There are conflicting reports to whether the head wound was fatal is a neutral and accurate. Nesteoil (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The hospital said she is alive, what more do you need? --StormCommander (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We aren't saying she's alive. We're not saying that she's dead. There's a difference. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a news website? --99.164.84.26 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia she is alive until there is reliable information that she is not. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. An encyclopedia has an obligation to provide accurate information, which is not necessarily timely information. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but NPR, CNN and the NY Times were reporting that she had died. Then they retracted that. Doesn't seem like that's wikipedia's fault. Peacewashlove (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That is the fault of editors who write for the moment rather than writing for an encyclopedia. This is why every youtube viral video celeb that hits the airwaves gets the Instant Article treatment. Tarc (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well said, "breaking news" clearly is not necessarily reliable no matter where it comes from. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, guys. I mean I see your point, but wikipedia is only as good as its "reliable sources." Once they report something, seems like it's fair game to publish here. When the retract themselves then wikipedia has to do the same thing. That strikes me as responsible. Otherwise, you seem like you're suggesting an embargo on using reliable sources until they've had a chance to check themselves. In this case, it was until the Pima County Sherif's Office's statement was contradicted. Seems like that's doing the New York Times' job for it. Our goal here is "verifiability not truth," right? Or maybe I'm mistaken. I'm just a new editor after all. Peacewashlove (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tuscon Safeway shooting

I seeded this, but I am going to wait until a link, don't know if I want to put it in the Personal section or another section in the future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2011 January 8

Umm...you might want to move that for correct spelling of the city name. It's Tucson. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There's already an article, see 2011 Tucson shooting. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

I heard about this from a friend and went to Google news and found many news reports, some saying she has died, others saying she's in critical condition and in surgery. It was hard to tell from google news timestamps which was the more current information, so I came to Wikipedia on the assumption that we would have sorted it out. Clearly, at least at this moment, that hasn't quite happened.

I wonder if it might not be a good idea to take the information in the edit notice of the article and put it at the top of the article, with a specific timestamp: "As of xx:xx on January 8, 2011, there are conflicting reports as to whether or not she has survived." If we did this in a warning box at the time, we could also add, editorially, "Wikipedia editors are monitoring the situation and will try to update when confirmed information is available."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A hat note may be unconventional, but perhaps not a bad idea. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I'm going to do this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is already a very specific current event template, and the article gives what is known. Would a hatnote be overkill and too self-referential? I would not object to the lede saying there were conflicting news reports on whether she survived. Jonathunder (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The hat note is unconventional but strikes me as very thoughtful and responsible. We normally don't see this much confusion from mainstream media. It should be sorted in an hour or two.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note

I can't cite anything for this unfortunately, but KVOA just said two things: they have heard that she is still alive, and that while she was being rolled to surgery she was talking. Just a reminder to keep things in check here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - personal life

{{editprotected}}

Shouldn't the shooting also be mentioned in the personal life section? 65.94.69.242 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The shooting will probably deserve a section of its own (with a link to the main article), but until someone writes it here I can't copy it there. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"This article may be affected by"

Am I the only one that thinks the note at the top that says "this article may be affected by..." is...well... wrong? I'm pretty sure it's the subject, not the article, that's affected by the event. I just can't think of something good to change it to. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Information from initial section disappeared after shooting. It should be reverted.

I found that this morning the following two lines were in the initial section of this page. Someone removed them. I am unable to put them back because of the lock. I ask an administrator to do so.

"She is the only member of the U.S. Congress whose spouse, astronaut Mark E. Kelly, is an active duty member of the U.S. military.[1]

Giffords is known as a strong proponent of solar energy as well as for her work to secure the border with Mexico.[2] [3]"

The references can be found from an appropriate earlier version of the page.

Inappropriate sourcing

Please do not cite the Irish Examiner, Al Jazeera, Channel 6 News in Greenboro Alabama, or anyone else that is not a reliable source for a breaking US news story. It really looks stupid. — RockMFR 20:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Request to Add Image

{{editprotected}}

• -  Done cropped pic was added. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I found this image and think it could be added to the page, since there are only two there right now. Hello32020 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• - cropped pic:It would be a much better photo if carefully cropped. Jonathunder (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is two not enough? What real/missing value/information does it add to the article? Guinness2702 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not very good even when cropped, adds that she talks to people in combats - associates her with the military - not really. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it shows her in her actions as a congresswoman, so I believe it is quite encyclopedic to be added, since the others are just portraits of her. Hello32020 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect immediately Part 2

And since the 2nd full protection, 13+ edits by admins in 15 minutes. Stop locking the article up so only you can edit it. Either we all can or none of us can. Exxolon (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and it has been downgraded to semi-protection. There are enough people watching that vandalism or incorrect info is unlikely to stay more than seconds. henrik•talk 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection seems a legitimate course of action in this case. If administrators are misusing their powers, then WP:RFC/ADMIN is probably the place to highlight it. Guinness2702 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC) (See also [18] Guinness2702 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

I see we have wheeled back to semi now. I would encourage all editors to be extremely cautious about adding the latest tidbit of information to appear in a news source. We are an encyclopaedia - it is fine if we are a few hours out-of-date. It is not fine for us to rely on inherently unreliable "breaking" news reports. CIreland (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be a little more careful in what you say. "13+ edits by admins" may sound bad, but when they're things like updating the protection template (like mine were), it's really not as bad as you would think. However, I agree with leaving it at semi, and I do agree that several admins are making edits they shouldn't be. I've just refused to change it one way or the other. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Protected edits

I propose that admins be allowed to do uncontroversial cleanup while the article is protected, since the only real dispute at the moment is over today's events.

• Support as proposer.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support, but at the moment I believe the protection has been lowered to semi in any case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Echoing NYB here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Full protection policy

And, while administrators are jumping back and forth between full and semi (4-6 changes, can't keep track, because of all the administrator edits to a fully protected article), maybe some of those editing the fully protected article can familiarize themselves with policy on fully protected articles:

Full protection policy

A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators.... Administrators still have an edit tab, but the edit box is shaded red with a warning above it.

Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page.

Bold added.

Please notice the omission of any line that says, "Full protection makes the article a playground for administrators only.

Also, please notice that grammar and punctuation corrections, etc., are allowed. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested edit: move political postions/gun rights to talk page

The political positions/gun rights is so badly written it needs to be temporarily removed. Move it here for correction, then put it back.

It says she is for gun rights. That means people have guns. But the NRA, who loves guns, gives her a D+. There is no explanation. This is bad writing. Please move it here for discussion.

If you are reading this, please do it and don't pass the buck. Thank you. Nesteoil (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed that section and placed it here for confirmation/validation. Dioxinfreak (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The statements in that section all appear to be sourced, so I don't see a problem requiring removal of the section. I'm looking at the references to see if there's an improvement to be made, but it appears that she is generally rated badly by pro-gun organizations, and it is also a fact that she supported the pro-gun side of Heller. See references below, plus http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=28507&type=category&category=37 — Gavia immer (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is this in question? These are her positions on gun rights. If anything changes in the future, it can be updated but for now it should stay as is. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Text of the section in question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gun rights Giffords supports gun rights. She opposed the Washington DC gun ban, signing an Amicus curiae brief with the US Supreme Court to support its overturn. She has a D+ rating from the NRA and a D- from the GOA.

Not Jewish

Her father is Jewish, her mother is not. She is/was not Jewish.184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps she converted. --Absolut1966 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to wonder. Either there's sources or there's not. --StormCommander (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What I have read says that she identifies as Jewish.

Some Jews believe you are only Jewish if you have the heritage from your mothers side (some Jews believe that descent through the father doesn't count). But that is not how all Jewish people feel about it.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

She is expected to survive

MSNBC has informed that she is expected to survive according to the doctors. So, relax everyone and let the news unfold. Please unprotect article too. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be a really bad idea. This article needs to be protected until things calm down. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Doctor update live

Doctor optimistic of some kind of recovery - surgery over - Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Watching the press conference, she is alive and the surgery is over. She is being moved to intensive care, but the doctor confirms she was shot in the head. He did say he is "optimistic about her recovery".--milonica (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

unlock shes alive, but keep semi-locked and monitored.(Lihaas (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)).

It was also mentioned that she was conscious at some point and "following instructions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.175.247 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

addendum to Sarah Palin reference.

Someone should make an addendum to the Palin reference to the affect that palin herself has denounced the implication that her "target" map was in any way any kind of hit list and denounced violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.36.222.23 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It was also added to the Palin BLP but has been removed with a WP:BLP claim. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

• -  Done - many thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In "Personal life" 1st para last sentence "This mission in to space..." should be "This mission into space". My responses are slow because I'm disabled and not using a keyboard. --75.202.128.66 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Immigration and border security, last words "house of representatives" should be "House of Representatives".

 Done Thank you --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow

I'm shocked about this. Reminds me of the John Lennon shooting. --Nhlrules 21:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhlrules (talk • contribs)

This page is to discuss the article only. This is not a message board. Kthx! 72.208.88.107 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Alive or dead editing notices

Maybe the editing notices as to editing on whether she is alive or dead should be removed and the current events notice rewritten since it is now more clear that she is alive and all the major news outlets are now reporting. I'm all for precaution when it comes to informing editors about when to edit careful but after the smoke has settled it may be unneeded. Cat-five - talk 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree and made an initial change in that direction. "Gifford, who was hosting the event, is under anesthesia after undergoing surgery for a single gunshot wound to the head, said Dr. Peter Rhee, Trauma Director at the University Medical Center in Tucson.

"The Congresswoman is not deceased. She is in critical condition," Rhee said in a press conference. "I am very optimistic about recovery."" (from cnn.com)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wrote over Jimbo here and adjusted the protection template further by putting it back to the standard BLP protection template. I figured it was more applicable, as well as tried-and-true. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides the standard semi-protect notice there also appears to be another pagenotice about editing on whether she is alive or dead which is showing up upon editing. I'm not sure how to remove that and I don't see it in the page edit-code but it should probably be removed too if possible. On overwriting Jimbo, I can't speak for him but I remember him saying somewhere else many years ago that he generally won't micromanage article content and that his edits should not be regarded as irreversible. Cat-five - talk 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've blanked the edit notice (see Template:Editnotices/Page/Gabrielle Giffords) for now as the situation seems clearer. Adambro (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Change to WP:PROTECTION

In light of today's events, see [19]. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the traffic freezing up the servers, loading is getting slow - bigger faster servers with the new donation please Jimmy. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Target map

I've removed the section about the 'Target map' Mrs. Giffords was on. I don't think it is particularly NPOV as it makes speculitive implications both to the motives of Sarah Palin, and to the reasoning of the shooter. See [20]. Prodego ^talk 21:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a point that has been raised by several major media outlets and as such deserves mention here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a difficult one to decide on, but the existence of the map, and its very widespread knowledge, certainly makes it a part of this story. I'm not sure that [the removal] wasn't POV in some ways. Needs an link out to an external reference, for definite. --AlisonW (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The map isn't directly related to Gabrielle Giffords. We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that map is at all related to the shooting. The goal is to write an encyclopedia article about Mrs. Giffords, not to speculate. What the media says is only important in that it is a reliable source, everything from a reliable source isn't necessarily to be included. Prodego ^talk 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think removal of the map image is fine, as long as a mention of the basic point remains. The map could be appropriate in the "2010 shooting" article depending on how the story plays out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. In fact Palin had targeted Gifford with crosshairs in a very well known campaign she posted on her facebook page. It appears on the map here Her name can be visible at the bottom. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please see discussion at WP:BLPN#Alleged connection of Sarah Palin to Gabrielle Giffords shooting. Kelly ^hi! 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it isn't true, I'm claiming that it isn't relevant to either the shooting, or Gabrielle Giffords. Prodego ^talk 21:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It may not be relevant to the shooting, but it's certainly relevant to Giffords. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I say the mention of the Palin map should be removed, as its mentioning is only due to those on the left trying to blame those ofthe right.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the media sources is the UK Telegraph, which could hardly be called "left." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could wait and see about the shooter's motives. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide. We report what the sources say. I'm not a fan of Giffords (because of her stand on immigration) but there's no reason to hide this information from our readers when numerous high-end media outlets are reporting it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove editnotice

Now that things have settled down, anyone mind if I nuke the editnotice as uncontroversial cleanup? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems totally reasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's fine to do that at this point. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Press release for Congress on Corner

I'm not sure how this should be used, but I found:

• "U.S. REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS TO HOST FIRST “CONGRESS ON YOUR CORNER” OF THE YEAR ON SATURDAY." Giffords official website. January 7, 2011

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

hatnote

Please add

{{redirect|Giffords|other uses|Gifford}}

"Giffords" redirects here. For the singular, see Gifford. For other uses, see Gifford.

65.94.44.243 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)