Talk:Gabby Giffords

Casualty Count Error

There appears to be an error in the casualty count comment. ("18 wounded, of which 6 died.") There is reported one more wounded, making it 19, of which 6 died.

http://www.keyc.com/node/45899

(CBS News-Tucson)

"Six people are dead and 13 wounded after a gunman opened fire at a public meeting held by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona."

68.5.76.19 (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's now 20 wounded. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 9 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)

The suspect is an avid reader of Mein Kampf and the communist manifesto, multiple cites here is one http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jared-lee-laughners-youtube-site-reveals-clues-about-killer-lists-mein-kampf-and-communist-m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery3 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 9 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)

Also interesting the fact she was a Republican until a few years ago has been...left out...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.189.245 (talk) 00:00, 10 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.

Religious affiliation

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)

Sorry I didn't see this discussion, the only article source that states that she's "Jewish" hints that she's not. She's getting a lot of press on the matter the record should be set straight. From an objective standpoint she considers herself Jewish, though she's technically not according to Jewish Law. My edit was something that addressed both areas. Saxophonemn (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The original research inherent in these comments have no place here - she identifies as Jewish, and that's what we report, based on two sources. It does not matter one bit whether anyone here or anywhere believe anything about Jewish heredity, and I for one find this section deeply offensive. Tvoz/talk 05:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

She's Jewish. See Who is a Jew? — Rickyrab | Talk 07:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

From that article:

"One issue arises because North American Reform and UK Liberal movements have changed some of the halakhic requirements for a Jewish identity in two ways:

A. Children born of just one Jewish parent — regardless of whether the father or mother is Jewish — can claim a Jewish identity. A child of only one Jewish parent who does not claim this identity has, in the eyes of the Reform movement, forfeited his/her Jewish identity. By contrast, the halakhic view is that any child born to a Jewish mother is Jewish, whether or not he/she is raised Jewish, or even whether the mother considers herself Jewish. As an example, the children of Madeleine Albright (who was raised Catholic and was unaware of her Jewish ancestry) would all be Jews according to halakha, since their mother's traceable female ancestors were all Jewish and all three of her children were female. However, this is not the belief of progressive Judaism.

B. The requirement of brit milah has been relaxed, as has the requirement of ritual immersion. (While the Conservative movement permits conversion without circumcision in some cases, notably hemophiliacs,[citation needed] most Orthodox Jews do not[citation needed], except in cases specifically exempted by the Talmud, such as one who has had three brothers die as a result of circumcision.)"

So, under Reform rules, she is Jewish. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take this discussion elsewhere. We're here to discuss the improvement of this article. All that matters is what reliable sources say about Gabrielle Giffords, and that is what is reflected in this article. Tvoz/talk 10:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I was simply declaring to straighten things out, the article makes a controversial statement about her being Jewish, in most Wikipedia articles it mentions in a situation like this that they'll say the background of each parent. This article uses a POV to push a fringe notion of who a Jew is. It would only be offensive to the radicals that came up with that rule in the first place and its implications. Saxophonemn (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Saxophonemn. This "belief" in patrilineality is so ancient (from 1983), that it makes radical Jews "uncomfortable." Reform Judaism allows anything its members want, so the fact that it has "rules" is ridiculous. My dog is Jewish under a reform Rabbi's interpretation.184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

How did the dog take to his circumcision? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Shirly! they don't circumcise dogs! Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You bet! However, only the ortho-dogs wear a yarmulke. P.S. Leslie Nielsen called from The Big Screen in the Sky. He wants his shtick back. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL! — Rickyrab | Talk 17:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddist, etc. What does it matter? GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from Tom Lehrer's "National Brotherhood Week": "Oh, the Catholics hate the Protestants / And the Protestants hate the Catholics / And the Hindus hate the Moslems [sic] / And everybody hates the Jews!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My dog is Reform, so no circ required!184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

Did he get a Bark Mitzvah? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed this Wikipedia obsession with who is (Jewish, German, add your binary category here) before. Two hours ago, I read about the horrific attack on Ms. Giffords in a provincial Swiss newspaper (as it so happens). I looked up her Wikipedia page, then the discussion page, and guess what I found - this. This obsession has simply become disgusting.

Let people have private lives - yes, even if they talk about them in public. Let them be free to say what they see themselves as, and let us focus on their actions, good or bad, and define them by these actions, and not by their private lives or somebody else's demented a priori classifications.

Most importantly, let us hope, with all the strength we have, that Ms. Giffords survives and makes a full recovery. Feketekave (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(In case anybody is wondering, it seems clear to me that the best thing is to remove these labels from her inbox and from the bottom of the page, not because some anonymous contributor somehow has the magical ability to know better than she herself what she is, but rather because her religion and how she sees her ancestry are nobody's business but her own.) Feketekave (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If it were up to me? the religion section would be deleted from all BLP article infoboxes. PS: It's bad enough hearing about all this praying soundbites, on CNN. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, someone feels "uncomfortable." Stop muddying the waters with your comments.184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

I see that Tvoz has edited based upon seeing the sources, however there are irrefutable facts. Citing reliable articles that state the orange is blue and up is left are wrong. And having a cite for them is erroneous. In the main article that states that she's Jewish mentions that she really isn't. When you take the context of the source and knowledge the other aspects you can pull it all together. This isn't a POV issue it's about knowing what you're talking about. The facts that can be agreed upon in a factual sense is that she is a Reform Jew. Saxophonemn (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One irrefutable fact is that we always base religious and ethnic descriptors primarily on self-identification, and only go beyond that if there's some reliable source discussing contradictory information. Find a reliable source that says "Giffords is not actually Jewish" and then we could discuss it - but I've seen no such discussion except on Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well according to my Rastafarian friend that's a whole load of bullocks, it's like saying that your Rastafarian when you're white, you'll be laughed at. Now Judaism is not a "religion" it's more so a culture. The religion of the Jews is Torah Judaism, other "movements" are full of Jews leading to non-Jews who may be apart of the culture but that doesn't cut it. Judaism is about action in addition to beliefs, something that becomes apparent to non-Jews and less observant Jews when they see how Torah Jews act. I don't mean to be coming off as a pompous so, and so, we're doing work here making this article correct, and people keep on getting offended.Saxophonemn (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to what Gavia said, I think that Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth would be a helpful essay to read. NW (Talk) 19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict, but making the same point] Yes, exactly. I edited based on sources. Duh. Reliable sources, with no apparent axe to grind as I'm seeing here. Saxophonem, do some reading on Wiki policies please - our standard is verifiability, not truth as we know it or truth as we can extrapolate. As a matter of fact I know a lot about the matrilineality of Judaism, and that knowledge, and my knowledge of Torah, and my familiarity with all branches of Judaism, no matter how accurate, is utterly irrlevant to the editing of this article. The sources indicate that she identifies as Jewish, that she belongs to a specific synagogue, and that is how I edited. In fact I did not add or take away "Reform", and unless there are sources that make the specific point regarding Giffords, the branch of Judaism to which her synagogue affiliates is also irrelevant to the editing of this bio. This discussion is inappropriate here, and as I said earlier, I personally find it deeply offensive that people on this talk page are debating whether she is Jewish, how Jewish she is, what kind of Jewish - none of this is appropriate unless it's discussed in a prominent manner - that is, sufficient to merit including it in this BLP - in reliable sources. None of it is helpful here to the editing of the article, and none of it should continue. I'm changing the subhead and asking again that this stop, and the next step would be to close down this thread and move on to actually editing the article. Find a blog somewhere that wants to debate this, if you must, but stop wasting people's time here. Tvoz/talk 19:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times has a decent article on her religious beliefs: [1] NW (Talk) 00:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Does she eat bagels and lox and go to a Chinese restaurant on Christmas? :) — Rickyrab | Talk 10:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See comment below I found an article from Israel that says what no other media would dare say. Saxophonemn (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reform Judaism Change

Reform Judaism is Judaism. It's simply a movement within Judaism and not it's own religion. Arizona's entire Jewish population is suffering right now as a whole. The change is insensitive to Arizona's Jewish Community as a whole. I myself, as a Jew, happen to be a member of a reform congregation in AZ. But I'm still a Jew. Not a reform, conservative, or orthodox Jew. I am a simply a Jew. Please consider reverting the edit.

On your talk page you list yourself as simply Jewish. What's your problem with Reform Jews? If I don't see a change I'll revert the edit myself tomorrow.

Ergo Reform Judaism isn't Judaism, Judaism is Judaism. Being a Jew is based upon actually being a Jew. My uncle went to a Reform Temple in AZ, maybe your Temple. They asked him for some sort of statement of earning, and he never came back. Though he shunned religion, he saw through the balogna sauce. I'm just I'm just calling it as I see it. Saxophonemn (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reform Judaism is a branch of Judaism. It's not the most formal or traditionally adherent variety of Judaism out there - it's to Judaism what "cafeteria Catholicism" is to Catholicism - but it's still Jewish. Unlike Messianic Judaism, which is basically Protestant Christianity trying to pass as Judaism. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thought, the Law of Return and a supreme court decision in Israel have determined that Reform Jews are Jewish. What I am upset about is how Israeli politics of who is Jewish got dragged into an article about a congress woman in AZ. User:N1LQJ | Talk 05:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.240.64 (talk)

User:n1lqj (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. — Rickyrab | Talk 10:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As you can tell if you scroll down (section "Religious affiliation", previously called "She is not Jewish") some people objected to her being listed as "Jewish" not because she went to a congregation affiliated with Reform Judaism (though they did indulge in what looks like nasty remarks about it) but because she happens to be of mixed descent (with her maternal ancestors not being of the Jewish religion). "Reform Jewish" was chosen as a compromise by an editor who apparently does not consider her to be a true Jew because of her origins.

For what it is worth, it seems clear to me that both (a) her affiliation and (b) the privacy of religious affiliations should be respected; we shouldn't have an infobox entry stating "Religion: Jewish" not because she somehow doesn't have a right to choose what she is, but rather because we should not in general have a religion entry in the infobox - that's a private matter of little relevance to the article. Feketekave (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an insensitivity, but hearing the POV that I'm reform Jew from AZ, blah, blah, blah.... My grandparents are buried and uncle, aunt, and cousins live in AZ, so according to you I have a "shaichus" to express my feelings. However I'm trying to establish a non biased POV, which irks Reform Jews who opened a pandora's box when they redefined who a Jew was. Nobody, but them agreed, what did they expect that by coercion that we would all go along. The result is that you have the a group of people that aren't entirely Jewish. I suspect in a few generations that the Reform Jews will possibly have to go long ways to proved they're Jewish to be accepted into Jewish circles because of this mishigas. Thus to get back on topic, she's a Reform Jew, something everyone could agree on. Because she's not a Jew according to the Torah, but is to the Reform Movement. Saxophonemn (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC) (Sorry forgot to log in)

Wait.....from Arutz Sheva in Israel......."Her paternal grandfather was a rabbi, but the fact that her mother was not Jewish defines her as a non-Jew according to Jewish law. Giffords has accepted herself as a Jew under non-traditional theology, which also recognizes a Jew through Jewish paternity alone." Saxophonemn (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

— Rickyrab | Talk 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm Jewish. By both the Reform and traditional definitions. I'm not sure where what is now the Union for Reform Judaism got its definition from (or, for that matter, where the Orthodox Jews got their definition from), but it is worth noting that the Karaites rely on paternality to define natural Judaism, and that some Orthodoxers out there claim that natural Judaism should derive from both parents in combination. Can you clarify where the Torah says something about "who is a Jew"? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Orthodox Jewish logic Reform Jewish logic — Rickyrab | Talk 17:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the vast majority of sources that mention her religion say she is Jewish. She says she is Jewish. It is typical in Wikipedia articles about prominent elected officials to mention their religion (though I'm not sure it should be.) Therefore the article says she is Jewish. I don't think it needs to be made any more complicated than that. Neutron (talk) 20:12, 10 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)

It should also be noted, that the suspect, Jared Loughner, appears to espouse the opposite political belief of Mrs. Palin. Though he attempted to join the Army, he was rejected. And though he was clearly anti-government, he called for a "revolution" against those who own property and the government officials. Tied to the fact that he lists the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books, it is clear to see that he is calling for a Marxist style "revolution". Furthermore, the suspect appears to reject a Christian identity. With this information, it is clear that the suspect is in no way connected with Mrs. Palin or her politics. It does appear that continuing to reference Mrs. Palin's campaign season political rhetoric is a veiled attempt to link her to this tragedy. I would recommend removing the reference to Mrs. Palin's election comments. It is becoming obvious that her comments have nothing to do with this tragedy, except to politicize it. By removing the Palin reference, the article's contents will present a point-of-view that is more neutral and more in line with WIKIPEDIA's objective goals. Leaving the Palin reference will only continue to politicize this tragedy by attempting to link and innocent individual to it. Moesbob (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problems with your comment: A) It's blatant original research, B) this is an article on Gabrielle Giffords not the shooter, and C) Plus, you're distorting the facts to fit your viewpoint. A helpful suggestion to continue on editing here at Wikipedia: you must separate your political viewpoint with your editing. You must be able to work on articles that may disagree with your politics without resorting to imposing your politics on it. Just because you disagree with something does not make it wrong. Plus, trying to come up with stuff to back up your viewpoint is even worse. Brothejr (talk) 10:55, 9 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 [2]. 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)

If you're going to include it then you'll need to also include the fact it was identical to left/Democrat adds using bullseyes rather than crosshais. Including the DailyKos who listed Gifford with a bullseye! http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2011/01/that-was-fast-detroit-free-press-links.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.189.245 (talk) 23:58, 9 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)

Whether news outlets have picked up on it or not, unless their is shown to be a clear connection to this death then the the teaparty target advert is trivia - it wasn't here before the death so why should we add it now unless there is some actual connection to her death. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether news outlets have picked up on it or not -- you're proposing that we disregard policy. Why are you so insistent on hiding this multiply-sourced information from our readers? Please cite policy, not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I though I had posted three times - NPOV - it makes speculative implications both to the motives of Sarah Palin, and to the reasoning of the shooter. TRIVIA - unless there actually is a connection - Off2riorob (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, all it indicates is that news outlets have pointed out that 'speculative implications' have been made about the map. The 'implications' may be wrong, but that they have been noted by the media is fact. We can chose not to report this per WP:WEIGHT (not WP:TRIVIA if it is in multiple sources), but WP:NPOV doesn't come into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's death, are we speaking of? GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. We've now got CBS News,[3] the New York Times,[4] the Los Angeles Times,[5] the UK Daily Telegraph,[6] and a host of other major media outlets covering or even doing entire stories on the Giffords-Palin connection. It's going back in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Just be careful in how you do it. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as Palin didn't call for Gifford's assassination. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree as well, but keep it short and with multiple cites. Trebor (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, take that back, was confused which talk page I was on. I think it would be undue weight here, but appropriate at 2011 Tucson Shooting. Trebor (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's relevant at least in the description of her 2010 reelection. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a stab at it, here.[7] I wrote this to make it clear that no direct connection to the shooting was being claimed, while also placing the incident within the context of the larger issue of U.S. partisan politics (which is what the sources are doing). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is still ongoing at WP:BLPN, there's no consensus for inclusion of this speculation in any of the related article. Kelly ^hi! 03:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How many sources and of what quality would be enough for you to consider inclusion? Given that you consider practically all of the US prestige media (NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post) insufficient to justify inclusion, is there any amount of coverage that would change your mind? (I'm not trying to score points; this is a serious question.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's just keep in mind, the attacker hasn't revealed his motive, yet. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's arguing that Palin's site directly motivated the attacker; that's a red herring. The sources are discussing the incident in the context of the hyperpartisan nature of recent U.S. politics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at WP:BLPN instead of forking it into multiple places. Kelly ^hi! 03:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah. Consider each article on its merits. The threshold for inclusion in this article differs from the threshold for inclusion in Sarah Palin which differs from the threshold for inclusion in 2011 Tucson shooting which differs from the threshold for... and so on. At BLPN everything gets balled up together and all the nuances are lost. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Further discussion on this issue is in this blog. Apparently the congresswoman had commented on this specific map at one point, and this blog includes a link. Leaving it to others to decide the relevance, and where it belongs in the article if at all (perhaps in the 2010 election section?). Risker (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Video of a discussion of the map with Giffords' statement about it is played in entirety at the 10th minute. From MSNBC and TPM/Josh Marshall [8] Sswonk (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In/near Tucson

Every news sources says "in Tucson," even the one at the end of the sentence recently changed to "near Tucson." Ina Road and Oracle is not in Marana or Oro Valley. The Safeway has a Tucson address, not a Marana address; and this area is not Marana. Tucson has many areas that are not included on the real estate map used to change "in" to "near."

Please restore "in" Tucson until you find a news sources that says otherwise. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant "please don't restore 'near' Tucson". I won't, since the Arizona Star[9] uses similar language. I am used to Massachusetts municipal organization, local reports here would not call a location outside Boston city limits "in Boston". The related 2011 Tucson shooting article has been saying "near", i.e. Casas Adobes, Arizona, which I believe is a technically correct use of the word "near", however subject to claims of WP:OR per what you have written. If you know, does Tucson PD patrol this area? The sheriff's department is in charge of the investigation, but the mayor has held news conferences so it is a little unclear. Thanks for the notice. Sswonk (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Confirming that the location is correctly called "in Tucson" per U.S. Census map at American Fact Finder, linked here[10]. Thanks again for the clarification. Sswonk (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish I knew, but Tucson is a little different in how they handle unincorporated or non-municipal areas. There are areas of Tucson, which are not considered in the city, as bounded approximately by the area shown in the real estate map you linked to, and these areas have Tucson addresses, but not Tucson utilities or school districts or wards. The Pima County Sheriff's department does patrol that area. They said in a news conference today that they are heading the investigation with the FBI and being helped by both the Marana PD (and it's not Marana) and the TPD. I suspect it will be cleared up in tomorrow's newspaper reports, or as soon as someone raises the same questions you did by looking at a map. For now, I think using "in Tucson," as it shows in most press reports is sufficient, until more media select otherwise. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for the mind-reading. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Safeway is in Tucson, according to its address. And, the link says she was shot in Tucson. Don't add descriptions from the wikipedia article to prove your original research. If you have a source that says "Casas Adobes," then use it, otherwise there is no consensus and no source for saying she was shot someplace other than Tucson as the news articles say. I ask that this edit to change to Casas Adobes be changed. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it back to "in Tucson" which is accurate per news reports from reliable sources and the address of the location of the shooting, per Google and whitepages.com. Sswonk (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether this is in Tucson or not is easily solved. Since we have the address, all we need is a map of the city.

Do not use the city name of the address as the sole factor of determining what city a place is in. It is common for the USPS to assign "Tucson, AZ" to a place outside of the city limits - and this is true in much of the US. Instead, use the street name, street number, and zip code, and compare the location to the city map.

http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/imported/maps/city/wards.pdf shows the extent of the Tucson city limits.

This is the map of the Casas Adobes CDP - This seems to be the real location of the supermarket.

Having an address + map counts as an RS and not as original research. The RSes saying "Tucson, AZ" is an approximation. The RS description of "Tucson, AZ" sources the assertion that the place is near Tucson.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice that the map you link says "Tucson" in bright green letters at about Oracle and Ina? --Kleopatra (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between the place name appearing in a mailing address and actual boundaries of places. The U.S. Postal Service draws up ZIP code boundaries and assigns place names to them without necessarily adhering to actual city boundaries. Thus, while a supermarket like the Safeway where the incident occurred may have “Tucson, AZ” in the last line of its mailing address, this does not necessarily mean it is in Tucson. The City of Tucson has boundaries and Casas Adobes has boundaries. They are clearly defined in the official U.S. Census Boundary and Annexation Survey at http://www2.census.gov/geo/pvs/bas/bas11/st04_az/cou/c04019_pima/BAS11C20401900000_041.pdf. A location is either in Tucson, or it is not. A location is either in Casas Adobes, or it is not. It cannot be in both. As shown on the map, 7011 N. Oracle Road is clearly outside the Tucson city limits, and within the boundaries of Casas Adobes.

The use of “in” by various news sources is simply sloppy journalism. They are saying “in Tucson” in the sense of “in the Tucson metropolitan area” or “in the area for which the U.S. Postal Service assigns ‘Tucson’ as the place name for mailing addresses” - when they should really have reported “near Tucson”, “north of Tucson”, “in Pima County” or “in Casas Adobes” - all true statements. “In Tucson” by itself with no qualifiers is simply misleading and false. Trorov (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do either of you have sources that state the shooting was in anywhere but Tucson? I really don't care how many maps you looked at, or how many times you quote the wikipedia article on cdp's. Simply post a source that says she was shot in an unincorporated area near Tucson. It's simple, this is an encyclopedia, we report the information, let others do the original research to gather it. Your original map reading, your definition from wikipedia articles, none of this matters. IT says in Tucson in all of the article tied to sentences you are writing saying the shooting took place in an unincorporated area near Tucson. Your research is not what's in the news. But, you're welcome to contact the news agencies, get them corrected, get your source, then change the article. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And, in addition to the "Tucson" in bright green letters on WhisperToMe's map, there's this disclaimer on Trorov's map, "boundaries shown on this map are for Census Bureau statistical data collection and tabulation purposes only; their depiction and designation for statistical purposes does not constitute a determination of jurisdictional authority or rights of ownership or entitlement." --Kleopatra (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The green letters refer to the metropolitan area, Kleo. The Tucson in black is the city of Tucson.

And did you see the City of Tucson city council map? Try finding the Safeway market in that. You will not find the market's intersection there.

Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Using_maps_to_determine_locations shows that it is NOT OR to use maps to determine location

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The location of the shooting has been constantly reported as Tucson and "in Tucson" by the Arizona newspaper websites. As explained above, the location of the supermarket is in an unincorporated area which is also a CDP. However, the vast majority of reliable sources which have reported on this tremendous tragedy have stated and continue to state that it is "in Tucson" or at a "Tucson supermarket". I have no doubt that you are both correct, I originally[11] made the change to "near Tucson" but have since been thoroughly convinced that "in Tucson" is entirely acceptable for any purpose other than a further explanation outside the lead in the article about the shooting. Here at the our article about the congresswoman, there is no need to go into such fine detail. "In" here is being used in a broad sense that is supported by heavily reliable sources who have decided not to make the distinction you feel is necessary. Please do not make an issue of this. Sswonk (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is no need to go in fine detail, "near Tucson" will do for this article. I will accept "supermarket near Tucson." It is not accurate to use "in Tucson." The article should not say "in Tucson." Again, "near Tucson," since we do not have to mention the specific name of the suburb in this article. Refer to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Using_maps_to_determine_locations WhisperToMe (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: take it easy) Well, I got accused of OR for the opposite, that is changing to "near" without a reliable source. My position now is that in spite of what using GIS and maps can tell us, the vast and I do stress vast number of sources on this event at this hour are calling the location of the tragedy Tucson. Please, do not continue to push this it is not worth making a huge deal over such geographic arcana at this article. Sswonk (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Well, I got accused of OR for the opposite, that is changing to "near" without a reliable source." - Sswonk, I have been in many such discussions. Talk:ENSCO shows that the OR accusations based on CDP maps are not founded. Talk:ENSCO and Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Using_maps_to_determine_locations illustrate that it is okay to say "near."

If you want the discussion to end now, let's agree that "near Tucson" is the best choice. The talk page discussions and the map sources I linked to clearly confirm that we should use "near Tucson," and we should put any debate around it to rest. Based on the same talk pages, we cannot simply say "in Tucson." We must say "near Tucson."

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated and actually acted on earlier[12], I don't disagree with you on the technical merits. What I am asking is that you not change it here. The discussion I believe is suitable for the current events article, there is a lot of stress on the BLP article and I would prefer not to have my earlier actions become a force of agitation as well. Can you take this to another venue? I can not currently agree that "near" is appropriate. Sswonk (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's right the articles say "in Tucson," but you are using a conversation you created on Wikipedia to prove that "near Tucson" is correct. That is the best example of WP:Original Research I have seen in ages. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use such conversations. Noticeboard posts and talk pages don't only involve me. They involve many Wikipedians. As a matter of fact, noticeboard posts are created with the intention of resolving issues like this. "That is the best example of WP:Original Research I have seen in ages." - That isn't OR. When an OR noticeboard concludes/accepts that my usage of the sources is not OR, then it's not OR. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, WhisperToMe, your talk page conversations on wikipedia are not reliable references. It's simple: find a reference that agrees with you, provide it, and change the article to what it says. Stop supplying your maps, your research, and your wikipedia talk page conversations, and stop venue shopping to make your point. Just report what the news says. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of understanding of what is happening. I am not directly citing the conversation to say that this is verifiable. I am illustrating that the Wikipedia community considers my usage of map sources of the U.S. Census Bureau (Reliable sources) to not be original research. Directly citing a talk page on Wikipedia in a references section is not okay. Using a talk page to say "my usage of these map sources is not original research" is okay. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Despite the “disclaimer”, the U.S. Census Boundary and Annexation Survey is the only comprehensive and standardized source of information on jurisdictional boundaries in the country. It covers every state, every county, every municipality of the country. It is updated every year, based on information that the jurisdictions themselves provide. I challenge you to find ANY more reliable source for boundary information.

That being said, do you think any of these news sources looked at a single map in writing their articles? Highly doubtful. All that was probably done was a quick Google fact-check: if Google says “Safeway, 7011 N. Oracle Rd., Tucson, AZ 85704” then it must be IN Tucson! Although there should be clues to any reporter that this is a false assumption - e.g. why would the Pima County Sheriff’s office be handling things instead of the Tucson Police? Oh, well maybe because the incident happened outside of Tucson’s jurisdiction. Gee...that must mean it didn’t happen IN Tucson... Trorov (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't characterize my linking of Google as anything other than a further confirmation of the "acceptability" of using "in Tucson". I know it was in Casas Adobes, see the talk page at Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting#News_overwhelmingly_says_.22in_Tucson.22 for links. However, that is arcana and not what is being reported by our sources. Sswonk (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Since it is in Casas Adobes, but believe that we shouldn't go into detail, let's use "near Tucson" and not mention Casas Adobes in the lead. Is this good? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You really have your soapbox about this issue, and you're going to make your point in this article no matter what. So, how can anyone stop you? --Kleopatra (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't address the person. Address the issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rses that say "near Tucson"

Hurst, Nathan and Marisa Schultz. "Michigan delegation condemns shooting of Arizona congressional colleague." The Detroit News. January 9, 2011.

"Gabrielle Gifford, D-Ariz., and a handful of staffers at a community event near Tucson on Saturday has left Michigan's congressional delegation "shocked""

Espo, David. "BREAKING - Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot near Tucson." Associated Press at Walla Walla Union-Bulletin. January 8, 2011.

Kiefer, Michael and Karina Bland. "Judge John Roll respected among peers." Arizona Republic. January 9, 2011.

"But his death Saturday in the melee near Tucson that killed six and wounded 13 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was likely an unfortunate coincidence."

Spotts, Pete. "Arizona shooting: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords hit at meeting with constituents." The Christian Science Monitor. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation and local police are investigating a shooting near Tucson, Ariz., that critically injured US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and left an aide, a 9-year-old child, a federal judge, and at least two others dead, law-enforcement officials say."

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

EC again: This local story from Tucson has been using "northwest side" for a few hours, I remember reading it much earlier yesterday. The headline reads Rep. Giffords shot, judge and 5 others killed at Tucson event, not Casas Adobes. Can you please find time to think about what Kleopatra and I are telling you about making too much of this? Yes it technically is near Tucson, I think that once a majority of reports clarify that we can leave the present wording and not get so excited about this. That is my best intuition at this time, Whisper. Sswonk (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the principle that you and Kleopatra mentioned - It can be seen in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars - However this issue is an understandably confusing one, and I totally understand how a dispute can happen. Also I do not see the problem in using an effort to help solve an issue like this, as I did. Since I found an AZ Republic source that states specifically, exactly the location of this store, I think this issue can be put to rest. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Gabrielle Giffords shooting: As it unfolded." The Arizona Republic. January 8, 2011.

"Giffords holds town-hall meeting at Safeway, 7110 N. Oracle Road, just outside Tucson city limits in northwestern Pima County."

I think that should do it. This is an RS from Arizona that states exactly where the Safeway is.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur, that is a good correct statement from a reliable source. I will support using "near Tucson". Is there some way to keep that from being food for edit warriors, however? Sswonk (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's create a page notice instructing users on the consensus chosen for the article. The page notice should be at [[Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Gabrielle Giffords]] - The page notice will make it clear to all editors what the consensus is. A sample is at Template:Editnotices/Page/Continental Airlines WhisperToMe (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How is...

this? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See strikes and edits above. That redlink Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Gabrielle Giffords goes to project space, not main space? Sswonk (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I added the final version of the edit notice. I found that the edit notice goes to Template:Editnotices/Page/Gabrielle_Giffords WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

← What is the issue here? The intro is supposed to summarize this article and the section regarding the shooting in this article summarizes the sub article 2011 Tucson shooting. The section here in the main article now names the location as in "Casas Adobes, northwest of Tucson" which could be 2 miles northwest of Tucson or 250 miles. That is not helpful. What possible reason is there to not say in the main article section exactly what the sub article says, which is "Casas Adobes, a suburb of Tucson" and then say "a suburb of Tucson" in the lead? This argument is ridiculous, and you've lost sight of the forest for the trees, and as a result we are giving vague information instead of accurate, sourced information. Tvoz/talk 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is really talking about the lead, which is a summary of information and the general stuff. The specific details are in the body of this article and in the main article about the shooting. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely right. And "suburb of Tucson" in the lead section is more informative than the vague "near Tucson", but is not really more detailed in any way that is harmful to the integrity of the article. Tvoz/talk 21:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think the edit notice is really overdoing it - this is an extremely minor point, and the discussion above hardly represents some kind of community consensus, the usual reasons for adding an edit notice. A hidden note pointing editors to this talk page discussion is more than enough - that ought to stave off edit warring (which i doubt we'd have anyway) and allow for discussion here. I'm adding that - if a real consensus is reached that what this point needs is an edit notice, then one can be re-added. This one is overkill, and should be removed. Tvoz/talk 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I could use a comment-in edit <!-- --> instead of an edit notice. What do the rest of you think? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW I found a source stating milage of the place from Downtown Tucson.

News Services. "Routine event turned deadly fast." The New York Times. January 10, 2011.

"She and an aide parked an SUV in the lot of La Toscana Village, a mall about 8 miles north of downtown Tucson."</ref>

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlock the page

First unlock the page now! Secondly in an interview with Fox News Bill Hemmer on her offical website she said she was a former member of the Republican Party. That should be included in the entry!--188.22.98.159 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We block sensitive pages like this to protect them from libel and vandalism. If you want to contribute, please consider logging in as a user account, and gaining time in Wikipedia.--Novus Orator 07:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Astonishing

I'm speechless at how so many people want(ed) to turn this page into a 24 hour rolling news network. WK is an encyclopaedia; it needs to wait until the dust has settled and facts have been properly confirmed. It really does annoy me why people insist on 'updating' pages as they see things on the TV news. WP is not the place to come to to get up-to-the-second coverage, or uncomfirmed rumour. This page needs to keep to the official word, regardless of various news organisations who are in a race to be first with 'breaking news'.

(PS, i'm a long time reader and a budding editor but i'm not sure how to sign up. And also a little intimidated!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.87.211 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Click on "Login/Create account" at the very top right of your screen. Follow the instructions. Then, find an article you can contribute to and click "edit" just like you did for this talk page. Of course this article is protected just now, so no one can edit it until things settle down. (And don't let the "regulars" intimidate you- ask me on my talk page if your unsure of something.

And your right about the page. Wikipedia is not the news...there's Wikinews for that. David Able (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. People just want to feel important. - DrLight11 141.161.133.207 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Section title "Assassination attempt"

What should the recent event in Tuscon with Congresswoman Giffords be titled in this article (and potentially related articles)? Requesting comments and input from Politics, Society, Style, and Policy groups. -- Avanu (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Since I began this section yesterday (before the RfC started), this was before sources indicated official charges of attempted "assassination" were brought by the US Government - Examples of subsequent coverage: Arizona shooting suspect charged with trying to assassinate Rep. Giffords, Jared Loughner Charged by Prosecutors, Document points to assassination plan: U.S. court filing (and many others indicating the charge of attempted assassination). The chronological start of this section is below the line --Oakshade (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

---

The title of the shooting section should be "Assassination attempt". While the shooting and killing of bystanders was not an assassination attempt, as it wasn't the case with James Brady during the Reagan assassination attempt, the specific shooting of Giffords was. Consider the following points:

1. The shooting of Giffords is by definition an assassination attempt. See all definitions of "assassination" at Assasination#cite_note-0.

2. Multiple reliable sources are calling this an "assassination attempt" including ABC News, Associated Press, The Atlantic, Politico and the Jerusalem Post .[13][14][15][16][17]

3. Even the shooter reportedly considered this an "assassination" as reported by Reuters, Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal .[18][19]

4. Whenever a politician is attacked with the intent to murder, every Wikipedia article about that respective politician refers to the incident as an assassination attempt and titles the section as so.

Arthur_Calwell#Attempted_assassination

George_Wallace#Democratic_presidential_primaries_of_1972_and_assassination_attempt

William_H._Seward#Assassination_attempt

Motoshima_Hitoshi#Controversy_and_assassination_attempt

Ronald_Reagan#Assassination_attempt:Gerald_Ford#Assassination_attempts

Many others at List of people who survived assassination attempts

There is no reason for this article to be singled out as an exception. --Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually disagree with this point, but I would say that when the event itself is just over 24 hours old we might wait until we, and reliable sources, have a little perspective. The articles you point to have some historic distance, and we've only found out a few hours ago that Giffords was apparently the target. There need be no rush to change this until this characterization is more widely accepted (which could mean tonight or tomorrow, or could be later than that). Tvoz/talk 21:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It has not been confirmed that this was an assassination attempt. It should be listed as a shooting unless further information confirms it as an assassination attempt. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources are reporting this as an "assassination attempt". All definitions of "assassination" define this as an attempted assassination. "Confirmed" is ambiguous and we have no definition as to what "confirmed" is, but we have reliable sources and and official definitions of the word "assassination" that "confirms" this was an assassination attempt. --Oakshade (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also support waiting for an official announcement from the authorities , for the time being, shooting is plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

← OK I am reconsidering this - I think this section has to mesh with the sub article 2011 Tucson shooting, but if it is correct that the shooter is being charged with attempted assassination, as I just heard a report, then that may change things for me. Thoughts? Tvoz/talk 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

While I know there are specific laws regarding the attempted assassination of a United States President, I don't think there's an official crime of attempting to assassinate a sitting congressperson or any other type of political official in the United States. I could be wrong.--Oakshade (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is, and he has been charged with it.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Through the maze of news reports, I'm having trouble finding that confirmation. Can you please provide a link to that? --Oakshade (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's confirmed. From Reuters:

"The United States on Sunday charged Jared Lee Loughner, the man suspected of killing six people and wounding a congresswoman in Arizona, with five criminal counts, including attempted assassination."

--Oakshade (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

[EC] Looks that way - NYT using the word see here and this here, if this document is verified. Title 18 of US Code 351 (c), but I think we have to wait a bit until this language is confirmed, and reported as such. The apparent criminal complaint was found on Slate linked here Tvoz/talk 23:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

From Politico - "Prosecutors charged Jared Lee Loughner, 22, with five counts — killing federal government employees, attempting to assassinate a member of Congress and attempting to kill federal employees..."[20]--Oakshade (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In spite of editors disputing the term "assassination" being used in the article, it should be noted that Loughner himself used this terminology.--The lorax (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We didn't know that yesterday. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And that is precisely why we need to take a breath and not rush to edit articles this way when they reflect breaking news. We are not a news agency - we have to stop posting everything that comes across the wire, then is contradicted or disputed, then changed further - even from reliable sources. It is a developing story and Wikipedia is NOT the place to get up to date news. In fact we do more damage than good by doing this, as we give the impression that we know what we're talking about, when we actually do not. "Medically induced coma" being the most recent example - one source says so, her doctors say otherwise - we should just leave it off until things are clarified and then we can give a narrative of what happened if we feel that is needed. And so on, all over this story. Tvoz/talk 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the suspect has taken the 5th Amendment and is not saying anything, and since the suspect has only been charged and not convicted, is there any reason that the merely factual title of '2011 Tucson shooting' is insufficient? We will have years to determine the final state of this article, and rather than being so quick to rush in emotional or subjective wording, how about we start with a firm foundation and move at a reasonable pace? -- Avanu (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about the conviction of the suspect, it's about the event that occurred, which by all sources and definitions is an assassination attempt. We go by reliable sources, not a single user's opinion of them.--Oakshade (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to REALLY want to call this an assassination. In reviewing the arguments above, the definition of assassination given says it is typically done with a political goal or by hire from someone with a political goal. We have no evidence what this person's goals are except a few 'notes' that were reported. The substance of these notes was not released. The suspect is in custody and is not speaking about his motives. There is absolutely nothing untrue about calling this a 'shooting'. This has been established beyond doubt. There is no pressing reason to continue to press for and to change it to the more loaded word of 'assassination'. Several editors have urged caution and restraint; please heed that advice. -- Avanu (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And incidentally, with regard to the appeal to reliable sources, Wikipedia should be trying to stay above the fray. These so-called reliable sources often tend to get caught up in the moment and in the hype of a story. If we have a choice, we should try to err on the side of accurate rather than emotional (See Neutral point of view - Impartial tone and Words to watch -Contentious labels). -- Avanu (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You may also want to review the discussions occuring on the pages that relate to this one as to the title. 2011 Tucson shooting John Roll etc. -- Avanu (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The question over whether to use the word "assassination" is moot: several reliable third-party sources are describing this as an assassination. According to the BBC, Loughner is being charged with "one count of attempted assassination of a member of Congress" (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12145117) and the Seattle Times has reported that "Feds claim evidence of assassination plot" (see: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013893450_giffords10.html). I think it is properly referenced to use that term. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. However, the article on the event should remain titled "shootings" until the reliable sources tell us more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is hardly consensus here on a name change, so please leave it at a less inflammatory title. Just because news reports are liking to use the word 'assasination', as others have pointed out, the charges themselves do not include the word assassination (see section below), and additionally the suspect is not talking so we don't have a clear motive. There is no harm at all in simply leaving it as 2011 Tuscon shooting. Please note: Wikipedia:NOTSCANDAL#SCANDAL

“ Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. ”

I'm sure there are other applicable guidelines. Our goal here should be to strive for NPOV and accuracy, not following the lead of the news media's hype. -- Avanu (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "assassination attempt" is clearly and unambiguously valid here. This has long been established, see Robert_F._Kennedy. I'm not sure how low this convention remains true (governors? state reps? mayors? maybe not) but Members of Congress are not merely "killed" or "shot", they are "assassinated" or "survived an assassination attempt". That doesn't mean you can't also mix it up by using the words killed or shot to avoid repetition in the prose, but assassinated and assassination attempt are both the most formal and most correct terms here when referring to a president or member of congress. Regarding the section title, since the congresswoman was just one of many victims I am neutral about changing the section title, BUT within the article we should say somewhere in both the section and the lead that Giffords survived an assassination attempt. (unless she ultimately doesn't, and there's no hurry to update with breaking news now, but eventually those words should be included.) Aaron north (T/C) 16:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is every shooting of a federal official automatically an assassination attempt? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly not. If it was accidental, then no. If we are talking about a mere federal employee, federal law enforcement official, or a district judge, probably not. I don't know where the line is drawn precisely, but I am comfortable with saying that within the USA, when someone puts forth a credible attempt to murder a President or a Member of Congress (perhaps top cabinet-level officials too?), that is an assassination attempt. Aaron north (T/C) 16:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How do we know it was a deliberate assassination attempt, as opposed to some guy randomly opening fire in a crowd? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are right, I am presupposing malice and intent vs some guy randomly shooting a crowd he came across and the congresswoman, even though she was the first one shot at point-blank range, was just some random unremarkable lady to him, at the wrong place at the wrong time. If that were actually the case, it is not an assassination attempt, but that seems incredibly unlikely to me. I have no problem with putting the article on ice for a few days or a week to let the story calm down and let the facts sort themselves out, but if the facts of his obsession with Giffords that were leaked are formally introduced in court, then I doubt we would need to wait for a conviction. Aaron north (T/C) 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The facts presented at the trial could be reported as they are presented. And by the way, my first reaction on hearing some reports on this was that it was obviously an assassination attempt. However, wikipedia requires valid sourcing, as opposed to TV figures speculating and theorizing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in a BLP article with a sourced comment saying there are allegations of an assassination attempt. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, I wonder if there is any such thing as an inadvertent assassination, as John Roll was killed in the shooting spree. Should that count as an assassination? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

He was only charged with the attempted assassination of Rep. Giffords under 18 USC 351(c). Re-reading the charges as published by NYT, he's charged with first-degree murder for the death of Judge Roll (18 USC 1111). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If the charges say "assassination", then it's fair game. The implication regarding the judge might be that his target was the Congresswoman, and that everyone else there was essentially "collateral damage", as McVeigh would have said. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As this individual has been charged with attempted assassination, a section title of "Alleged assassination attempt" is fully appropriate and doesn't violate WP:BLP or any other standards. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

real charges?

January 9, federal officials officially charged Loughner((with what?}} for killing federal government employees, attempting to assassinate a member of Congress and attempting to kill federal employees.

What is this ? these are not real charges, they are the reasons that he is being charged, likely with first degree murder and suchlike, just because some reports carry this stuff doesn't mean we have to. For the time being -shooting is fine, there is not need to raise the drama. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure those aren't real charges? First degree murder would typically be a state charge, and these are federal charges. And Federal law does have provisions against, for example, "lying to a Federal official" - I don't know but would not be shocked if they have a law against killing them, separate from murder laws.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

These are in fact the real charges being reported by reliable sources. [21][22][23]--Oakshade (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN says: "Prosecutors filed two first-degree murder counts, two attempted murder counts and one count of attempting to kill a member of Congress against Loughner on Sunday. Those counts involve only victims who worked for the federal government, but state prosecutors also could bring charges in the remaining cases." But the media advisory document on the charges (which reference violations of the US Code) is online (and linked to from NPR, so presumably it is legitimate) here. NW (Talk) 00:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"In the United States, Congress reacted in 1963 to President John F. Kennedy's assassination by making it a federal offense punishable by death or life imprisonment to assassinate the president, president-elect, vice president, vice president-elect, or anyone legally acting as president (18 U.S.C. section 1751 (1976)). Subsequently, it was also made a federal offense to assassinate an incumbent or elected member of Congress.

Read more: Assassination - Assassination And The Law - Political, Common, Treason, President, Offense, and Legal http://law.jrank.org/pages/541/Assassination-Assassination-law.html#ixzz1AaPtSxpz"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I was also searching this detail - the Judge John_McCarthy_Roll might quality? http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty - Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that some of the confusion may be cultural. I think Off2riorob comes from the UK, and these sort of charges sound weird to those of us from UK and Commonwealth countries, where I don't think separate charges of this sort about murdering government employees etc/assassination exist. Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thats true as far as I know Slp1, we don't have this separation in the UK. My big issue is only that the press in the US have already failed us on this story and I would prefer clear official statements to support allegations and not sources reported and such like. I someone has the official federal comment/video please link me to it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a charge of Murder of a Federal judge or law enforcement official. which carries the death penalty but reportedly he has not been charged with that charge. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

18 U.S.C. section 1751 is about the President or other members of the Executive Branch. I assume Loughner is charged under 18 U.S.C. 351: "Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties." [24]. Jokestress (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Below are the counts sent by the FBI to WFMY News 2. (cut and copied for educational and discussion purposes only} http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=155316&catid=57

The federal complaint alleges five counts against Loughner:

Count 1

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defend, Jared Lee Loughner, did attempt to kill Gabrielle Giffords, a Member of Congress; in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 351(c).

Count 2

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, did unlawfully kill Gabriel Zimmerman, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties and who was assisting Member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords while she was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1111.

Count 3

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, 'did unlawfully kill John M. Roll, a U. S. District Court Judge for the District of Arizona, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1111.

Count 4

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, did, with intent to kill, attempt to kill Pamela Simon, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties and who was assisting Member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords while she was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1113.

Count 5

On or about Jan. 8, 2011, at or near Tucson, in the District of Arizona, the defendant, Jared Lee Loughner, did, with intent to kill, attempt to kill Ron Barbe r, an employee of the United States who was engaged in performance of official duties and who was assisting Member of Congress Gabrielle Giffords while she was engaged in performance of official duties; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1114 and 1113.

- Nothing at all about attempted assassination - Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As posted above, Count 1 is from the US statute regarding assassination: "Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties" (emphasis mine). Same statute discusses attempts. Jokestress (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A copy (6-page PDF) of the federal criminal complaint is here. The federal crimes charged relate to the killing or attempted killing of federal officials or employees. There will also be state-level charges filed in Arizona relating to the murder or attempted murder of these individuals as well as the other victims. (As for your last point, any difference between "attempted to kill a Member of Congress" and "attempted to assassinate a Member of Congress" seems purely semantic.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps to the person that is being attacked, but my post is the statement from the FBI without any mention of assassination - call it assassination if you like , but the FBI do not appear to have when they charged him. There are also no results from searching for assassination in the doc that NYB linked to. Perhaps I am being semantic but to me there is a big difference to what we have in our article claimed right now and the detail in these two decent statement links directly from the FBI - We already had a living dead person from such slapdash reporting and I don't see why we should continue to add their interpretation of events and charges. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As it's reported you are from the UK, you might not know this. The FBI does not prosecute individuals. As the name Federal Bureau of Investigation implies, they investigate as part of their federal law enforcement assignment. The United States Department of Justice Criminal Division prosecutes. That's the agency that's charging the shooter with attempted assassination. I suppose you get Law & Order over there. In that show, the local police investigate and arrest the criminals in the first part and then they hand the case over to the local District Attorney's office for prosecution. Same thing is occurring here, except on a Federal level. --Oakshade (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey fish face, don't hit on me with your condescending crap - you need outside input so you don't get so inbred. retracted, sorry, it was rude, I was just trying to get to the exact detail of the charges, I got a bit upset, please excuse me.Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not really appropriate Off2riorob. Prodego ^talk 04:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

One correction to my above response. It's the United States Attorneys that criminally prosecutes in Federal cases. --Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference to 18 USC §351(c) contains terms relating to lengths of punishment, so "attempt to kill a member of Congress" is a real crime. The homicides and attempted homicides just refer to 18 USC §1111 and 18 USC §1113, which are the definitions of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and attempted murder. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Assassin" is a colloquial term with some inherent implications. The prosecutors don't need to get into that sort of thing. "Kill" is unambiguous and non-political. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but that's what prosecutors, and attorneys in general, do...they make use of very, very specific words and phrases in the course of their work. And for that, they get paid fairly big bucks. With that said, I'd direct attention to page two of the PDF that was published by NYT, the one that specified the charges being preferred against Loughner. Specifically, that part of the document, the "Statement of Probable Cause", references 18 USC 351(c) and entitles Count 1 as "Attempted Assassination of a Member of Congress". Exactly how specific do we need to get in our application of "mere" semantics? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a possible problem with "assassination attempt", in that it presumes the guilt of the accused. That is, the guy's been arrested, and the alleged contents of his web page have been leaked. But until he actually is convicted, or at least brought to trial, "assassination" presupposes a motive that hasn't been demonstrated in court. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Still, that IS what he's been charged with, under 18 USC 351: attempted assassination (see title of that section of the USC). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeating myself from farther up, if the charges say "assassination", then it's fair game. The implication regarding the judge might be that his target was the Congresswoman, and that everyone else there was essentially "collateral damage", as McVeigh would have said. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that we should tread lightly here. There is no single policy on Wikipedia that I agree with more than CONSENSUS. With the number of visitors to this page of late (only 398 the day before the shooting, nearly 1 million in the 2 days since) Establishing consensus here, with so many visitors, will require us to be flexible. Lets all just take a deep breath and try to make sure that we respect all Wikipedia users. AlaskaMike (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

More sources

I found:

• Landau, Elizabeth. "Giffords in key period after brain injury." CNN. January 11, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I found the source (and video) for Rep. Giffords reading the constitution on C-Span.com. It is:

C-SPAN. "House Session January 6, 2011." video 1:55:48 - 1:56:10 as viewed: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HouseSession3985

But, I couldn't figure out how to add it in. Sorry, novice here.

- Samueldee  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueldee (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 

Name

Is her surname /'d͡ʒɪfədz/ or /'gɪfədz/, or something else entirely?