Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

tucson?

Is it Tucson or suburb of Tucson (ie. Greater Tucson). CNN says just outside Tucson, which would mean Pima County. 65.94.69.242 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the Arizona Republic it was the Safeway at Ina & Oracle, whose address is 7110 N Oracle Rd, Tucson AZ 85704-4332. 76.126.245.0 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That address would fall within Casas Adobes, it seems. 174.113.185.28 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we cleanup the layout a little bit?

We don't need all those one-sentence/one-paragraph sections or one-sentence paragraphs. Let's try to keep some organization here. –MuZemike 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess as soon more information comes up those sections will be filled with information. I think it is fine.Pencil (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is how things get fleshed out in Wikipedia when you have a real time event, this will be a well-researched article in a matter of hours, Go Wikipedia! --Rarian rakista (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated phrase

The quote from Jason Ogin that states "The motive for the shooting remains unclear" is used twice in the article, which seems redundant. I request someone chooses the appropriate one to keep while removing the other one. Gaandolf (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Things like that happen on an article that's edited so frequently by many editors in a short amount of time. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

She's alive

The hospital reports that she is alive but in critical condition.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ms. Giffords

Can someone please change the status of Ms. Giffords to Representative Giffords? 68.107.27.52 (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)\

10 patients

Seems im listening to the same press brief. however I heard it different. 5 in critical condition, 5(not 4 as in the Article) in surgery, 1 died, the 1 that died was a 9 year old child. It makes more sense, The dead are not patients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.238.120 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

19 people were shot, 6 are dead, and Giffords in critical condition. This was just confirmed at the Pima County Sheriff's News Conference. 216.232.241.43 (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That Safeway is actually in Casas Adobes, Arizona

If you look at the Tucson city map and then compare it to the location on Google Maps for that particular Safeway store, it's clear it's not within the city limits of Tucson. It's actually in the unincorporated area of Casas Adobes, Arizona. That's why the Tucson city police chief just said in the hospital news conference that they don't have any direct responsibility for the investigation. The article should be changed to reflect the correct location of the incident. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, the Tuscon city policy don't have direct responsibility for the investigation because federal officials were attacked and killed, thus placing the investigation under federal jurisdiction. 164.107.251.141 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Coolcaesar is referring to the fact that the location in Casas Adobes is under the jurisdiction of the Pima County Sheriff's Department, and not the Tucson Police Department. APS221 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Piggynuts, 8 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The shooting was in Tucson people, not Casas Adobes. Everyone in Tucson, being born and raised there, talks in terms of "East Side, West Side," NOT by neighborhoods like in most major other US cities. Thus, the shooting occured on the northwest side of Tucson, AZ, not in Casas Adobes.

Piggynuts (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But Casas Adobes is a suburb of the city...--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 22:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Where in a reference does it say it happened in Casas Adobes? There is conflicting references in the article that say it happened in Tuscon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Piggynuts, We understand this was in the Tucson area. However, the location is outside the city limits of Tucson and the Tucson Police Department's jurisdiction. Instead, the location where the shooting occured is under the jurisdiction of the Pima County Sheriff's Department. While people may talk in terms of "East Side, West Side," we should be concerned with specific locations and not approximate areas. APS221 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am proposing that Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords be merged back here. It is an unnecessary spinout of the shooting article, and it can easily be mentioned here without undue weight or size concerns. Moreover Wikipedia is not the news, and this is disproportionate to the treatment of similar tragic incidents. –MuZemike 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Support The section needs trimming, not a separate article. Yoenit (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I support the notion for the same reasons that you voiced.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 23:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I just started an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords for the same reason. If there is consensus that it is better handled as a merger proposal, that is fine with me. I thought AfD was more appropriate since it appears that the merger effectively already occurred, with the over-quoting moved to the forked article. VQuakr (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. Not sure why it was spun out so early in the first place. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support You can find my comment on the AfD page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support. [1] could be linked to as a way to keep a reference to some of the reactions from less-notable folks accessible without weighing down the page. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Wait I can forsee lots of N people putting in their two cents about this --Guerillero | My Talk 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment, the content was copied back into the article by Hakkapeliitta (talk · contribs) Nakon 23:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the consensus even though I think it should be a separate article.

Shows over Lets just archive and move on here... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support for what its worth. There's no need for a second article, and it would go nicely in this one and her own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support per my comment at the AfD. 65.94.44.243 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support No reason to have two articles. Gage (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I SUPPORT this. I say MERGE now. MERGE fast, MERGE, MERGE, MERGE!!!--Subman758 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support I say merge now, let the section bulk out, then only trim it back in another day or two when we can better assess the importance of each statement. - Eliyahu S ^Talk 23:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is actually very bad because it is a tactic and a scheme to burn the information. Merge it then delete it...not very honest, in my opinion. Those that don't want it in the article should allow it to be in a separate article. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, let's be practical. If it is merged, people will just cut it out and leave Boehner and Obama and leave out the Arizonians. Face it, a sub-article enhances knowledge. For example, you can have an article about American history but there is just too much information there. So there is a separate article about the Korean War and a separate article about a specific battle. Likewise, there is the killing article and the reactions article. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT - THE CONTENT WAS ALREADY MERGED BACK INTO THE ARTICLE BY THE ARTICLE'S CREATOR, AND TRIMMED DOWN PER WP:UNDUE - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See this is the Wikipedia equivalent of book burning. There should be a settlement discussion where people decide to either keep the sub-article or merge/keep it in the merge. Not a very honest tactic, in my opinion, to vote for merge then try to kill/burn it once it is merged. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD and redirected it. If anyone wants to merge further material, please take it from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactions_to_shooting_of_Gabrielle_Giffords&oldid=406769002. An AfD was wholly unnecessary. Fences&Windows 23:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The AfD resulted in a merge result, superceding this poll. 65.94.44.243 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An edit suggestion...

I would suggest wikilinking "extended magazine" as follows: The weapon used is to be reported as 9mm Glock pistol^[1] with an extended magazine.^[2] 71.169.185.64 (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Basketball game

Anyone have an opinion on moving the thing about a postponed basketball game below the details of the arrest and the reactions from major political figures? Seems like a more logical order somehow. tomasz. 23:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but the political responses at the bottom seems somehow quite neat and handy. Prokhorovka (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure this needs to be included, it looks like WP:RECENTISM.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Judge killed

MSNBC.com says, "BREAKING NEWS: Federal judge killed in Ariz. attack — NBC News". Sincerely, --24.154.173.243 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Federal judge? Which one? Please link the source, if you have it. Jonathunder (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

John McCarthy Roll was the judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobStaven (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of dead

Pima Co Sheriff noted he had mis-spoke and the number of those who were shot is 18, total.

These [2][3] sources clearly say 6 are dead, not just 1. Nanobear (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's one dead at that hospital. The press brief everybody is watching is from the PoV of that hospital.

Obama just said in his speech that 5 died so far. Turbokoala (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

19 people were shot, 6 are dead, and Giffords in critical condition. This was just confirmed at the Pima County Sheriff's News Conference. 216.232.241.43 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Too quick removal of references?

References named cnn1 and azcentral (probably contained reactions, because I notice these have been taken off) have been removed. Three or four Reactions references to "Arizona Central" basically referred to just one page (the reference to which vanished), so they could have been consolidated. -Mardus (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed one of the errors by flushing the page cache. Nakon 00:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference cnn1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference azcentral was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

wikipedia works fast

It just happened today and yall already got an article about it. im impressed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.58.73 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Casualty Count Needs Updating

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

(CBS News-Tucson)

"Six people are dead and 13 <<not '12'>> wounded after a gunman opened fire at a public meeting held by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona."

68.5.76.19 (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism?

Doesn't this fit the accepted definiton of a terrorist act? If so, it should also be put under "terrorism in the United States."174.101.121.203 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would hold off until we know more about the motivation. The [new york times] gives a description of the shooter.--Banana (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is no widely agreed-upon definition of terrorism. Let's hold off on that for now until we get a number of news organizations calling it that. NW (Talk) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It might, but it's too soon to say. We don't know the motivations of the shooter (though I can't help but wonder if it's a tea party sympathizer taking to those "second amendment remedies"). I was thinking about whether or not it belongs on List of events named massacres, but it's too soon to say. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read this. It seems political with the targeting of all her aides, bear in mind it doesnt have to be by an organised group per Lone wolf terrorism (emphasis on "terrorism"((Lihaas (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)).

Terrorism would seem to be a loaded term to add to any article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research at this point to call the shootings terrorism, since law enforcement, government, and the press have so far not called it that. Edison (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The [new york times] made it clear the motives were uncertain in "The shootings raised questions about potential political motives"(italic added)173.180.214.13 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

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

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/e/2e/b0f/e2eb0f94-2fb9-11df-8820-001cc4c002e0.image.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryancpe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just heard it on CNN that it is confirmed of the shooter's name as mentioned above. –MuZemike 22:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Still not mentioned on their website, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this count as a reliable source then? [4] Its New York magazine, there are also 2 other sources in the article that say he did it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"See also" links

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

Sorry about that, I accidentally deleted comments, this is a section that got lost in the restoration. Cat-five - talk 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Youtube channel of shooter

Is this legit? Classitup10 --BurtAlert (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, join date and video post dates indicate that it is indeed a youtube page of A Jared Loughner but if it is the youtube channel of THE Jared Loughner is another matter. Hackers may have got there etc. etc. 86.134.88.250 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Let's leave this out until a reliable source connects the channel to him, ok? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What Sarek said. See WP:PRIMARY for more. NW (Talk) 21:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also, I just searched for him on Facebook, there was a troll account and this. Could be him. It says he lives in Tuscon, Arizona and it has a picture. --BurtAlert (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Reuters has mentioned the Youtube account. Nanobear (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN has referred repeatedly to the Youtube videos themselves as well as the biographical information included therein (the books Loughner is referenced as listing as favorites). For this article it is a primary source (more important than the MySpace profile), duty is to inform. danielkennedy74 (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Done, since this is clearly the YouTube channel involved and the spelling is "Classitup10".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtube/Classitup10 lists "Website:http://Myspace.com/fallenasleep" in his own profile - not "Craziness he posted on a girl's Myspace" See archived. Classitup10 (Joined:25 October 2010) also lists one favorite - a flag-burning- "America: Your Last Memory In A Terrorist Country!" - the only post by user Starhitshnaz. Joined:02 October 2010. Likely Jared's 2nd account. Same 'interests' eg BCE + ADE, new letters, numbers, currency. Same communication by Syllogism - (If X then Y. X is true. Hence Y is true.) I hope there aren't two similar people !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Reactions

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

Edit request due to protection: please cut out most of these. It makes sense to me to keep the following: Obama, Boehner, Pelosi, McCain, Governor Brewer. (Obama is obvious, Boehner as the speaker, Pelosi as the Democratic majority leader since Giffords is a Democrat, McCain and Brewer since they're the highest profile Arizonans to comment.) 99.55.199.47 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, now has a separate article for the reactions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Someone has untrimmed this. It is way too long, classic recentism and listcruft. However, Sarah Palin's reaction is notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Re this edit. Yes, seriously. This is an important news story, but listing every reaction is non-encyclopedic. This always happens when there is a major news story, things will quieten down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

← The current layout is needlessly crowded. Reference the volume of reactions and pointing out the noteables (including President Obama) is suffcient. We don't need something that looks like "List of people who have reacted to 2011 shooting". -- TRTX ^{T / C} 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I'm pretty happy with how the reactions list has been trimmed but...Fidel Castro? How is he any more notable than other foreign dignitaries who have commented? The only possible link is some of the alleged suspect's supposed reading material, and that is tenuous at best. I move he be removed. 99.55.199.47 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, on further reading, the Cubans semi-recently decried SB1070 and the purchase of Arizona from Mexico. But I still don't think that makes inclusion of Castro's reaction encyclopedic, unless a political motive is shown AND it's noted in the description of his reaction the Cuban opposition to related political moves (which would be overly long and out of line with the other reactions.) 99.55.199.47 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Other Congressional/Senate Assassination Attempts

Have there been any others? If so there should be links. Professor water (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Last one was Leo Ryan in Jonestown, Guyana. Also, Arkansas state chair Bill Gwatney. Not that these should be added to the article; I suggest List of assassinated American politicians be put in a see also section. Abductive (reasoning) 23:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't need anything until we know more. She wasn't assassinated, we don't even know for sure it was an assassination attempt. Trebor (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The List of assassinated American politicians includes federal judges, so it is a nice workaround. Abductive (reasoning) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't know he was "assassinated" either - we don't know motives yet. Trebor (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Trebor beat me to it with the edit conflict, until we know and have a confirmed source saying that she or Judge Rolls was the target we can't really call it an assassination or assassination attempt. Cat-five - talk 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If we need them later the categories I removed a few hours ago right after the shooting was reported were Category:Assassination attempts and Category:Mass murder in 2011 although I think the second one is inaccurate and there's a better category out there for spree killings. Cat-five - talk

It is believed to be the first time that a woman politician has been the object of an assassination attempt in America. Given that the gunman approached and shot her first, it seems clear that she war targeted. But you can still leave it out if you wish. One role of a lead section is to make clear why the topic of the article is notable. Possibly being the first assassination attempt against a female politician in the US would therefore be one important thing to mention. Nanobear (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If I thought that the article needed a link to List of assassinated American politicians now, I would have added it to the article already. Abductive (reasoning) 23:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nanobear, most sources are not yet reporting it as that. Notability is hardly an issue (with regards to deletion), and we can afford to wait until more information becomes available. Trebor (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Assassination does not necessarily need motivation - see [5] Professor water (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Laughner

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

It is Jared Lee Loughner with an o. Prodego ^talk 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As more information comes out I am sure Jared Lee Loughner will have his own article here on wikipedia as this is a major event (1) and (2) at least 5 people were killed and he was captured alive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Only if there is enough info to make it worthwhile. If everything important can be covered here, then that would be preferred. Trebor (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait and see. He's almost certainly in a "black bag" somewhere for at least the next 24 hours. Shooting a congressperson is not exactly a minor event and the Feds are sure to want to know if he acted alone or not. Why he did this will probably take a day or two to come out. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Screed from shooter before Myspace page pulled

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

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

Lets wait for the media to announce it first. primary sources are discouraged. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's mandate to determine the motive. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Unabomber's page(s) should be taken as a guide for dealing with any manifesto this guy put out. Once a reliable source has reproduced what was on his myspace page, be it the above text or otherwise, it should be reproduced and referenced in the article. Good job so far with this article, fellas. - Gwopy 02:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Suspicious package

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

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

Section on "other victims"

I think we should create a new section about the other victims. I just read that the nine-year-old girl had just been elected to her student council, and was brought to the event by a neighbor who thought she'd enjoy it. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/08/20110108arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-shooting-victims-brk08-ON.html Chadlupkes (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a list of known victims, in alphabetical order. Although there's little question that Giffords was the primary target, the article should not discriminate between her and "other" victims, particularly with others more severely injured (i.e. killed). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts on balance of article: If it becomes clear that Rep Giffords was indeed the target of this attack, I think that we should allow the listing of facts related to her inasmuch as they pertain to the attack be allowed to shift the balance in this article. Of course, a link to her own article should be listed immediately below the title of her subsection.

I came here, though, because I had been trying to find an encyclopaedia article about Christina Taylor Green. I have found some news reports about her, but nothing here at Wikipedia. I wrote a piece that has the feel of an obiot in which I have cited references. It is at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=495023359642. The image might not be public domain - I snagged it from a news article online. If anyone wants to grab it and use it, do feel free. I don't need to be listed as an author - I expect that the citations and references that I used should be sufficient. 174.124.171.153 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Pink Muslimah

Image of Judge Roll

Per WP:NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Best to find a free image or leave it for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He was a federal judge. Shouldn't there be an official image which is in the public domain because it's a work of the federal government? --Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

However this is resolved, we certainly should have an image of the judge in this article. bd2412 T 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If a copyright free image turns up, it can be used without a problem, the LIFE magazine image is unsuitable. As a judge, there may be a public domain image somewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

News overwhelmingly says "in Tucson"

Per a comment at Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords#In.2Fnear_Tucson, the news outlets are overwhelmingly calling the site of the shooting "in" as opposed to "near" Tucson. Relevant links include Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau American FactFinder. The address of the Safeway store is listed as Tucson, and the ZIP code of the area is 85704, Tucson. I edited the text, but again reliable sources are heavily in favor of "in Tucson". Sswonk (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A trend toward revising the location to "near" or just outside Tucson has been observed and discussed in great detail at the talk topic linked above and at the end here. The tragedy happened outside Tucson limits in an unincorporated area that, due to the discretion of the USPS, is nevertheless addressed as Tucson. However, "near" now seems to be more accurate and supported in my view. Please see Talk:Gabrielle_Giffords#In.2Fnear_Tucson. Sswonk (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Recentism

I am sorry but this article is full of recentism. I feel like half of things won't be relevant in 6 months. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC):Today's version is not the "final edition." Early on, an article about a current event grows by accretion from each subsequent news story. In a few days, a major rewrite would be desirable. What are you saying here? Do you claim that the shooting death of a federal judge, the killings of several other bystanders, and the attempted assassination of a US Representative are just of passing interest? What part of the article would you leave out? Edison (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Claiming recentism on an event that happened 12 hours ago? That's funny. I think most of this info will still be relevant, except that which is changed by further developments. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NTEMP. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Major news story per WP:GNG. Articles like this always get off to a shaky start, but things will settle down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

From my experiences working on similar breaking stories, I'd say this one has gone rather smoothly so far. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal from Main Page "In the news"

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

Yes of course it should, I am in the UK and it is the top BBC news story at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

OOODDD, you could equally argue we shouldn't feature anything at all in the ITN section because "similar events happen all the time around the world but [are] not featured." wacky wace 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AZCENTRAL.COM as a source

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

Even CNN, BBC etc do this sometimes. Again, best to wait for things to settle down as this is breaking news. Using WebCite might lead to out of date information, better to update the links as required.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I view it as a good thing when a source tries to be more reliable by updating as new info comes in.--Guerillero | My Talk 04:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AZcentral contains content from the Arizona Republic, the Tucson Citizen, and KPNX-TV, among others. Those all meet WP:RS. Webcite if needed, but I don't see why the source should be considered unreliable. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And the specific piece used in this article was written by "The Arizona Republic/12News Breaking News Team". I don't think rapid updating is really an issue; other news sites also continously update their pages when information changes. Also, the page seems to have been stable for a long time now. Nanobear (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The NYTimes is doing that for this story, as well. I had a browser tab open to that page (an NYT article) and I just kept refreshing it every once in a while to get new details. First she was dead, then they changed the text that she may be alive, with a note about conflicting reports. Then they changed the note and said that she was definitely alive, in unknown condition. Then they added hospital comments about her condition. I think that this is a fairly common practice in the Internet news world. Otherwise, people would still run around linking to a page that said she was dead, for example, as "proof" of a report of her death that was an exaggeration. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 10:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably the best way for these types of breaking events, with dynamically changing content at a URL, is to quote the relevant fact in the citation. Here's a nicely done example from the article, whoever did this understood that YouTube videos don't stick around forever:

<ref name="ap-hospital-update">{{cite news | last = Rhee | first = Peter | date = 2011-01-08 | title = Hospital Update on Tucson Shooting | url = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olRzqPvcetI | language = English | publisher = YouTube | agency = [[Associated Press]] | location = [[Tuscon, Arizona]] | at = 01m0s | quote = "I'm very optimistic about [Giffords'] recovery. [...] The person that did die here at the hospital was a young child. [...] Gabrielle Gifford's condition was very optimistic and she was following commands. }} This press conference was also replayed on [[CNN]] in the United States, including at 23:00 [[UTC]]/6:02 p.m. [[Eastern time (United States)|EST]]/4:02 p.m. [[Mountain time|MST]].</ref>

Thus if for whatever reason the content at the URL changes or disappears, it can still be verified by Googleing the quoted sentence in the cite to find another source. Without the quoted sentence, it's much harder to verify and thus more likely, over time, to be deleted from the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Judge or judge?

Minor point, but I've seen both "Federal Judge" and "Federal judge" used in the article; which is correct? One should be picked and stuck with throughout the article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, "federal judge" would be best, unless it is part of a title. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Number wounded

The claim made by azcentral.com that 19 were wounded (though it's used to source the number 18) is erroneous and I've removed it. Other news agencies are saying that there were 18-19 people shot in total. The sheriff reported that 19 were shot, and his spokesman said it was at least 18[6], but that should be the only confusion. All other agencies are reporting six deaths. See below for further evidence.

List of the reported wounded from other major news agencies
CNN - 12 Fox News - 13+ ("more than a dozen") MSNBC - 13 ABC News - 13 Sky News - 13 NY Times - 13 Chicago Tribune - 13 Sydney Morning Herald - "at least 12" or 13 The Guardian - 13

I would put in the article that 13 were wounded then as that is what most sources agree on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would put a range until the final numbers come out. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The azcentral claim is consistent with the other ones. 19 victims = 6 deaths + 13 wounded. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see they reworded it, yet KPNX is saying 19 total. So somebody probably screwed up the last version of the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Pima County Sheriff

The article has it that Pima County Sheriff is Dave Alpert, but two separate CNN articles say that the sheriff is Clarence Dupnik. A google search on "dave alpert" "pima county" only yields this Wikipedia article and another, unrelated link. -Mardus (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's Dupnik. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

looks like someone else got to it before me. Its done nevertheless. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

It is unclear if the Pima Country Sheriff actually stated the username of Loughner's YouTube account as the current wording says. The sources cited at that point do mention both the YouTube account name and statements by the sheriff, but not that the sheriff divulged the account name. -Mardus (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Who was shot first

I removed the claim that the gunman shot Giffords first because,

The source is this Telegraph article which itself merely quotes Gawker, which I don't think is a Reliable Source, quoting a witness.
This NY Times article quotes another witness who says that Judge Roll was shot first.

guanxi (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any definitive source right now for who was shot in what order. There probably will be eventually, but until we have sourcing that's beyond question, I agree that we can and should simply not address who was shot first. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction to my above post: The NY Times reports both Kimble, who describes Judge Roll being shot first (though it's not 100% clear) and Rayle, who is also Gawker's witness, saying it was Giffords. guanxi (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mass murder"?

In the first sentence of the article, the event is described as a mass murder, but nobody has been convicted of a murder charge for these crimes in a U.S. court. It's homicide at the moment, and homicide isn't necessarily murder.fds^Talk 07:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, for all we know it could have been a targeted assassination attempt.--Novus Orator 07:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The "mass murder" phrase was removed from the WP:LEAD, as it makes an excessive judgment about the motive and verdict in any future court case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Victims

Anything wrong with putting a list up of names/ages of victims? --\/\/slack (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unless you have multiple reliable sources that have released that information. Personally, I think for privacy reasons, it would be wiser to wait for a few more days.--Novus Orator 07:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Such sources are already available for some victims. Abductive (reasoning) 08:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could name the victims, but there shouldn't be something like a bulleted list per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. wacky wace 09:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Identifying the victims in an easy-to-read format is not a "memorial"; it's simply information about the incident. WP:NOTMEMORIAL contains no mention whatsoever of bullet lists. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Unbalanced" tags

The addition of the {{unbalanced}} tags would be acceptable in good faith, except that the tagging editor had never participated in the editing nor discussion of the article. I have invited this editor to comment on here to make sure it is not a case of WP:DRIVEBY. KimChee (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You certainly have a point but I intended to participate in the discussion. Actually I am.Agcala (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As above, see WP:DRIVEBY. Please edit/discuss rather than tagging at the moment, this is a fast changing story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Assault or Assasination

Hi. What could this shooting be called so ? Is it an Assault or an Assasination ? Gary Dee (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See above sections. Most media reports are still calling this a shooting incident, judgments about the motive run into WP:BLP issues and could prejudice a future court case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thx. I do not know if you already read this, so if it should be that, the motivation, you could call it an Assassination, right ? --Gary Dee (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In situations like this, Wikipedia is guided by WP:BLP. There has been a torrent of media speculation about the motive, eg here suggesting her pro-abortion and health care stance as a possible motive. At the moment, the focus is on the shooter's mental health, let's leave it at that.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We should of course weigh up what the reliable sources (for instance, relevant government agencies, the local Sheriff's department, etc) say, but if the reports of a man approaching and firing a handgun at point blank range are accurate that is more of an assassination attempt than a mere "assault" or even an "aggravated assault." It isn't like walking up and slapping, kicking or punching someone. It's a clear demonstration of lethal intent. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the presumed intended target, Giffords, is alive, it could only be an 'attempted assassination anyway. For now, 'shooting' is best though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel so because of shooting hints on a comparability to any school schooting or other massacres committed in amok. Worse, the article's name wrongly states the location of being in Tuscon, what isn't true. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Shooting" is probably the best option to stay with, it might be compared to incidents at Virginia tech or Fortworth from an encyclopedic stand-point. It seems to fit the best under that term, especially since its a developing story and more info about motives might come out. Theo10011 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page autoarchiving

I set up auto-archiving on the talk page, currently for 1 day until things have settled down. Feel free to adjust. Kelly ^hi! 17:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I felt free to adjust it to 3 days. I will give 3 reasons for why I think a 1 day archive time limit ill-serves the purpose of having a discussion page for this article. I think that:

the discussion is not that long yet,
many who visit this page may be unaware of the archiving or how to find archived posts, and
the discussion of many issues will not and cannot be resolved within just 1 day. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, whatever folks here think is best. Kelly ^hi! 20:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fidel's reaction

Seeing that this is on the front poage of wikipedia under news I thought it was fitting to add the info to the article. Here are some sources to back it up: (Winnipedfreepress), (Metronews), (The telegram). Wouldnt this fall under an international reaction? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tucsonarizona07, 9 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Done

THis line should be deleted: During the campaign, Kelly asked his supporters to help him remove Giffords from office by joining him at a fundraiser where attendees were given the chance to shoot a fully loaded M16 rifle.[13] The article referenced does not mention Kelly and there is no evidence that the shooter was at the particular fundraiser.

Tucsonarizona07 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the ref, and you are right. I've removed the information from the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed/ Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

the image was ....

The image was removed from the website after the shooting - if someone wants to add this please site it because this article currently supporting it does not suport it. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09capital.html - it says only that the image is no longer on the website. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's not supported by the source, just remove it. Kelly ^hi! 18:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Claim in the article the the picture remains on facebook

There is a claim that the picture of the crosshair remains on facebook but I can't see it in the link http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=373854973434 am I missing it? Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, that is it??? Wow, I was expecting something more. Those are not threatening they are just targeted states. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the Facebook link for now anyway per WP:PRIMARY. Kelly ^hi! 18:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a blue map of the USA, the target constituencies are white/grey crosshairs. As Geraldo Rivera pointed out, it may be a media fuss over nothing, as people have been reading things into the map that are not clear at first sight.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling Sarah Palin's crosshair map a fuss over nothing is untrue. Giffords complained about it months ago, and now she is shot in the head. I edited the entry to say that the crosshair map was removed after the shooting, as was reported on the news. My edit appears to still be up in the article, along with what looks like a unduely overlong list of rebuttals by right-wing pundits (compared to the number of left wing pundits). Not that I am saying those should be removed, as it shows what a game-changer this event has become. Abductive (reasoning) 19:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Stacy McCain could probably be removed, as he's less significant than Kurtz or York. I think it's fairly balanced between left-wing and right-wing barring that. Kelly ^hi! 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

When I saw for the first time the picture that people have been suggesting had some part of blame in the awful situation I couldn't believe my eyes. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that is because of your internal feelings, because there as plenty of reliable secondary sources that say exactly that. Abductive (reasoning) 19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the image is standard political nonsense, but when it came out last year there was debate about this being beyond the pale. That someone called out with crosshairs on the map has since been shot, and that Palin's team removed the image shortly after the shootings signals a tacit acknowledgement by the Palin camp that the image is inappropriate. That the Pima sheriff has also gone to lengths to point out the damaging effect or irresponsible political rhetoric, and that the media has picked up on this image as an example of such, make the map relevant to this event. Granted, this represents a bit of a sideshow since the motives and beliefs of the shooter are still unknown beyond "generally anti-government". Hiberniantears (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

- Its nothing more than a bigoted democratic partisan attack on Sarah Palin while a good woman lies fighting for her life and five others also and five dead, that is a disgusting political sickener. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To some extent, yes. However, the woman fighting for her life was "targeted" by a right wing politician who's use of gun imagery is well known. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

She who lives by the sword dies by the sword. Abductive (reasoning) 19:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above, but per the BLP noticeboard discussion, there is no direct link between the map and the shooting at present. Giffords' complaints about the image at the time are OK for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

On March 25, 2010 the congresswoman specifically made reference to SarahPAC/Palin's use of the map with crosshair sights icons followed by a list of candidates which included her. It is more than a bigoted attack for commentators to bring that to the conversation, it is repeating a concern expressed by someone who was later shot in the head that political rhetoric using gun imagery had gone too far, beyond what had ever occurred in her lifetime. She did not use the exact words but hinted that it was reckless and dangerously provocative. That is in so many words what Giffords said about the map imagery 10 months ago. Sswonk (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Assassination attempt

The FBI (according to its director) has said that Giffords was the attacker's intended target. Thus this would be an assassination attempt. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems likely. Best to wait for a consensus of secondary sources to come to that conclusion. Abductive (reasoning) 19:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Two news reports not involving the FBI, including one eyewitness said Giffords was the target (Gunman was screaming) Hakkapeliitta (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? I notice that the category has weaseled it's way back into the article despite there being a very noticeable lack of consensus and no confirmation that she, the judge, or any other single individual was the target. I'm going to remove it and suggest that a consensus be reached before re-adding it. Cat-five - talk 19:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords being the target does not make it an "assassination attempt". There's more to the normal definition than that. --FormerIP (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

From Dictionary.com
as·sas·si·nate
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.

to kill suddenly or secretively, esp. a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.

to destroy or harm treacherously and viciously: to assassinate a person's character.

Cat-five - talk 19:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Really that's a broad definition that could apply to almost any premeditated murder but since we're arguing about what defines an assassination that's as good a definition as we'll get. Cat-five - talk 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That look's like it came from a pocket dictionary, so we could get a better definition by looking somewhere else. "Assassinate" is usually used to infer a political motive, or else what would you say distinguishes it from "murder"? --FormerIP (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely an assassination attempt, but I think the event speaks for itself. If there is resistance to including this in the article until more information is known about the shooter's motives, then this is a reasonable request. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My objection isn't so much calling it an assassination attempt it's putting the category in without being able to back it up in the article which we can't do until we have more verifiable information saying that it was an assassination attempt. If the FBI director (see above) angle pans out and his comments are added into the article and sourced well I could definitely see that as being verifiable proof of an assassination attempt. Although it isn't required to call it an assassination I think it would be more credible to be able to have in the article who the target was too before we say this was the gunman trying to assassinate __blank__ person.

Sirhan Sirhan did not have any identifiable motive, yet we still call Bobby Kennedy's assassination an assassination. Motive doesn't matter: See James Fallows:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/the-nuances-of-political-violence.html

The FBI Director and the Sheriff have indicated now that the Congresswoman was the target.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/01/fbis_mueller_charges_today.php?ref=fpblg

Why this strange resistance on WP to calling it an assassination attempt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.168.136 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not verified. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLP. Whatever the media says (and it has said plenty in the last 24 hours), articles must be verifiable and not prejudice any future trial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to wait for all the informtion to come in --Guerillero | My Talk 19:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability issues aside, I just want to note that I've always understood "assassination" (in common usage) to refer to the premeditated killing of a public figure (typically limited to prominent politicians/activists/religious leaders, high-ranking government officials, royalty or similar). Beyond that, I've never heard of a perpetrator's motive being a factor in determining whether the term "assassination" applies. If the gunman intentionally targeted Giffords, this was an assassination attempt (irrespective of whether he did so because he disliked her politics, because he suffered from paranoid delusions or for some other reason). —David Levy 20:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He is charged with "attempted assassination of a member of congress," "two counts of killing an employee of the federal government and two counts of attempting to killing a federal employee" per the New York Times. The article should state what the suspect is charged with, but should not label him as guilty. Call him "accused" etc. Edison (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of victims

The article currently claims both 12 wounded 6 dead - and 20 shot in total. 12 + 6 is not 20. CNN in three articles I checked has 12 wounded, BBC has 12 wounded in two articles and 20 total in a third. The links above seem to mention 19 total reported yesterday. We need to find one correct number here. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the section "Number wounded" above here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I even said that I had. How does that comment help solve the error in the article? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's 14 wounded & 6 killed. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the number. Thanks for pointing it out. Gbraing (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence style

Moved from User talk:Gyrobo#2011 Tucson shooting

Regarding your reversion:
1. Please see WP:SBE. How does repeating our arbitrary article title in bold increase understanding of the subject?
2. I didn't start a sentence with a number. I replaced "eighteen" with "18" because it no longer fell at the beginning of a sentence. —David Levy 14:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You and Tvoz are insisting 18 but news reports a day later say 20. A ref is provided in the artilce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkapeliitta (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1.WP:SBE is an unofficial essay representing personal preference; WP:BOLDTITLE allows bold text for descriptive titles. I prefer bold text for article titles because, in my view, while the entire lead my describe an overview of the subject, the sentence with bold text defines what the subject is – in this case, an event.

2.Other numbers in a similar context are spelled out.

3.I think SBE relies on some pretty flimsy logic. Articles already have a rather large title at the top of the page. Nothing in the lead could have more weight than that. I think it also misrepresents WP:DICTIONARY by conflating style with semantics.

--Gyrobo (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, WP:SBE is an essay. I'm citing it as an explanation of the reasoning behind my edit.

The aforementioned WP:BOLDTITLE states that "if the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." Based upon the examples, the optional exception for "simple descriptions" appears to refer to instances in which the article's title can be used in a manner maintaining its purely descriptive context (e.g. "The history of the United States traditionally starts...").

How, in your opinion, does repeating the article's arbitrary title help to define its subject? As you point out, the same phrase, word-for-word, is displayed as a large heading at the top of the page. How does duplication in the lead improve readers' understanding?

2. Per the Manual of Style, we usually render numbers lower than 10 as words and render all other numbers (except those appearing at the beginnings of sentences) as figures. Alternatively, we can spell out all one-word numbers, but that style hasn't been applied to this article.

Why did you imply that I started a sentence with a number (when in fact, I eliminated such an instance)?

3. Every article requires a title, and it's widely understood that this isn't necessarily the subject's official name. For example, no one would assume that David Healy (footballer) is the man's name. It's obvious that "David Healy" is a combination of his first name and surname, while "footballer" is a description of his profession (included to distinguish him from other persons known as "David Healy"). The lead contains the bold phrase "David Jonathan Healy," the man's full name. Wouldn't it be rather silly to replace this with "David Healy (footballer)"?

In the case of yesterday's shooting, unlike Healy's case, there is no official name. But that doesn't mean that it makes sense to substitute the title that we've arbitrarily selected for our article, thereby falsely implying that it carries formal significance.

I've implemented a compromise that includes a similar description in bold without implying that it's the subject's official name. I hope that this is mutually acceptable. —David Levy 15:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1. The phrase isn't exactly duplicated, the first instance is the standalone title of the article, the second is in the context of a definition. Like I said earlier, bold text helps a reader visually determine the location of the subject's definition.

2. I didn't notice that the period had been replaced by a comma, sorry. I thought it was awkward to use 19 as a numeral while "six" was spelled out in the same sentence, and WP:ORDINAL allows either "19" or "nineteen" in this case.

Your compromise solution works for me, but I still think that SBE suffers from several logical flaws and shouldn't be relied upon.

--Gyrobo (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1. I agree with your point about bold text in general. I just don't regard text as helpful when it appears to refer to a formal designation that doesn't actually exist (irrespective of whether the text is displayed in bold). I'm glad that the compromise version addresses both your concern and mine.

2. Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining.

3. In my opinion, no essay (and few policies or guidelines, for that matter) should be blindly relied upon. This one elaborates on the relevant aspect of WP:BOLDTITLE, so I cited it as a means of explaining the general reasoning behind my edits. While I often link to policies, guidelines and essays, I would never argue that we should do anything "because [x page] says so." Such pages are descriptive (not prescriptive), sometimes contain flaws and usually have exceptions.

Anyway, thanks very much for taking the time to discuss this with me. :) —David Levy 16:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox info

The infobox should list the 7110 N. Oracle Rd. address. This is encyclopedic.

We aren't listing someone's home address, which is a no-no. But don't get confused and think we should do the same here.

Reagan was shot in 1981. That WP article has a subarticle about the Washington Hilton and the exact address is listed.

If there is no address, we are just being general. We are even fighting to say only Tucson. Let's not dumb down to people.

Hakkapeliitta (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Reagan article and this article are handled THE EXACT SAME WAY. Reagan assassination attempt doesn't list the address. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Reagan shooting or the Kennedy assassination for that matter took place outside a building so in those cases the location of the shooter does matter in the articles' context. In Tucson though the spree happened inside a random supermarket, so there's no need here for detailed addresses and locations. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Very nonsensical. Reagan and JFK outside a building so notable? Inside a building not notable? Well look here http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/09/arizona.shooting.wrestled.gunman/index.html?hpt=T2 the shooting was outside. Therefore, De728631 favors inclusion of the location based on his reasoning of an outside shooting. If he changes then he is just giving excuses. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The address is notable to the structure, not the event. The address of the Washington Hilton is listed at the page for the Washington Hilton and not the assassination attempt. If this Safeway were to become notable enough for a page, the address would be listed there, and not here. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

People come here for info. Why is the exact time of 10;11 am listed...for info. If you don't want the exact street adress then at least teh intersection. Also De728631's criteria supports me. He said that addresses are improtant if it happened outside. This shooting was outside according to CNN. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The address is notable to the structure, not the event. The time is relevant to the event. WP:STICK --Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll note that I have blocked Hakkapeliitta for breaking the three-revert rule. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

[cnn1-1] Cite error: The named reference cnn1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[azcentral-2] Cite error: The named reference azcentral was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]