Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Full protection of Jared Lee Loughner, and what to do about it

Let's start again. There seems to be a consensus that per WP:BLP, the mugshot should not be in the infobox. On the issue of whether the image should be used at all, there is still a disagreement. The FUR covers the arrest period, and in my view the image is OK there. Can we have a straw poll on whether to keep it there, rather than to remove it altogether?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be discussed over at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg Where I have created a discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity that this debate has become so spread out. Anyway, I will comment there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to spread out the debate, it seems though that this debate is still revolving around the image's free use status even after a deletion discussion for the image was closed as no consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What "mug shot"? We have no mug shot at this point. He was only recently indicted. The picture that we have is an intake photo showing his state shortly after the time of the shooting. This makes the picture more than relevant. It is essential that the community be able to the the shooter's state shortly after the time he committed the crime. Jasonanaggie (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Music and video games

With every major shooting, it seems that some form of "violent" media is used as a scapegoat for the blame. The article for Columbine High School massacre details several musicians, movies and video games that allegedly inspired the shooters, including responses from the accused. So I came here and added several reactions from various musical groups and one video game creator to the "Aftermath and reactions" section with the proper citations, but it was removed almost immediately as being irrelevant.[1] I strongly disagree, and I would like for some other editors to weigh in on the matter. Thank you. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless they were directly blamed by many sources, I highly appose this being added. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you quantify "many"? The blame was acknowledged by several dozen sources, Google News turns up 60 hits[2] just when searching for the band Drowning Pool alone. Flipping through some of the hits, most are just commenting on the situation and don't take one side or the other, but some do directly blame the band. One of the sources I added featured a quote from Rush Limbaugh that directly blamed the band,[3] and this one for sure blames them.[4] I'm positive there's a lot more if I do some more digging. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT applies here. It is routine for the media to scapegoat films, video games etc after incidents like this, but the police and prosecutors have not done this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Page being Used as political Forum

I am deeply troubled and offended by the right and left wing partisans using the talk page of this tragedy to score points for their favored cable news network. Can we just put an end to this please. Let me make this simple for you: Fox is wrong and so is MSNBC. They are both using a tragedy as a political football. And so you are you. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Title discussion renewed

From my perspective of having followed this story for a day and half from the U.S. east coast, I feel that it is time to start a new discussion about the title. I find the current title was "good enough" for the time period prior to charges being brought today. But, since federal charges were announced today, it is clear that the event is characterized as more than a shooting. It has been firmly established to have happened in Casas Adobes, outside Tucson. It happened in 2011 and it is customary to use such a style, as in 1993 shootings at CIA Headquarters or 7 July 2005 London bombings. However, I believe reliable sources are now focusing on the true nature of the shootings: a hybrid of an attempted political assassination similar to the Reagan assassination attempt and a massacre of innocents similar to the Dunblane massacre but closer in some respects to the United States Capitol shooting incident (1954) and the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre because it seems unlikely the gunman intended to kill himself as in Dunblane, but was both politically motivated and deranged.

Before readers of the above start to immediately find any dissimilarities from this event to each of those tragedies and begin to argue against what I have written, please stop: I am only suggesting that the current title is now obviously geographically inaccurate and not clear enough and should be revised. I am not offering any one of those listed as a model. But I do feel that the charges and what reliable sources are now focusing on suggests a move toward mentioning Gabrielle Giffords in the title as she was the first target of the shooter who then targeted other people at an event she was hosting. As I write this, the focus in news sources is on the attack being on Giffords. That is also what the evidence disclosed so far points to, although that released is subject to the focus of the people prosecuting the case being brought. It is not however up to us to dig further than what the reliable sources are all saying, and that is that this was an attempted assassination of Giffords and an attack on her event, combined.

So, I am leaving this here not to look for an immediate new title but to try to start the search for one with the goal of changing from the geographic to a motive-based focus in the title as are the reliable sources. What comes to mind are titles such as Gabrielle Giffords shooting or Giffords assassination attempt. Sswonk (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It is still only supposition that Giffords was the intended target. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• According to court documents filed in the United States District Court in Phoenix, the authorities seized evidence from Mr. Loughner’s home showing that he had planned to kill Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was in critical condition on Sunday with a gunshot wound to the head. Tony M. Tayler Jr., an F.B.I. special agent, said in an affidavit supporting the charges that an envelope was found there with the handwritten words “I planned ahead,” ”My assassination” and “Giffords.”Other details about the envelope were not disclosed.[5]

It looks like evidence is piling up that Gifford was the intended target.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is supposition, I won't argue that but I am referring to the shift in focus of news sources from geographic titles, it is obvious this was an attack on her. At any rate, there is no deadline, but our current title is not entirely accurate: the shooting occurred outside Tucson[6]. We should at least start thinking about changing the title. Sswonk (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think an obvious title for the article will become clear eventually. There's no need to have constant to discussions and no need to jump from imperfect title to imperfect title until then. --FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The geographic indicator is slightly incorrect. Perhaps 2011 Tucson area shooting would be slightly more accurate, but there is no pressing need to address this. People around the country have heard this described as a Tucson event. bd2412 T 02:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The more common name, even if it contains a technical error, is preferred. I agree with FormerIP that we shouldn't move the article from a usable name until we know we have a better one.   Will Beback  talk  02:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How to keep that from happening though? I agree, and that is what I meant by WP:TIND and my last paragraph initially, "try to start the search for one…" I think though that new title sections such as this one are going to start reappearing from time to time anyway, maybe keep all the discussion here in this section, in one place. Maybe some sort of {{Editnotice}} or other. The TOC here is getting lengthy with all the topics. No worries, just seeing an inaccuracy and a chance to work on fixing it. Sswonk (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, though, I definitely think the focus of any new title should not be tweaking the location which is slightly inaccurate but since it is any change in the title should focus on the attempt on the life of Gabrielle Giffords and/or her event. Sswonk (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If and when it's confirmed she was the target, beyond any reasonable doubt, I support moving this page to Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt. Until then, this is fine and I don't see a need to parse the location as "Tucson area". --Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If the standard of Wikipedia is "beyond any reasonable doubt" then we must delete 90% of Wikipedia articles. The standard of Wikipedia is more like "preponderance of the evidence", meaning 51% likely. Beyond a reasonable doubt is just reciting legal terms without knowing what one is saying. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree I have heard the name 2011 Arizona massacre being used, with respect to the other victims the title should not be just about one person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia hardly ever titles recent incidents as "massacres". (The only recent example I can think of is the Virginia Tech massacre, with 33 dead.) Even the Fort Hood shooting, where 13 people were killed and 30 were injured, is currently titled a "shooting," and there were more dead there than here. Same with the Hartford Distributors shooting, with nine dead. Of course, we should title the article based on how the media report on it, but "massacre" is reserved for only the most horrific of events. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Giffords assassination attempt works best. Every media story I've seen refers to her as the target, and that's the standard we should use. Capt. Colonel (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes but the media is not referring it to that and what do you mean by not horrific enough? how horrific does it have to be by wiki's standards to be called a massacre? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The standard we should use is whatever will be the enduring common name. Until then... --FormerIP (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, just my current two cents on the matter though. I am all for keeping the title as is until a new title comes into the light. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Within Arizona, the area where the incident occurred is referred to as North Tucson, even though it is not in the jurisdiction of Tucson proper. The area is part of the Tucson metropolitan area, and in fact, the Tucson, Arizona article refers to the intersection of Oracle and Ina (which is where the attack happened) as North Tucson. That said, the media is shifting more and more to calling this an assassination attempt, so I would too support a move to Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt, as the congresswoman was the target of the attack per the FBI. (Reagan was not the only victim of his attempted murder, so I do not consider that name to be disrespectful to the other victims, who were targeted because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a move of not engaging in nit-picking arguments about article titles every few hours. It doesn't matter, people can find the Wikipedia article anyway. Please ignore the label, and concentrate on the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As trite as the topic has become, that doesn't mean that potential names cannot be discussed. It just means there is no hurry to make any moves. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not trite to all. And, Andy, the title is content. It's just the first words of content, and I for one find it more important than simply a string of characters that is an endpoint to a search logic path. It needs to be accurate, and it needs to be discussed. If you don't want to discuss, ignore us, posting in this section isn't a requirement. Sswonk (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was one of the first to say that the title is bad and should be changed. I did not advocate my choice but mentioned possible key points, like assassination attempt, maybe Safeway, etc. However, some (like Titoxd and Knowledgekid87) were loudly opposed. There is now ample evidence that the suspect did not target Judge Roll. It seems that "Giffords assassination attempt" is the most likely good title, far better than 2011 Tucson shootings. There are many possibilities far better than the current title. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am for title change. Giffords assassination attempt is the best. Current title is the worst; all other above suggestions are better. Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The current title is extremely off. I would support 'assassination attempt' or 'Arizona' or 'Tucson massacre' (which is very widely used in the media), but a simple specification of the current title would work as well (January 8, 2010 Tucson shooting). Almost anything is better than the current title. Swarm ^X 03:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the current title is garbage. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose the change, since none of the other suggestions seem significantly better than the current one. For example Giffords assassination attempt is bad because this article is about all the murders that occurred in the shooting, not just about Gifford's assassination. Nanobear (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait for a recovery before any title with the word attempt is used? (She seems to be doing well and I wish her the best, but her recovery is not a sure thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Examinernumber9 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The doctors said she has a 101% of survival. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There is more than one victim; focusing on one for the title is inappropriate. Per Swarm, what I have been hearing most in the press is "Tucson massacre". "Shooting" obviously is factual, I see no reason to change the title. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Try that with the Reagan asssassination attempt article and I am sure it will be reverted right away. The killer did not say he wanted to kill the world, he wanted to kill Giffords. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Lots of people have said it. The proposed title change as of January 18 will be Giffords assassination attempt. If you are angry and want 2011 Tucson shooting, say so here. Currently about 2/3 of editors are unhappy with the 2011 Tucson shooting title. About 1/4 of people are unhappy with assassination. That makes it the preferred term. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

First, nobody is angry that I know of. Second, there is still nothing resembling a consensus that a title change is necessary or desirable. Finally, ultimatums are lousy paths to consensus. You might be wise to give this crusade up. PhGustaf (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not angry. I am however getting slightly pissed off with people who assert 'consensus' without evidence. It any case, the title you propose is based on hypothesis, not proven fact, and therefore cannot be used. (It also diminishes the fact that there were other victims). If you want to propose a title change, do it properly, with reasoned arguments as to why the title you propose is better than the existing one, and then wait for a proper response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing I don't understand is how some of the people want to so rapidly rush to a new title with a loaded and non-proven word, "assasination", versus a perfectly reasonable and completely truthful title like "2011 Tuscon shooting". Like people have probably told you, Madrid-2020, consensus isn't a vote. It doesn't hurt to look at numbers, but this article will be here for years to come, and this wasn't a solitary person who was attacked. It was a group of people, and at this point, we have no solid evidence what motive (if any) the shooter had. Why the rush? Act like an encyclopedia editor, not a tabloid runner. -- Avanu (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

All indications are that Giffords was the target and the shooter was mad at her. There is no indication that the shooter's actual primary target was the 9 year old girl. I can see that some don't like the word assassination since big people, like JFK are victims of that. Ordinary people are just murdered. However, the shooter is in really hot water, being charged with federal crimes, not just local crimes. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah; from a world-perspective, it's the Tucson area, and 'assassination' should be used for for more significant persons; when you kill a president, it isn't murder. Murder is a tawdry little crime; it's born of greed, or lust, or liquor. Adulterers and shopkeepers get murdered. But when a president gets killed, when Julius Caesar got killed -- he was assassinated. Don't dilute the word. Besides, he (allegedly;) emptied the 30-round clip into all the others about. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 07:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like assassination the Attack on Gabrielle Giffords. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

She wasn't the only one attacked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

While we discuss possible changes, can we at least agree to change it to January 8, 2011 Tucson shooting, January 8 Tucson shooting, 2011 Tucson mass shooting, January 8 Tucson mass shooting, 2011 Casas Adobes shooting or Casas Adobes mass shooting? "2011 Tucson shooting" is absolutely absurd, it isn't the only shooting that took place in Tucson in 2011. While we don't need anything dramatic like "Arizona massacre" or "Giffords assassination attempt" for the time being, specifying when the shooting took place (January 8 instead of 2011) or which shooting we're talking about (Tucson mass shooting, Casas Adobes shooting) is absolutely necessary.

I would be in favor of Casas Adobes mass shooting above all, but any of my suggestions should be uncontroversial titles that only serve to specify the title of the article without doing any harm to it. The current title is much, much too broad. Swarm ^X 04:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For the moment, the title is more than adequate. Very few people will be looking for Wikipedia articles on any other recent shooting incidents in the Tucson area. 'Casas Adobes' probably means little to many readers, in contrast. We'd have to keep 'Tucson' as a redirect, so why change it? What harm does the present title do? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reason invalid What harm does the title do is not a valid reason. Otherwise a title of "That shooting in the Southwest involving a Congresswoman" would be a valid title. A crappy title like the one we have hurts editing since people will edit with mediocre edits. When we start getting professional in all aspects, like not having invalid arguments, then all the standards for the article improve and we get a better product. It's sort of like working in an organized, clean factory versus a dirt floor. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy- I have made several other suggestions that don't mention Casas Adobes, as I understand the objections to using an unknown name. As for your question why change it?, the answer is quite simple: the title doesn't specify which of the 2011 Tucson shootings it talks about. It, without a doubt, is not the only shooting to occur in the Tucson area in 2011. We would, of course, keep the current title as a redirect to help people find the correct one. Swarm ^X 02:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, if other shootings happen in the Tucson area this year which merit a Wikipedia article, we'll have to address the issue. Are you suggesting this is likely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The popular title might very well change as we get more information about the motivation behind this shooting. Right now most of the rhetoric has been focused on laying blame and accepting blame. As more actual facts come, the perception of what happened might change and with it, the name people give to it might change as well. -- Avanu (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not just if other articles conflict with this title. Titles still need to be precise. This is anything but precise. See 2 January 2011 Baghdad shootings for an example of this. It's the only article on Baghdad shootings in 2011, but it's still precise. Swarm ^X 17:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the title January 8, 2011 Tucson shooting - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's follow consensus and change the title. If you don't like it, propose another title Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

While there is consensus that the title must change there is none on what new title should be used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There cannot be an abstract 'consensus' to change the title, unless the new title is agreed first. If such a thing were possible, and I was to change the title to Banana plantations in Antarctica, nobody could say it was against consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion is wrong. Everybody could and would say that the Banana title is against consensus. There is consensus that the current title is bad. There has been suggestions as far as adding the date or assassination of Giffords. However, you (Andy) has been so aggressive in being against it that people just throw up their hands. A possibility is to change it to a reasonable title (not Bananas) and see if there is less disagreement. Madrid 2020 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just my idea but I have heard Tragedy in Tucson being used as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally it's clear to be that the title of this article should be Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt or Giffords assassination attempt. It's become clear she was the target. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 14:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The title is being discussed below, I would weigh your input there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a mistake, it is shootings, not shooting. Madrid 2020 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It was 1 (one) event of multiple people being shot. Therefore it is the singular word, shooting. If Jared Loughner had done this at various times, or if another person performed an unrelated but similar act, and you were referring to the shooting event of each person collectively, you could say 'shootings' (plural). Refer to Participle - English. Compare in your mind the idea of someone in the middle of 'shooting' a film. Depending on the emphasis, you could refer to each day's session as a shooting, or as the entire process of filming the movie as its shooting. Let's just not go into a lengthy discussion of English grammar and have some understanding that the word 'shooting' is fine and probably preferable, since this was a single event. -- Avanu (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

References

22:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Image of Loughner

There are currently a number of discussions occurring as to whether the non-free image of Loughner can be justified in the main article about him. Given that, a second usage of the image certainly can't be justified per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, there is still an ongoing debate about this. Anyway, I am *not* going to revert and set off yet further WP:NFCC debate about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite is correct. What Loughner's mugshot happened to look like is not significant to this article. The mugshot is non-free, and until it is demonstrated to be free, its use must meet our deliberately strict non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, there's an ongoing debate about its use in Loughner's article. Being non-free, it undoubtedly fails WP:NFCC in this article, because as J Milburn says, what Loughner looks like is irrelevant to an article about the shooting (rather than an article about Loughner). Black Kite (t) (c) 12:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)ein

There has been !vote by users who want the image deleted completely. Sandstein gave the image a rationale for non-free use, let's respect this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not an image has a rationale does not make any difference to whether it passes our non-free image policies. All non-free image have (or should have) a rationale but many hundreds of them fail WP:NFCC. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The deletion discussion closed as no consensus and the image has been brought by me to get more of a consensus about it to Wikipedia:Non-free content review and even a message posted on Jim Wale's talk page was made reguarding the matter. In other words the image has been through alot and as pointed out I think we should respect the outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion about the use of the image in Loughner's article is completely irrelevant to its use here, which is overuse (WP:NFCC#3a) and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because Loughner's appearance does not add to the reader's understanding of this article. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If it doesn't add to the reader's understanding, why does every media source show his photo in conjunction with the story? If reliable sources think it's important then it probably is. —Designate (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 has to be considered along with WP:NFCC#1. That means a non-free image needs to provide context which cannot possible be given by a free alternative. If all the context this image gives is to show the appearance subject then that's not enough to pass those combined criteria, as theoretically someone could just go and take a free picture of him.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been a record breaking WP:NFCC debate over this image, and there is little new to say. The fair use rationale covers the period of his arrest and its coverage in the media. It is not intended to be the only image of him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Every media source" does not have to abide by a non-free usage policy that is deliberately more restrictive than fair use. Please don't compare apples and oranges. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Article: Public reactions to the Giffords assassination attempt was deleted

The closing admin made a small intresting rant that I think people should see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to the Giffords assassination attempt I think the article is a good idea if done right and renamed as proposed. Aftermath of the 2011 Tuscon Shooting is a name I saw being propsed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please drop the stick about a separate reactions page. The AfD shows that an article of that type has no community backing.--Guerillero | My Talk 02:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The community decided to delete the article. Remaking it under a different name won't change that- it will just be speedied. Swarm ^X 01:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of his "rant". The AfD was not about a title, it was about the suitability of the subject matter for a wikipedia article. That article has been killed by an AfD not once but twice- it's time to let go. l'aquatique[talk] 04:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

At any rate, his opinion theoretically shouldn't count more than anyone else's when it comes to what we should do, IH's function as an admin is just to assess the consensus and provide closure. An "aftermath" article would have almost all of the problems of the "reactions" article and it still suffers from exactly the same problem: it's a clear daughter article (i.e. it does not have notability independent of the main event) with no reason to split from this article except to circumvent consensus here. G4'ing it may not work, since a switch in name and content to "aftermath" instead of "reactions" could reasonably address the WP:NOTMEMORIAL problem, though WP:INDISCRIMINATE might still be an issue and it might verge into WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND territory. SDY (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think he was trying to not express an opinion but provide his reasoning as he is recently minted admin and probably a wee bit afraid of the backlash associated with closing a contentious AfD. In any case, I haven't really seen any major disagreement with his actual decision to close as delete, so perhaps we can move on. Another guideline that I think applies here (and will no matter what you do with the article, at least until some time passes) is WP:RECENTISM. That was my major concern with the article although it didn't get addressed much in the AfD. Best, l'aquatique[talk] 15:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Harry Reid Quote

I believe this quote by senate majority leader Harry Reid should be included in the article.He said that there was “no evidence partisan politics played any part in this monstrous attack [in Tucson, Ariz.," he added that he hoped his colleagues would use the opportunity to “return to the respect that has always been a part of this United States Senate." I think as senate majority leader that Reid and his opinion are an important part of the reaction. I think this quote really sums up the general sentiment of the reaction to the attacks, that perhaps there is no concrete evidence linking rhetoric to the attacks, but that people want to use this as an opportunity to tone the rhetoric down. The quote is here http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/139953-senate-leadership-takes-up-latent-issues 76.102.188.95 (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Harry Reid's quote is no better than Lieberman's or Rep. Paul Ryan or Rep. John Lewis. Besides, Giffords was in the House, not Senate. If you think the guy was just wacko, not a political assassin trying to shape debate, then just say so, no need to drag Reid in. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Drag Reid into what? What are you talking about? I just feel Reid's quote should be included in the reaction section. I Don't understand your comment about having me post that Loughner is a wacko rather than the quote. Jon Stewart, Paul Krugman and Keith Obeirman's reactions are included and they aren't even in government, but Reid has to be in the house for his quote to be used? Reid is essentially saying the same thing the Jon Stewart quote says and thats included and I believe Reid is a more relative and meaningful source as senate majority leader as opposed to a comedian on a comedy central.76.102.188.95 (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Quinnipiac poll results

I've been trying to include data from the recent Quinnipiac poll but I've been reverted twice, the objection being UNDUE. I'd like to hear some other opinions.

A Quinnipiac University poll of U.S. voters found that 40% felt the Tucson shooting could not have been prevented and 15% said it was due to overheated political rhetoric. The Quinnipiac poll also found that "Liberals rather than conservatives are more responsible for such rhetoric, voters say 36 - 32 percent".

--Kenatipo (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents based on what you posted in the question, but especially after having seen that 'genocide school' video on YouTube, which has Jared Loughner actually talking, I can't see how this guy was terribly on target with anyone's political views. Maybe he was following one thing or another on the news, but honestly he just seemed like he was full of the attitude that he was the victim and this school had done nothing right. If he began to look at all of life like that, it is easy to see him simply taking all that blame and using that to fuel his attacks.

Point being, you can't necessarily blame liberals or conservatives (or anyone) for some people being 'off'. He probably needed some strong mental health intervention.

So, based on that, I would say that the blame game for people wanting to point fingers and figure out a reason is silly, and by extension, such polls are really not terribly useful except to help one 'side' or other get a point. Instead of trying to blame the other side when things go badly, maybe that quote from Gandhi is appropriate, "Be the change you want to see in the world". -- Avanu (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Avanu. Trying to point out one side or the other side is simply a blame game and is not very neutral. Unless there is conclusive proof from the courts that can point to a specific heated rhetoric influencing the shooter, which there currently is not and most likely will not be, then any sort of attempt to push the blame on either the climate or the shooting on what one side or the other side said is counter productive. Brothejr (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Avanu and Brothejr - you guys are just too nice! The blame game started when Paul Krugman with no proof accused Palin and the Tea Party of complicity. This is called a blood libel. Democratic Sheriff Dupnik aided and abetted the blood libel with his unprofessional remarks. The New York Times, Dick Durbin and several other lefties are also guilty of the blood libel. Have they apologized yet? To his credit, Obama said, at the memorial, that the shooting was not due to any lack of civility. That, I notice, is not mentioned in the article either. The gunman is a head case with no definable political affiliation. The shooting was mostly a personal grudge against Giffords and a hatred of the world. The opinion polls, even before Obama spoke at the memorial, showed most people rejecting the idea that "overheated political rhetoric" had anything to do with the shooting. The Quinnipiac poll is the most dramatic -- only 15% of the US voters sampled thought the shooting was caused by overheated rhetoric. I just found it really interesting also that the same voters thought liberals were more likely to use overheated rhetoric than conservatives. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Has this poll been cited in mainstream media sources? The poll does not state that 15% said the shooting was due to overheated political rhetoric in any case: It asks for the 'main reason' and then confuses the issue by giving 'couldn't have been prevented' as a possible answer, which makes the result meaningless. Regarding the last sentence, I'd have to ask what the margin of error for the poll was, and whether the question was valid - only 52% of those questioned said that political rhetoric was a factor, and one would need to see the correlation between the two responses to arrive at the conclusion stated. Without evidence that this poll is being seen as credible, I can see no reason for its inclusion AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We're not citing the VisionCritical poll from media sources. It (Quinnipiac) most certainly does say 15% believe the main reason was overheated political rhetoric -- they were give four choices and they chose one. 52% said rhetoric could cause violence. The MOE is 4.1%. Quinnipiac has been doing polls for years. They get the benefit of the doubt. Now, how about my question regarding UNDUE? --Kenatipo (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed this poll on the grounds that they only asked voters, a tactic guaranteed to skew the results. The pollsters should be ashamed of themselves. Abductive (reasoning) 19:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we voters are the ones who decide who runs the country, how does polling us skew the results? Please elaborate. --Kenatipo (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think in this context, 'voters' probably means those who actually chose to vote, rather than who was entitled too. I take it this poll hasn't been cite in mainstream sources then? If it hasn't, I'd say that answers the question over WP:UNDUE quiete well. If we were to report the poll, we'd also have to do it in a more balanced manner in any case, rather than in the loaded way it was presented. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This poll has been mentioned in the news, and Quinnipiac polls are used all the time. Efforts here to attack the pollsters here are a little disingenuous. It would appear that this is more of a case of not liking the result of the poll. Arzel (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is actually also a case of not liking the cherry-picked presentation of the results. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy, are you going to remove the article content that's based on the VisionCritical poll? --Kenatipo (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. We are discussing the Quinnipiac poll here though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy, that was a rhetorical question. Based on what you said above, you should have removed it already because it's not cited in the media. --Kenatipo (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend not to make edits based on rhetorical questions. As far as I'm aware, up to now nobody has suggested that the poll (from an internationally-recognised polling organisation) should be removed. If you think it should, then raise the issue properly, so we can debate it correctly. Meanwhile, can you explain why you chose to highlight the particular results form the Quinnipiac poll that you did? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As you know by now, Quinnipiac is also an internationally-recognised polling organisation. I chose the Quinn. results that I did because they are the most interesting. They also show, perhaps, that voters aren't buying the mainstream media spin that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party must have had something to do with Loughner. And the most fascinating, that liberals are more prone to violent rhetoric than conservatives. One man's "cherry-picking" is another man's "editing" (we can't put it ALL in the article). --Kenatipo (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still puzzling as to why polling US voters skews the results to the point of invalidating them. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you cherry-picked results to push a particular POV. Incidentally, you are incorrect about your last statement. All the polls shows is that conservatives are more likely than liberals to be partisan when allocating blame for rhetoric (see the poll itself). Still, given that the poll doesn't indicate how political affiliations were determined in any case, the results can hardly be conclusive. Perhaps some Quinnipiac polls have been given recognition, but that is no reason to accept without question the validity of this one - and no, Quinnipiacisn't an internationally-recognised polling organisation. It is a university. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy, do you have an argument besides I don't like it? Also, your claim that the poll shows conservatives to be more partisan than liberal is false (the two groups are within the margin of error of each other). Arzel (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than trying to "win" the argument about which party to blame, what value does this have to the article? SDY (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. There were two broader (in that they polled all adults, and more of them) polls already in the article. The Quinnipiac poll of only 581 asked "voters", however they defined them. The other polls asked 1,008 and 673 people. Abductive (reasoning) 23:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of the size's of the sample poll are not meaningful. All it affects is the margin of error. Additionally, the total poll size was over 1,600. Being specific to voters isn't all that relevant either. It is simple enough to specifcy that it was voters. None of this addresses the fact that Quinnipiac is a noted polling group. The poll has been cited by reliable sources, and the information is verifiable. It can also be presented in a neutral tone. Thus far all I am seeing is opinion reasons for not including this poll. I think the real reason is that this poll further illustrates that not do people not think this event was motivated by politics, but even if it were there it is not a partisan issue (the difference between groups is likely within the margin of error). Arzel (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Abductive, I'm still puzzling as to why polling US voters skews the results to the point of invalidating them. --Kenatipo (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Abductive doesn't like the Quinnipiac poll results either, does he? --Kenatipo (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Abductive said "I removed this poll on the grounds that they only asked voters, a tactic guaranteed to skew the results." If Abductive can't explain how that works (I've asked more than once), I will be putting the Quinnipiac poll results back in. --Kenatipo (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Which results are you proposing to 'put back': the ones that supposedly support your POV, or the others that don't? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, AndyTheVoiceofReason! Well isn't the only other thing that 52% felt that overheated rhetoric drives people to violence? (And what's the point of pretending you don't have a POV? We all do.) --Kenatipo (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Polling only voters is a major problem. Voters tend to be older, for one, and the present older generation in the US tends to be more Republican. Abductive (reasoning) 00:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume good faith and say that Quinnipiac has been polling long enough to adjust for that kind of problem (if it really is one). Voters are subdivided into Liberal, Moderate or Conservative. --Kenatipo (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I say they didn't. They don't say they did. What they do say is that they added these questions into an existing poll on race relations, which by itself would introduce bias into people's responses. Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As an outsider (a Brit), I'd like to know how voters could be 'subdivided into Liberal, Moderate or Conservative'. As I understand it, in most elections, the practical choice is between 'Republican' and 'Democrat'. Even if one accepts the 'Rep = Con', 'Dem = Lib' characterisation, this begs the question of who the 'moderate' voters actually voted for? THe whole poll looks like a badly-thought-out addendum to an attempt to discuss another issue entirely. When one takes into accoutnt the smallish sample size and the less-than-logical questions, it seems to me that the lack of significant media attention to this poll is entirely justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Polls in the US are often split along ideological lines. The questions in this poll were more specific to ideology than party affiliation. If you have a problem with the poll take it up with WP:RS otherwise your arguments have absolutely no weight. I don't like it is not a valid reason for non-inclusion, and cosidering some of the polls that the left insist on including in other various articles, this one is superb. Take for example the push polls done by the University of Washington (limited state sampling and non-random state sampling) which are used by the left here to push a narative against tea party members. Take the University of Maryland poll used by the left to determine ignorance of conservatives. The "true" position was that the Obama administrations position was true. If you disagreed with the true then you are miss-informed. These polls have real problems, yet pass RS. Unless you can provide some reason why this one does not then there is no reason for it to be dismissed. Arzel (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's an indication that Quinnipiac knows what they're doing: Quinnipiac Polling 2010 Annual Report. At the top right it says something about "Quinnipiac most accurate . . . " from the NYTimes. I would say the burden of proof is on you two to show that Quinnipiac is inaccurate. Feel free to contact them directly with your questions about their methodology. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In the end, polls, no matter who does them, no matter the intentions behind them, can be easily interpreted. In this case, the interpretation is attempting to skew the results to favor a narrative that "Liberals rather than conservatives are more responsible for such rhetoric..." now before this conversation should go on, the requester needs to prove that the poll has been used by more then one Reliable source and that other sources and polls polls reflect that sentiment. Plus, we would need to see exact wording that says "Liberals more then conservatives..." Either way, at the start of this topic, it has been stated that this type of information is not neutral and is an attempt of a blame game. While I am not blaming either side, we should not be either. So in the end, any attempt to sway the conversation over to Liberals are at fault is not going to result in anything added and is not neutral. Brothejr (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Broth, I believe you are mistaken about the RS issue, as Arzel said. Press releases from established polling organizations are considered RS. For example, this very article, where VisionCritical is cited (it was ref 169 a second ago). --Kenatipo (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Broth, I would also ask you to read for yourself what the press release actually said. Quinnipiac poll. As I said, I picked the parts that were most interesting to me. --Kenatipo (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"As I said, I picked the parts that were most interesting to me." Is exactly what the problem is. Picking and choosing parts to support your argument that the poll does not support and does not say is the problem. That borders on OR. As I said before, the best way is not to point fingers and we're not in the game to blame anyone. Final point: any attempt to push a the view point that "Liberals rather than conservatives are more responsible for such rhetoric..." will fail mainly because no reasonable reliable source, including the poll that you're hanging your entire argument on, says that nor will they say that. Brothejr (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You didn't follow my advice. Here's the 2nd paragraph of the press release: "American voters say 52 - 41 percent that "heated political rhetoric drives unstable people to commit violence," the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Liberals rather than conservatives are more responsible for such rhetoric, voters say 36 - 32 percent." --Kenatipo (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't believe in assigning blame, then please start removing references to Sarah Palin from the article -- she had nothing to do with the shooting. --Kenatipo (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet again you make the same assertion. Reliable sources have questioned whether heated political rhetoric, such as that engaged in by the Palin camp, may possibly have been a factor in the shooting. Nobody has claimed proof that it was, but neither has anyone claimed proof that it wasn't - it is almost certainly impossible to ascertain either way. We report this in a section entitled 'Aftermath and reactions' because this (renewed) debate occurred as a part of the reactions. Are you suggesting that politicians are somehow to be protected from any potential negative reporting on Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Some people think that encyclopedia articles should be full of groundless, agenda-driven media speculation. I'm not one of them. --Kenatipo (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Liberal positions are generally protected, conservative position are generaly not. That has been the theme of WP for years, and this discussion only furthers that this argument is true. Arzel (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is simply untrue. This particular poll is narrower than the two other polls and that is why its results favor your point of view. If everybody who could vote in the US actually voted, Republicans would lose nearly every state except Utah. Furthermore, the en.Wikipedia serves the entire English-speaking world, which is considerably more liberal than the US. Abductive (reasoning) 05:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That is absurd logic. That polling methodlogy is widely used within the US. You are correct though that WP reflects the liberal bias of the world outside the US on articles that are predominately US centric. Arzel (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. Polling voters is a good way to predict elections, but a terrible way to gauge public opinion generally. And there is no liberal bias if an encyclopedia reflects world opinion, which is by definition the average. Abductive (reasoning) 21:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Even more absurd logic. US centric articles should reflect the very liberal view of the rest of the world? Your argument against the poll still does not hold any weight. I think the time has come to put it back it. I don't like it, is simply not a valid argument. Arzel (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Only two people think it should be in the article, you and User:Kenatipo. The arguments for keeping it out are that it is not a WP:RS for US public opinion, due to a flaw in who was polled, and WP:UNDUE, in that there are broader, better conducted polls available. Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Polling voters is more valid than asking everybody and his brother because in a very real sense, people who don't vote don't count. And, since voters take their civic duty more seriously than their non-voting fellow citizens, they are probably better informed about things political. If Quinnipiac didn't know how to weight their results, they wouldn't be so accurate in predicting election results. On the other point, how exactly is this poll info UNDUE? --Kenatipo (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

People's opinion's count. You are explicitly saying that public opinion does not include all members of the public. Abductive (reasoning) 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I say Dont add the poll unless more polls can be used to help balance it out, the whole thing borders on POV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that without knowing what percentage of respondents were conservative as opposed to liberal, we shouldn't include the poll results blaming the liberals. If it's about even, that would be more acceptable, but without knowing the breakdown, we should leave it out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the polls are examples of the media reactions that are cluttering up the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I'm really sorry you guys don't like the poll results! I am explicitly saying that voters are a part of the public and that in a political setting their opinions are more important. The poll doesn't blame anyone, it just reports how people answered the questions. No, you won't find a poll saying 85% percent of Americans think it's Sarah Palin's fault, so no point in waiting for those results "to balance things out". And, Sarek, for the tenth time, Quinnipiac knows how to weight its results. Please contact them directly for details. All I'm hearing is IDONTLIKEIT, and that's not a valid reason to remove. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A poll in not a media reaction. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

None of the polls mentioned so far strikes me as adding greatly to the article. They are the sort of instant analysis that the media loves, but they are a soft science and tell the reader little that is enlightening.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The argument thus far against has been "flawed" and "I don't like it". Neither is a valid reason. The information was cited and is a reliable source. You need a much better WP policy reason for dismissal, or should we just go about and remove whatever we want that we don't like? Now, do any of you have any valid policy reasons? I have plenty of really crap polls that support the left that have been upheld in other articles that I will bring in for counter-points if all you have are the arguments above. Arzel (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You are editing against consensus. Many editor have stated that the material is improperly weighted because it polled only voters, and therefore does not accurately reflect public opinion. Also per WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:Tenditious, constantly making the same arguments over and over again does not make them correct. Abductive (reasoning) 02:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't try pulling that "We have consensus" BS. We DO NOT have consensus on the Quinnipiac poll. Your reasons against it are not valid. --Kenatipo (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that your only arguments for including the poll have been based around the spurious argument that Wikipedia should distort reporting of issues to counteract a supposed media bias against Palin etc, I don't think you are in much of a position to argue anything much. I'd give up and walk away with a little dignity, if I was you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

BS. Your aurgument for non-inclusion is I don't like it and/or the study is flawed. We don't determine the validity of the poll. Take your OR somewhere else. The next step is probably the NPOV board (updated to RS board first), since you and Abductive are clearly basing your opinion on POV. Arzel (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the poll to the RS notice board so we can at least get this absurd notion that the poll is flawed out of the way. RS Board Arzel (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Grumpy, those were not our reasons at all. Please read this discussion again from the beginning. A poll of voters is every bit as valid as a poll of adults. And the Quinnipiac results are different than the other two polls. --Kenatipo (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a point though the poll is a reliable source and meets WP:RS the problem I see though is still WP:UNDUE are there other polls this can be compared too to create a Neutral point of view? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kid, I doubt if you could find anything like that, the reason being, if you asked a suitable sized sample of adults roughly the same questions, you would get about the same results. The Quinnipiac info is interesting because it shows voters have a slightly different perspective than the public at large. Why is that so? I don't know. --Kenatipo (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Quinnipiac poll results consensus

Seeing there seems to be an issue reguarding the content of the poll I am polling a consensus, please place Add or Do not Add with why you want or do not want the poll to be in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• ADD It is a reliably sourced poll. It is as valid as the other two polls already in the article. It offers additional insight regarding perception about the shooting and illustrates that political ideology did not play a role. A primary reason against seems to be that the poll is flawed, which is not for us to judge. The pertinant reported information for all three polls could also be compressed into one paragraph in order to not give undue weight to any specific poll. If this poll cannot be included, then I fail to see why any of the polls should be included. Arzel (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• REMOVE all polls from the article. Since the bizarro and unfortunate "political rhetoric" aspect of this tragedy has in itself become WP notable, it does remain sadly WP worthy and relevant to the content. But what any given poll's population (any of them) feel, is not relevant to the article and the events it is intended to describe. The article is about the 2011 Tucson Shooting, not about the public's reaction to the alleged political motivation of the crime. Simple fix, get rid of them all. None of them have a legitimate place here and none of them describe the event. Shouldn't be here. --Trippz 09:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• REMOVE It is just another shell added to the article that we can do without. Anything - no matter how qualified in itself - that is so to say a comment on a comment on a... is bloating. Alandeus (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Remove as an attempt at the blame game and per Trippz Brothejr (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• ADD For the reasons given by Arzel. And, it is appropriate because the opinion of voters is highly relevant to what the media turned into a "political" event. (You can't fool all of the people all of the time). Also agree that condensing all three polls into one pithy paragraph would be acceptable. --Kenatipo (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• DO NOT ADD per WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and I wholly agree with Trippz. While the results of a poll might help inform how we word some of the section, the polling is primary source data, and those aren't the sources we want to use because they invite WP:OR and WP:SYN. To be honest, though, if we're going to report any polling data, we're going to have to WP:UNDUEshow both sides if the polls disagree and give conflicting answers to the same question. I don't think we should include any of it until we have an analysis by a reliable secondary source that makes sense of it. SDY (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• DO NOT ADD Polls are going to hurt this article more than help it in my opinion, while other articles benefit from polls this is not the case as it raises POV concerns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• No Quinnipiac, their choice of polling only voters is shameful. No opinion on other polls being in the article, largely because they confirm what will always be true. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• REMOVE It is based completely on skewed, manipulated results that have had no bearing on this event since it occurred. J.Rly (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Move requests

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for any of the options. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

8 January 2011 Tucson shooting

2011 Tucson shooting → 8 January 2011 Tucson shooting — While we're discussing a completely different title to move this article to above (or whether to move it to a different title at all), the date of the shooting should be specified in the title. In line with all other articles about attacks (be it bombings, shootings etc.) either the victim of the attack or the date of the attack should be specified in the title (unless it's definitively the only attack of its kind in the year, of course). i.e. 2 January 2011 Baghdad shootings, September 11 attacks etc. This is not meant to be a resolution to the discussion for a permanent title to move it to, just a correction of the current title. Swarm ^X 17:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support in part The current title is so bad and there is consensus that it is bad, needing change. So almost anything reasonable is better. May I suggest January 8, 2011 as that's the way they write it in USA.

Just to comment, that consensus you cite does not exist. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support in part I prefer January 8, 2011 Tucson shooting as well this is not a military conflict here as such the date should be written like so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is highly unlikely (I hope) that another shooting in the Tucson area that merits a Wikipedia article will occur within the next few days, so 'January 2011 Tucson shooting' would be better, though as has already been suggested, we might do better to leave the existing title for now, until a media consensus emerges - there should be no hurry to change at this point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Our naming convention is to be only as precise as needed. We routinely title articles about terrorist attacks with just the year (and sometimes even without the year) unless greater specificity is needed (in which case we add the month or the exact date, as the circumstances dictate).
  The January 2011 Baghdad shootings article was moved by someone apparently unfamiliar with the relevant naming convention. (I just moved it back.)
  The September 11 attacks article reflects a rare instance in multiple coordinated terrorist attacks occurred in separate locations and became widely associated with a specific date.
  Unless and until another notable shooting occurs in the Tucson area this year, there is no need to append the month or specific date (and certainly not in the non-U.S. format). —David Levy 19:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I'd also rather it conform to the American way of dating if we were to -- January 8, 2011 Tucson shooting. Or simply January 2011 Tucson shooting. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think exactly the opposite should happen. In my opinion this article should just be called Tucson shooting, as that namespace is current just a redirect to this article, and that name would conform with WP:AT's principle about conciseness (a shorter name is generally better). Also just calling it Tucson shooting would conform better with WP:UCN, as atleast right now nobody is talking about the event as the 2011 Tucson shooting (much less the January 8 2011 Tucson shooting), and I think it is likely to continue to be that way like with the Virginia Tech massacre and the Columbine High School massacre.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose We should definitely not use a non-US date format for a US event. Beyond that, the specific date isn't so important that it needs to be in the title. It's in the lead. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. WT:TITLE says we should be as precise as necessary (which probably does mean the year; Tucson has had a wild past) but not more so. Notable shootings do occur frequently in Baghdad, and September 11 is idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment We should be mindful that as there are more Tucson shootings, this article will eventually change into an article about crime in Tucson, of which this shooting is only one of the 2011 shootings. Please be mindful of this. Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Nonsense. This article is about specific events, as is entirely clear to everyone but (apparently) you. No other crimes in Tucson are remotely relevant to the article. Please don't waste people's times with falacious arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support More specific a title. Gifford is not Tucson. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose 1) This is about an event that happened in the USA so the MM/DD/YYYY format needs to be used. 2) I think that the current article name is descriptive enough without going overboard. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Has there been another shooting in Tucson for January with an article? January 2011 Tucson shooting hasn't been mentioned. 184.144.170.159 (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Hopefully, in the nine days left in January 2011 there will not be another significant shooting in Tucson. The proposal is unnecessarily detailed. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I know of no other shooting of this magnitude, having taken place in Tuscon, Arizona. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Makes the ominous implication that we can expect another major shooting in Tucson this year. PatGallacher (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wrong style, too specific, not necessary to resolve any ambiguity. bd2412 T 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would say that this is a case of a WP:SNOW Closure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell are you people voting on this? I mean come on, since when do we do this on Wikipedia?! Seriously? Shame on all of you. Swarm ^X 01:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a vote it is consensus for a new title, this is how a move proposal works (As far as I have seen on wikipedia) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, I wasn't aware it was being taken as a vote, but just people identifying their view on a consensus. In looking at your contribution history, I can see you have used similar ('Keep', 'Delete', etc) comments in the past. Not sure how what we are doing is different. But I do wish we could just stop having to discuss the title being OK for a while, instead of people bringing up the same issue in 20 different forms. -- Avanu (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords assassination attempt

2011 Tucson shooting → Giffords assassination attempt is a better change. He doesn't need to be convicted as Reagan assassination attempt's Hinckley was not found guilty. Also, others were shot with Reagan, just like others were shot with Giffords. However, the dead 9 year old girl was not the assassination target. Madrid 2020 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Although 'technically' the verdict was not guilty, there was no question that Hinckley shot Reagan. It was not an unqualified "not guilty", it was in fact not guilty because they determined that Hinckley was insane. Hinckley's clear target was the president, not just to go on a shooting spree. If and when it becomes clear that this was all about Gabrielle Giffords, maybe you will have a case for the name change, Madrid-2020. But until then, why are you asking for Original Research/Divination in the title? -- Avanu (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The word Assassination is debated here, also the fact that more than one person was shot and killed here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  How about Reagan? Or you weren't born yet in 1981? Madrid 2020 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here, not all articles are named the same and you still have not addressed the assassination bit being debated or the fact that other people died here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose For the reasons that Knowledgekid87 gives, and also for the more general reasons I give above - change is unnecessary for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  This editor is resistant to any change of title. Madrid 2020 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even if we assume that this was assassination attempt (which seems extremely likely), the event is notable for other reasons, which the current title encompasses. —David Levy 19:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  The shooting has questionable notability if Giffords wasn't there. If she wasn't there, it wouldn't have happen, just like Reagan. Hinckley did not intend to shoot Brady, Brady was just in the way. Madrid 2020 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  The shooting would have met Wikipedia's notability standards even if Giffords hadn't been present. It probably wouldn't have occurred in such a hypothetical scenario (unless the perpetrator decided to nonetheless target her constituents, which is entirely plausible), but that's irrelevant (because it did occur and it is notable).
  And are you suggesting that the other eighteen victims were "just in the way," as Brady was? Clearly, this was a rampage. That a hatred of Giffords likely played a role in inspiring it makes no difference. —David Levy 19:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  Are you kidding, Madrid-2020? Questional Notability when 19 people were shot (6 killed)? What exactly would be notable? The Fort Hood shooting injured 29 people (killed 13) ... is that the standard for notability? Just leave the title alone. Let's work on something more constructive, please. -- Avanu (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Looks like WP:SNOW on this one for all the reasons above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons mentioned above, including WP:SNOW. There is no rush to change the title, if we ever decide it should be changed. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Giffords assassination attempt seems a little confining here. We have a federal judge who was murdered in addition to five others who have died. I'd also like to request no more pointy moves as a result of deliberation here as was attempted at Reagan assassination attempt. AniMate 20:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not pointy but trying to have uniformity. Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose this title, but would like to see something similar and more encyclopedic soon--Jojhutton (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please make a suggestion. How about Giffords meeting shooting? Giffords assassination attempt and mass shooting? Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support with reservations How about 2011 Tucson Congresswoman shootings, plural since several people were shot. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose many more people were injured/died at this event. That title dose not to them justice. Also this is the more then the third time this proposal was brought up --Guerillero | My Talk 04:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose quite a number of people died in this attack. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment, concluding the target of the incident in WP article is an act of wp:synthesis (original research). We say the suspected target is the congresswoman because our cited sources report so. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We've been going over this previously, I am really not sure why there are a few people so intent on having the word "assassination". The word "shooting" is accurate. Loughner STILL hasn't spoken out. The few videos we have seen portray someone who seems unbalanced. In short, there are no guarantees about who he was targeting or why. Perhaps this was just a thing where her event was the closest thing for him to attack. So, please again... let it lay... if you ask most people what the 2011 Tuscon Shooting is... they will say this event. Other shootings might occur in Tucson, but this one (so far) is particularly notable. So why can't we just wait and let things run their course. Let Loughner come before court, let Giffords recover, etc. -- Avanu (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A Google news search on "jared loughner" brings up the following descriptions of the event. I used the first general reference to the event from each article. I stopped at 16 articles, but in none of these was the event generally described as 'assassination'. -- Avanu (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• mass shooting near Tucson
• rampage / killing spree / Tucson shootings
• Arizona rampage
• Tucson shootings
• public shooting spree
• January 8 shooting (by the way, this news outlet is IN Tucson)
• Tucson Shootings
• the tragedy in Tucson
• shooting
• violent attack
• shooting spree
• Tucson events
• Jared Loughner's crimes
• Tucson shootings
• shooting (does have the word assassination in relation to the charges)
• recent tragedy

Thank you for this information. As you can see, nobody refers to it as the 2011 Tucson shooting. Therefore, the current title must go. Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why cant the current title just be kept? Looking above there appears to be an oppose to both proposed new titles, I would just let it go for now if consensus does not change in a hurry. Might I also note that seven of the titles above involve the wording Tucson. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the list you provided the words Tuscon and shooting come up fairly often. Frankly, I think you've done an excellent job of proving why the current name works. AniMate 23:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tucson shootings

2011 Tucson shooting → 2011 Tucson shootings Should be written in proper English. Shootings is better. Judge Roll was shot as well was Rep. Giffords.

• Support We should not have to argue about using proper grammer. Let's not use the "I doesn't like the it." argument Madrid 2020 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Utterly idiotic, seemingly proposed for no other reason than to keep up this pointless debate about the title, in spite of strong evidence that there is no need. If this endless raising of the same issue continues, I may consider taking this pointless trolling up elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support This is getting beyond tiresome, but since multiple people were shot, I don't mind the change. AniMate 00:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It was 1 (one) event of multiple people being shot. Therefore it is the singular word, shooting. If Jared Loughner had done this at various times, or if another person performed an unrelated but similar act, and you were referring to the shooting event of each person collectively, you could say 'shootings' (plural). Refer to Participle - English. Compare in your mind the idea of someone in the middle of 'shooting' a film. Depending on the emphasis, you could refer to each day's session as a shooting, or as the entire process of filming the movie as its shooting. Let's just not go into a lengthy discussion of English grammar and have some understanding that the word 'shooting' is fine and probably preferable, since this was a single event. -- Avanu (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), doesn't meet the criteria of exceptions either. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I suggested this title a few weeks back but as someone pointed out it can imply alot such as did more than one shooting take place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons stated by AndyTheGrump and Avanu. I have been following this article and talk page with great interest since the beginning, and am baffled by the continued insistence by one or two people that the title must be changed. Funcrunch (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support per ABC News (USA), The Economist (UK), etc. I am a foreigner so I cannot say with 100% certainty. I think shootings is correct. Then I consulted ABC News, The Economist, and some newspapers and "s" is the correct answer. If we say "2011 Tucson shooting" we may sound like we are Chinese trying to write English. In 1978, Chinese protestors held up grammatically incorrect signs saying "(President) Carter sells peanut, also friends" referring to his peanut farming and his breaking relations with what was called Nationalist China (Taiwan) in favor of Communist China (People's Republic). Nesteoil (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) See http://abcnews.go.com/US/jared-loughner-indicted-tucson-shootings/story?id=12672754 AND http://www.economist.com/node/17902699
• Oppose it was one event. Shootings implies that the shooter shot Giffords, then went elsewhere and continued his spree. (As an aside, I still don't like the current title and think Giffords assination attempt would be better) Capt. Colonel (edits) 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have noted, the prevalent convention (in American English, at least) is to refer to this as a single event (a "shooting" of multiple persons). —David Levy 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose because as stated, this was one shooting with multiple casualties. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title Discussion / Move Requests (and the like)

From what I can tell, most of the editors are content with the current title (2011 Tucson shooting), even if it isn't perfect. Is it possible to ask an admin for a speedy close on these types of requests for a while? I realize that as more facts come out, it is entirely possible that the title might need to be changed, but for the time being, it simply seems that a few editors really just don't feel like acknowledging that the title is 'good enough for now'.

It just seems as if we are going around and around with the same arguments being repeated again and again.

Thanks, Avanu (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, most editors are not content. They are just bullied into doing nothing. Look at the archives and you will see quite a few people are not happy with the title. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It is disruptive and almost pointless given the ability to use redirects for any sensible alternatives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the admin has already blocked MOVE of the article. The only thing you can do is just to ignore the move title discussions when someone's already opposed it with good reasons, they're not poll, repeating the same tone of POV only encourages further trolling. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that block. I'll keep that in mind. -- Avanu (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sameboat: The page is move protected to prevent move-warring, and given the divide of opinions, necessarily so. It's not intended to indisputably lock in the current title. Also, calling people who disagree with you "trolls" is just ridiculous. Please see WP:AGF before commenting again. Swarm ^X 15:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, most editors are not content. If you look at the archives, more were not content. It doesn't matter much to me except it looks, from a foreigner's/non-native speaker, that shooting is grammatically incorrect. This is because news sources, like ABC News and The Economist, have proofreaders. ABC is American and The Economist is British. Also see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/9/tucson-shootings-a-federal-case/ Nesteoil (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that many editors are frustrated, but I don't think there's much consensus to move since there isn't any clearly better title. For now, let's just leave it at the wrong version and move on, we can figure out something before the deadline. With redirects it's not like people will fail to find the article. Since it doesn't matter, let's not get caught up in it and focus on things where we're more likely to find consensus for meaningful improvement. SDY (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

By 'content', I simply meant that more editors than not were not saying the current title was *inaccurate*. Incidentally, on the comment about shooting versus shootings, please review the following article Police fear 'war on cops'. It has several great examples. For example, "a Detroit police station shooting that wounded four officers". Four people hurt, but it was called one shooting, since it was one event. Yet the intro for that sentence says "In just 24 hours, at least 11 officers were shot. The shootings included ..." As I and others have been trying to explain, it is the context of whether you are referring to something as a singular event or individual events that matters. Most people probably think of the things that happened in Arizona as one event. -- Avanu (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that the more histrionic aspects of reporting ("massacre" and all) have died down, the most common reference I am seeing and hearing in the press is to call it a "mass shooting." That solves the singular versus plural issue, also that plural ("shootings") implies separate incidents. I suggest we consider moving to 2011 Tucson mass shooting. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I regard the shooting as a combination of a targeted assassination shooting and an arbitrary mass shooting. Thus, a simple "Tucson shooting" title covers both aspects Alandeus (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

While I do think we should put this on the back burner for now until more information becomes available and a common historical term emerges. I don't think this has happened yet. We'll stick with this for a few months, and revisit it once the recentism has died down. Swarm ^X 15:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the objection to the title is because it is rather vague; just a date and location. For this reason perhaps using an "event" title would be more appropriate. For example "2011 Tuscon 'Congress on Your Corner' shooting", or maybe "Gifford's Congress on Your Corner shooting". Perhaps even, "2011 Tuscon Safeway shooting" These too may be cumbersome, but in all fairness, I would think there were a number of other shootings in Tuscon in the month of January 2011, so the current title is understandable, just not particularly accurate. At this point the current title works for me, but just a suggestion for those who still might be uncomfortable with the current arrangement. --Trippz 10:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that this title is inaccurate. How do you know there was (or will be) another Tucson shooting in January 2011? We aren't talking about Fallujah in the midst of the insurgency here. Given the spotlight this incident has afforded Tucson and Arizona as a whole, we might have heard of other shootings. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It was to address the very topic that Trippz brought up, that I went to the web the other day and looked at what the news organizations IN Tucson and Arizona were naming it versus people elsewhere. It seemed clear that naming the city alone provided enough detail for the rest of the United States to understand. News outlets in Tucson were using more specific locations like "shot Jan. 8 in a rampage at a northwest-side supermarket", but a title like that really would be far too specific for the rest of the world. -- Avanu (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just let this go, the topic title war has been going on for weeks, give it a rest and revisit the idea later down the line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, the current title doesn't bother me too much (but that's just me), and I agree that perhaps a more accurate title may present itself down the road. I'm in no rush and was only providing a suggestion to be considered that may not have been proposed. I'm simply addressing that the title is probably not accurate. If in fact there were absolutely no other shootings in Tucson in 2011, then yes, the title is fully accurate - but it's not. The idea that there were no other shootings (of any kind) in Tuscon during this month - let alone 2011 - is highly doubtful. It may not be Fallujah, but it is a US metropolitan area and shootings (including accidental) do happen in such areas with frequency. To claim these were the only victims of a shooting (again, of any kind) in 2011 Tuscon is utterly absurd and ridiculous. If you don't believe me then look here, at another January 2011 Tuscon shooting. Fullujah it is not, but still, other people were shot in Tuscon in 2011. Might want to consider that before dismissing this issue out-of-hand. --Trippz 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal on Naming convention

I would like to propose that we change the name to use proper grammar (2011 Tuscon shootings) and create a disambiguation page for the other top ranked pages and have them point here, or just add redirects. If consensus can be agreed on this, I'd be happy to assist with the creating the redirects. I see no problem with 2011 Tucson Shootings, other titles including the specific date and anything representing Gabrielle Giffords is too specific. Remember to take into consideration that a federal judge and other people including other federal employees were shot and killed in this incident. Naming it just based off of the person that has the most notoriety and is the biggest news maker is not what we want to do. Rather i'd like to see if consensus can be reached on this proposal, and if not, I would submit an RfC on the matter. Ltcb2412 (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you study the "Title Discussion / Move Requests (and the like)" section above? "2011 Tuscon shooting" seems to be the correct grammar and is back by a consensus. A shooting is a singular event. It does not necessarily count the number of victims (or bullets shot). Alandeus (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out this is already covered above and current consensus is against using the word "Shootings" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions about naming but I'd caution about saying there is a concensus against using the word "shootings". More news sources use the word "shootings". I am uncertain, but it is possible there are cultural differences. I know for a fact that in the USA, it is the "sports page of a newspaper" but in the UK, it is the "sport page of a newspaper". Nesteoil (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same thing as sports v sport. And there's definitely a consensus (7 to 3) at #2011_Tucson_shootings that "shooting" is correct. Capt. Colonel (edits) 16:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We have covered this ad nauseum in various sections above. It is PERFECTLY fine US English to call this 1 event a "shooting". I really do not understand the need to hash and re-hash it over and over, and additionally, as AndyTheGrump has said above, we can simply add redirects for any additional titles. Can we put this issue to bed finally? -- Avanu (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"A rash of shootings occured in the city as the suspects again eluded capture."

"One shooting after another occured as the gang piled up wins against the cops."

"Many shootings took place."

To show a perfect example of how the plural and singular works, refer to this article, http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_17209635

Notice the title uses the singular "shooting" because it is referring to it as 1 event, but in the first and second paragraphs it is described from the point of view of several victims, and is then called "shootings" because it is referring to each component of the overall event as a discrete event.

-- Avanu (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, I must not have completely understood consensus on the above discussion. I would still like to keep the second part of the proposal on the table however, and create redirects for the other more popular titles, as to avoid confusion or ambiguity. I do agree however with Nesteoil in saying that a consensus was not truly reached there. We may have a majority of votes, however if you look at all the various title suggestions, there appears to be no clear cut consensus at this time. I'll withdraw my request for renaming, and simply leave the request for a consensus on which articles should be redirected here, and at the appropriate time down the road that we have more information, and we are aware of how the press is naming this tragedy, we can reinstate these discussions then. Ltcb2412 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a 'consensus' to create a redirect, unless it is actually misleading. If you think of a sensible one (obviously not one violating WP:BLP etc), add it: "...shootings" is already a redirect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the comment in a section earlier on recentism, there's no rush to rename. IMHO, mass shooting better than shooting, shooting better than shootings (which implies disparate events). As commented, a "shooting" is an event, not necessarily one person being shot. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

With the moves closed as no consensus I think the stick should just be dropped on this and a move on be made to improve the article, I boldly archived another discussion above as there were three discussions going on about the titlwe the oldest last being commented on 3 days ago. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Peter M. Rhee for deletion

The article Peter M. Rhee is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter M. Rhee until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is still "protected"...

Seriously, why is it still blocked from editing? Any vandals who edited it would have long left, moving on to other news LOOONNNGGG ago. Is the vandalism that divine of an excuse it can be used forever to permanently end the article's Wikipedia progress (what makes an article a Wikipedia article is how anyone can edit it). 173.183.66.173 (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, could we try unprotection? Most of the media brouhaha has died down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support this being un-protected it can always be re-protected if alot of vandalism occurs - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that a lot of unneeded bloat is going to be added, especially in regards to the blame for this shooting, if we unprotect this article. I'm also sure that a lot of vandalism will occur. But, yeah, we can try it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have requested the admin who protected the article for semi un-protection. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just chiming in for consensus, I support semi-unprotection with regard to editing, and will keep an eye on the article (it's on my watchlist) if it's unprotected. As a quick note to 173.183.66.173: the article was *never* indefinitely protected, the current protection, if left in place, would expire in a couple weeks. That's hardly "permanent." But I do support trying semi-unprotection now in any case. (I *don't* support removing move protection just yet, there was, if I recall correctly, a bunch of edit warring, and see very little harm in asking for a consensus here on the talk page before renaming the article, at least for the next couple weeks.) --j⚛e decker^talk 17:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing the semi protection but not the move protection. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes move protection I saw was removed as well when I only requested that semi protection be removed, does someone want to reask for this page be move protected? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The move protection should stay to avoid the unproductive edit warring over the name that led to the protection.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've re-move-protected it. Airplaneman ✈ 21:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords' condition

There are many, many details of this shooting. Giffords' head wound is one of them. It should be here because that's why people read the story. Currently, there is a consensus with one dissenter in the Giffords' article that the bio should not be overwhelmed by head wound details (citing 6 lines in Reagan and Biden's bio about their gunshot wounds or head surgery compared to 46 lines in Giffords, which is a much shorter article than Reagan).

The people who read this shooting article want to know about everything. If it gets too long, a sub-article can be written, if people want it. Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Madrid/Pacific 1818, it seems you keep trying to get a subarticle of some kind written regarding this shooting article. I hope that is not why you keep increasing its size every time it is downsized. In my opinion, it makes more sense to have most of the details about her recovery in her own article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree --Guerillero | My Talk 23:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, as I have said in both places. Tvoz/talk 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The concensus from the Giffords article is that it is undue weight and not to be included there. C.Fred is an administrator and a respected one. He says it should go here. Frankly, the little details of Giffords is not important so if you want to get rid of it here, I do not object. The details of her recovery is only of interest to those interested in the shooting. So have it here or not here, but not in the Giffords' article. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see consensus there. I am familiar with C. Fred, but his being a respected administrator does not make his opinion above other editors. Details of her recovery are only of interest to those interested in the shooting? Says who? People interested in this woman will be interested in her recovery, in my opinion. Also, are you Madrid/Pacific 1818? You make the same exact type of edits, reverts and arguments as him. Some editors are similar in their editing and arguments, but not to the extreme accuracy of you and Madrid. Not to mention, your writing style. Flyer22 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no levels of membership here on wikipedia. Just because you been here a while, doesn't make your opinion any more important. --Guerillero | My Talk 11:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And in fact C. Fred did not dictate anything, he merely expressed an opinion in an ongoing discussion on Talk: Gabrielle Giffords. No consensus was reached there to remove the details of her condition and experience, nor was any consensus reached here to add them. This would be in effect a merge, and requires consensus all around, which does not exist. And to make matters worse it was added here in a ham-handed way, with information about the suspect in the middle of a section called "recovery". This needs to be pulled back together to where we were before this started, (if no one else steps in, I'll try to get to it this evening) and it should stay out until actual consensus, of different people, is reached. Madrid and Pacific are the same person, and other sock questions have been raised. So no consensus to add this here has been reached at this time, and in fact, several editors have stated that we think the details of her condition belong in the article about her. Tvoz/talk 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have cut back the section on Giffords in this article to be a summary of the longer, more appropriately detailed, section of Gabrielle Giffords. We don;t need a "recovery" subsection within this section - we just need a summary of what is in the main article. Tvoz/talk 09:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bold suggestion, let's cut down the article by 33%

Let's go through this and cut 33%. A lot of it is not needed.

For example, is this really needed?

At least one gunshot victim was transported to Northwest Medical Center, while the remaining injured were treated at University Medical Center in Tucson.[38]

So what? Northwest Medical Center is important?

The other possibility is to increase the article size by 100% or double it. This would be by adding useful information, not just more words. Either way, increase or decrease, it will take time and can't be done in 10 minutes. The pros of increasing the size is to bring more little details to the audience.

Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is very broad, what do you suggest should go? Removing 33% of the article wont exactly go un-noticed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion. Do you want a very concise and tightly written article or one packed with details. The current article needs much work. It is neither concise and has missing details. A concisely written article is much easier to do, just cut the unimportant details. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this in the abstract. This article was written on the fly as details were emerging, as this situation was developing rapidly. Now that things have slowed down, we can take a look to see what details aren't needed, and which could be written in a more succinct manner. How we go about these edits is an open question. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I caught you when you were not done editing the other bits here. I think that the article does need cleaning up but to a degree, this article will grow in size as more events unfold there is no stopping it unless forks are created and new articles are born, something nobody is for at the moment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to do this and I can't see any policy to back this move. Is the article long? Yes. Is it too long to comfortably read? No --Guerillero | My Talk 04:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

We should decide because when the trial starts, there will be tons of information. It will range from the exact time that each police car came, where people were standing, who answered the 9-11 call, etc. We should decide now whether we want a tightly written summary or an article packed with so much detail. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is WP:NORUSH, and the 33% figure is arbitrary. Articles change over time, and some of the material may need to be removed or shortened when the trial comes along. If the Reagan shooting is anything to go by, it could be over twelve months before this happens.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but that doesn't mean we can't take some time to examine this article piece by piece to remove items that were hot off the presses when they were added, but now seem dated and/or trivial. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So that this article can eventually stabilize, I'd suggest that when the trial starts there be another article 2011 Tucson mass shooting trial or similar to pack full of details. I understand the trial might be televised, so there is the potential for even greater interest. If/when that happens, this article should simply remain as the summary of the events and not descend into churn each time some new detail is revealed/alleged during the trial. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that --Guerillero | My Talk 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want to point out again, that this article is not that big in terms of text, per Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/Archive 4#Article size. It's the references adding most of the size. I say we cut down on the unneeded extra references first, and see how much size that gives us back. For example, with the lead, do we really need four sources attributed to the fact that Giffords's medical condition was initially described as "critical"? Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point and a good place to start. Of those four refs in that place you mentioned, two are used in other places as well while two were used only there, so I removed those two. If we really want to reduce size in total, we can remove lots of those unneeded spaces in the ways the references are presented. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. If I get enough time and am not too lazy, I'll cut out more unneeded references. I'm just worried about an "edit conflict"; jeez, those things are annoying. But since this article has calmed down so much, it may not be an issue when I get to removing the excess. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, edit conflicts shouldn't be a problem. I just pulled this one from the lead sentence"Bill Clinton: Politics must change after Arizona attack". BBC News. January 11, 2011. Retrieved 2011-01-13.; it would seem to fit better in the reactions somewhere. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Done for now. I pulled some out that didn't seem to add anything. Wherever there is more than one citation provided, we should determine if it's really necessary to keep them both. Some places use up to four or five citations in one place. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL, what was that source doing in the lead? But thank you again for taking initiative. You've gotten it down to 92 kilobytes currently. And it could be under that if it weren't for Madrid 2020's need to mention so many figures in the Political figures section instead of going for the shorter, cleaner-looking version, but I'm not reverting again on that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. It's only a start, and there is more to be done. FWIW, your revisions on all the political figures is better. We don't need to list every single one. Maybe we should seek consensus to trim it for good. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

← This article is not overly long - the relevant size measure is readable prose, not total number of K. This article is presently about 25K of readable prose, well below the suggested length for featured articles, our gold standard. There's no justification for cutting out a random percentage - what is that suggestion based on? Having too many sources is also really not a valid argument - a good edit would preserve the variety of sources, just not reference each and every point with each and every source. But retain the variety of sources, as that makes for a richer article. But I don't see what the grievance is here, and I don't agree that the piece should be cut down in such a drastic manner. As for the eventual trial, we'll deal with that when it happens. There is no rush. And I totally disagree that we need to decide now whether we want an article "packed with details" or not - this is an organic process, and I've never seen decisions made in advance of events as to how they are going to be handled. We evaluate the situation at hand, see how editors write it, see what sources are available and what they say, and go from there. Not a pre-emptive "decision" as to how the article should be written. No policy or precedent for this that I know of, as several editors above have also pointed out. Tvoz/talk 09:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've stated more than once that this article is not that big, even above; it's even been pointed out that there are good and featured articles bigger than this. But as for having too many sources, I do find it a valid argument not to have too many unneeded sources. We don't need four or five sources backing up one line, unless the line is attributed to a number that cannot be backed up with one or two sources alone...such as saying "varying pundits stated this." I didn't say we should use only one source to reference any information included from that one source in this article. For example, sometimes primary sources need backup, per WP:PRIMARY. Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, Flyer, I wasn't addressing my comments about the "too long" or "too big" argument to you - I was supporting what you said about size by making the specific point about "readable prose" which ignores the reference section and is the applicable policy point when considering article size as this section is doing. I also was adding a voice against reducing the article by some arbitrary percentage which I know you didn't support, but which was the starting point of this section. As for varying sources, I also agree, as I said, that there is no reason for mega multiple sources on the same point and in fact it's unwieldy and slows down the reader. I was only saying that although many points in the article might be attributable to one source, it is a richer article if we use a variety of sources throughout the piece - in other words, we might be able to use, say, a New York Times article as a cite for multiple points throughout the piece, but some of them might also be able to be attributed to a Washington Post article. In that case, I'd want to see both sources in here, but not both in the same place, so point A could be cited to NYT and point B to Washpo. I don't want this to be source-heavy either, but nor should it be overly reliant on one source - a long string of places that point to one source is not the best way to go. Tvoz/talk 22:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I knew you weren't addressing me on the "too long" and "too big" arguments. You did partly address the multiple/several references issue, though, and I just wanted to make my thoughts clear on that. I agree with you, of course. And, hey, Muboshgu has gotten the article down to 87 kilobytes by removing unneeded references. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And there's probably a couple more K worth of unneeded refs still in there. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's now back up to 95 kilobytes, due to Madrid (now known as Pacific 1818) adding most of the details about Giffords's recovery here, but oh well. I'm sure we can keep the size under control either way. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And now we're back to where we started. Still don't see why all those names needs to be mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm positive Ryan White Jr. is Madrid/Pacific 1818 and needs reporting, which is one reason why I just reverted him again. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Very uncivil and makes no sense. Flyer22, you just said on 23:22 30 January that the size is back up because that other user keeps adding stuff. I am for a concise article not a long article with needless details. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Content not length is what matters. You are starting to seem like you are beating an dead horse--Guerillero | My Talk 06:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not uncivil at all, Ryan White Jr. I usually only call people out as WP:Socks when I am pretty positive they are. I am pretty positive you were WP:Socking. You haven't even denied it. It took you this long to address it. You went silent for days after I accused you. If I only suspected you were, instead of being positive on the matter, there's a chance I would have kept it to myself...but would have eventually reported you for a check if what I viewed as abuse of editing continued. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Krugman again

We are still edit warring over the Paul Krugman quote. Personally, I don't see this op-ed piece as so remarkable that it deserves an entire paragraph on its own. It makes points similar to the ones that are already included, and should be dropped.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be mindful of the WP:3RR cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 11:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew has put the full Krugman paragraph back several times although other editors are less than keen about it. The consensus is to drop or shorten it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It should be shortened or dropped. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. I reduced it from a paragraph to a sentence, merging with the Olbermann/Stewart paragraph about the political rhetoric as it seemed the best place to put it. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice job. And again, quick with the initiative. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu. Let's remember WP:UNDUE. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of injured - contradiction

From the lead paragraph: "Twenty people were injured, nineteen from gunfire"

From the "Victims" section: "Thirteen people were wounded in the attack; a fourteenth person was injured at the scene, but was determined not to have been shot."

Both have references, the first to both The Washington Post (which gives the 13/14 figure) and The New York Times (which gives the 19/20 figure). The second just references The Washington Post. Both sources were published on the same day, 14th January.

Obviously both cannot be right, but I don't know how to reconcile which is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The correct casualty figures are 19 people shot, 6 deaths from gunshots, 13 injured by gunshots, and one person otherwise injured at the scene - there's not much information out there about the last individual, but that incident is responsible for the differences of plus or minus one you see in some reports. There used to be a reference that stated this plainly; I'll see if I can hunt one up. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as followup: in my opinion, the Washington Post blog posting you already linked is the best source we can have for a tick-list of casualties. It does make it clear that the figures were as I gave them, though I can see how a quick read-through might leave you thinking that only 13 people were shot. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem probably stems from using the word "injured" regarding the 20 - including those who died in the count of those injured - I'll see if I can word it better. Tvoz/talk 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

strategic planning for the article

Now that the crime took place a while ago, we should decide how we should be heading.

Should this article be a nicely written summary? This could be called the short summary version.

Or should the article have lots of detail?

There is already disagreement about adding things and deleting things because of different/conflicting goals, two of which are mentioned above.

For example, there will be increasing detail about the shooter (alleged shooter - cmm'on there is no dispute that he did it only dispute to whether it was legally murder or legally some other kind of killing). Anyway, those who want a nicely written summary will undoubtedly take out information citing a number of reasons, like undue weight or needless detail.

Rather than have a battle, we should have a consensus to what kind of article we want. Long or short?

I am flexible. I slightly prefer long but will accept short if there is a suitable justification. However, we shouldn't have "long for the things I want and short for the things I don't want." That would be cherry picking and wikilawyering (using rules to justify bad choices) Ryan White Jr. (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - I've never encountered an article that was pre-determined to be short or long, detailed or not - and I for one wouldn't agree to doing that here. It's an organic process - let it happen. Tvoz/talk 04:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try to write well. Often, wordy passages can be made more concise. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that your recent edits have introduced errors by removing too much in some places, left unclear text without context, started a section with "Many other politicians" which had no referent for the "other", made arbitrary cuts, left illogical placement of material, etc. I've fixed those that I've seen, but this is counterproductive. This article does not need this kind of drastic editing, as has been said to you by several editors, so please stop the slash and burn and look at what you're doing if edits are needed, rather than making work for others. Tvoz/talk 09:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, reducing the article length should not be achieved at the expense of preventing a clean and logical layout.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Tvoz, you have been making good and great edits regarding this article. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Kimchee's edit

Just an explanation for my reversion of Kimchee's edits yesterday - there must have been some kind of glitch in the system, because when I looked at those edits, the page was jumbled and several photos weren't displaying - I reverted, but my edit summary also mysteriously vaporized. Gremlins at work, clearly. For the record, I have no problem with the changes as reinstated by Ianmacm. Sorry for any confusion! Tvoz/talk 19:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. KimChee (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Daniel Hernandez

I have renominated Daniel Hernandez Jr. for deletion (first AfD closed as no consensus), now that more time has passed and coverage has died down. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr.. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I have merged the pertinent information over to this article. With regards to the delete, I actually !voted for a redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting - Mandsford said it best; “…a redirect is consistent with the essay at WP:1E, where persons famous for one event still get the "honor" (to the extent that having an article on Wikipedia is an honor of some sort) of having their name as a search term”. As there is no references, at this time. of this person except in the context of the event, I believe a redirect is appropriate. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 02:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Political climate; foreign media sources

I have re-added the two removed referrences in the Political Climate section, for they were both from the Netherlands (in Dutch). One is from the Dutch public broadcaster, the other is from the Dutch commercial broadcaster. The referrences that were kept, are from the BBC (=United Kingdom), ARD (=Germany), and VRT (=Belgium). The latter is the public broadcaster of the Dutch-speaking community in Belgium (Flanders), so their main language is Dutch. Perhaps it was this that created confusion (as there were 3 sources/referrences in Dutch language)? If one source has to go, I'd go for the RTL-link, as this is the only commercial referrence. I do, however, think they all have to stay. Robster1983 (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Article really needs cleanup

Just reviewing tonight, it has been a while since I looked at this article, but in this editor's opinion, it needs a lot of work and cleanup. It is full of bias and wording that really surprises me that made it into the article in the first place. I have tried to attempt a bit of a minor cleanup, but if anyone else has a hankerin' to clean it up, that would be fantastic. -- Avanu (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The first part of the article describing the shooting is OK, can't find much wrong with this. The "reactions" section has been the problem area, it is still somewhat messy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any other section you think we should focus on aside from the "reactions" section? – Muboshgu (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I just went through the Aftermath section and removed the subheads which were well meaning, but were inhibiting the flow of the material presented there, all of which was interrelated; also rearranged it in more logical progression; also removed some POV that was added in recent edits, perhaps inadvertently. We are telling the story per sources as it was reported, and the early speculation regarding tea party, Palin, etc., was indeed as we describe and cite. These should not be described as "political reactions" - which is POV (makes a judgment about the reasons people were so speculating) - the simple "Speculation on causation" indicates that these theories were all speculation, but since they were fairly widespread and well-cited, it is completely appropriate to include here. Subsequent comments by pundits are also included, as well as Palin's own objections, in a neutral manner. I think all of this is important in understanding the story and how it was perceived at the time. Some time later perhaps there will be neutral analyses available from reliable sources that will give more perspective on the events. Happy to discuss this here, of course, but let's not get into a revert war.Tvoz/talk 20:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why the titles Political climate or Political reactions are not the best for that section. Or how it is POV. Well...okay, I can see how describing the reactions as "political" is a little problematic in certain cases. But the "political" in the title was simply because the text is mostly, if not only, about politics and the political climate. Even with Palin being a commentator now, she was and still is a political figure. To me, the original title of Political climate is the best. But, anyway, I saw the edits made by Avanu and Tvoz tackling the title, among other things,[7][8] and decided to come to the talk page to see what all the fuss was/is about. Other than that, I agree with Tvoz that this information should be included in the article. I simply have never seen a huge problem with the section. I do wonder, though, why one bit in the section is currently uncited -- the second bit about the crosshairs map. Wasn't that cited before? Flyer22 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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.[9]

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)