Talk:2011 Tucson shooting

Giffords "to attend shuttle launch"

This is in the news today. The final launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour is scheduled for Friday 29 April, 2011.[1]

This is covered in Gabrielle Giffords. Does not belong in this article. Tvoz/talk 05:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Her husband being an astronaut in training when this happened is completely relevant. Mark Kelly heard the news of the shooting and was flying his NASA T-38 to Tucson and while he was still airborne he heard the report that his wife had died, a report which turned out to be erroneous. His decision to fly the space mission, along with Obama's decision to go visit Giffords at KSC are important points to make for this article. Obama's visit with her at NASA happened two days prior to the military operation he ordered against Osama Bin Laden, which gave many across America a sense of closure regarding terroristic activity. I've just added this info to the article.--Tdadamemd (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And I've just removed it. Anything regarding Obama and 'closure' is totally unsourced and speculative in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That edit you clobbered said nothing about closure. Here's exactly what I added:

At the time of the attack, Giffords' husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, was in training to command STS-134. Upon hearing the news of the attack, he flew a NASA T-38 to Tucson and was airborne when he heard the report that his wife had died, which turned out to be erroneous. In the aftermath, NASA replaced Kelly with a backup commander for his space mission so that he could support his wife's recovery. Kelly later returned to training for the mission, which launched on May 16, 2011, and which Giffords was at KSC to watch. Kelly wore his wife's wedding ring into space, which she had exchanged for his. She had also traveled to KSC for an earlier launch attempt on April 29th, which President Obama also brought his family to KSC for, and met with Giffords. This was two days prior to the military operation he ordered against Osama Bin Laden in the war against terror.

I think there's excellent info there that many people would be interested in reading in the article. Take for instance, the fact that nowhere in the article is it indicated that there were false reports that Giffords had died. This is important stuff. I'll leave it to other editors to re-add as they see fit.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You think it is 'excellent info', I think it is of no obvious relevance to the article topic - the Tucson shooting. Actually, what Obama did two days after meeting Giffords is of no relevance at all. Most of this is already reported in the Gabrielle Giffords article, and if people are interested, they can read it there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Article is biased and POV

Too much of the article depends on language that is biased in favor of Giffords/Roll et al, and biased against Loughner. Terms like attacl need to be replaced with more neutral terms like incident. And more positive information about Loughner needs to be added.Jubulation911 (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the article about the shooting, not about Loughner -- it doesn't need "positive info" here. If there's info that isn't in his article that should be, consider adding it there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Concensious has not been reached. DO NOT REMOVE TAGJubulation911 (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, consensus is pretty set here, and you haven't explained why it should change.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Jubulation911: It's not our job at Wikipedia to give Loughner's side equal validity. If reliable sources (such as newspapers and TV news programs) are using the word "attack" instead of "incident", so should we. Wikipedia articles should accurately reflect the bias of reliable sources, and we're not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If there were enough reliable sources out there viewing the attack as simply "an incident" and not something as negative as it is, then we would have a responsibility to equally present "the other side," per WP:NPOV. But I don't understand Jubulation911 in this case. It seems he wants us to present arguments that Loughner is not guilty and therefore this is "just an incident." To that, I say authorities believe he is guilty and have pretty straight-forward evidence they say proves he is guilty. We have not purposely biased this article in the direction that he is guilty. We have reported on what authorities have stated, which is a belief that he is guilty. And, yes, because of that, the media believes he is guilty as well. There's nothing positive that can be reported on him in regards to "this incident." Except what friends or relatives may state of what he was like as a child, etc., but that information doesn't belong here (not a lot of it anyway), as SarekOfVulcan stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Loughner's atheism and criticism of religion

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

I disagree. Most news outlets, in trying to determine the shooter's motive, reported political and religious leanings. If there is any speculation, it's coming from verifiable sources. It belongs in the article and should stay.  M3I5K7E  21:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a great deal of speculation about Loughner in the days immediately after the shootings. Given what we now know about his mental state, much of it seems no longer relevant. I think the article could do with a good cleanup to remove content based on initial speculations, and instead report the pertinent facts - of which, Loughner's religious beliefs (or lack of) aren't examples, not least because reports were based on what others claimed, rather than any hard evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot regarding this topic has to do with speculation, so I don't feel that all or most of that should be removed. For example, most of what is in the Speculation on causation section is (as the title says) about speculation and the debates that arose from it. I don't feel that most of that should be removed (for reasons already gone over in past discussions, and we certainly trimmed it enough). I do feel that it should be titled back to "Political climate," though, because that title more accurately sums up this particular detail about the aftermath. As for Loughner's religious beliefs, I'm not sure. Right now, that same information is in his article (with more than one source attributed to it). So do we just leave it up to his article to cover that and remove it from this one? Or have it in both? Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is probably unlikely to be the cause of Loughner's mental state. He's just off. -- Avanu (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that atheism is the cause. Keep this article as is including speculations by the media.  M3I5K7E  16:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

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

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=132766402
  • In Jared Lee Loughner on 2011-05-03 06:23:25, 404 Not Found
  • In 2011 Tucson shooting on 2011-06-19 03:01:08, 404 Not Found

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

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

Article title issues

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

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