![]() | 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 4 |
It seems like this guy's mindset, background and motivations will be an important component of the historical record over time. The "why" of this event is yet to be determined, but it will center, to some extent, around Jared Lee Loughner.
574jerry ( talk) 22:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This person needs to be expanded on. if it is redirected there is no reason for more information to be added. Lets leave it for a little while if no one contributes then redirect. Don't kill the article before it has a chance.
( Savagemic ( talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC))
Though the article mentions a "former classmate" claiming he was "liberal when she knew him" (...knew him how well? There's no clarification on this, is there...?), and some of the other details, such as reading the Communist Manifesto and being critical of "religion" might suggest a left-wing radical, I would like to caution future editors to be very careful of stating things without citations as we get an influx of more news and commentary on the issue, or that matter, listing him as explicitly "left-wing" - or "right-wing" for that matter - since while being a fan of the Communist Manifesto certainly isn't "conservative", "returning to the gold standard" is also NOT a liberal position nor is anti-federalism necessarily a liberal position either, in the US; the American left-wing is actually generally pro-federalist and against the gold standard, whereas the right-wing is likely to support "states' rights" and more likely to support a gold or silver standard. Moreover, there is such a thing as what an American would classify as a "social conservative" who is an atheist (Christopher Hitchens, for instance), so the anti-religion thing isn't exactly exclusive to the left wing either.
In short, this guy seems to have views from all across the spectrum; even if he were to claim he was "liberal" or "conservative", I would want editors to be aware that he does supposedly hold some very conservative views in terms of the US political scene alongside his many alleged liberal ones, and that this should be made clear for, well, clarity's sake. Most of all, I want to make sure we don't get too bad of an edit war on this thing, because this is the kind of politically-involved story that will get one side accusing the other having spawned a monster and then the next side gets indignant and then next thing you know, the article's locked and people are wishing they hadn't touched the Talk page. :P
Also... honestly, the fact that he thinks there is a "5% literacy rate" in any part of Arizona... pure OR speculation here, but I'm wondering if by "literacy" he means "hip to the same Truth [he is]". Particularly since the Congresswoman he shot apparently was in favor of public education and against the oft-criticized No Child Left Behind act (hardly surprising for a Democrat, as that's a liberal/Democratic standby) meanwhile, he seems to have been bizarrely fixated on a lack of "literacy" at the same time as he was claiming that a community college was "unconstitutional" (an argument so out of the mainstream of either side that I've never come across it before, to be honest). Honestly, he sounds just flat-out psychotic (I don't mean that as a generic pejorative, either; I mean it literally, as in, paranoid schizophrenic or the like, seeing conspiracies everywhere, assuming he himself has the only access to The Truth, described as having been prone to "random outbursts" and problems with authority figures since his teen years, etc.).
HOWEVER, even though this is an easy, obvious assumption to make, keep in mind what I am - that it's still an opinion! I won't be surprised if he gets some kind of mental illness diagnosis, I'm sure many people won't, BUT until anything is official, be careful about adding such speculation! Even if others make it, make sure it's clear who is making it, and what if any basis they have for it; if you don't know, either don't add it, or add that it "isn't clear".
Let's try to keep this article super-accurate so we have fewer headeaches! :) 68.202.85.105 ( talk) 08:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_78272a23-fe75-5bee-ba38-f8171cda3fb7.html -- Gregory pecker ( talk) 18:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Photoshopped hoax of registration page from AZ Secretary of State googuse ( talk) 16:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no way you could access this information unless you had his VoterID number or Drivers License information. Goodmorninworld9 ( talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)goodmorninworld9
The constant redirects from this article are not proper wikipedia policy. If anyone feels that the article should not belong then please do a formal request to delete the article, otherwise the redirects are obviously being challenged.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The Columbine shooter was rejected from the military because he was on anti-depressants. I wonder if this guy was too. Would his medical records be closed till the trial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.42.133.231 ( talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, if Loughner can be classified as a failed assassin prior to conviction, then why couldn't he be considered a mass murderer? If a conviction is required for one, then shouldn't it be required for both? - Janers0217 ( talk) 10:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
As he hasn't been tried yet, isn't it contempt of court to refer to him as either?-- 82.207.96.223 ( talk) 12:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Gabrielle Giffords's official YouTube channel ( http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2 ) is subscribed to only two channels. One is the official YouTube channel of Congressman Ike Skelton, and the other is that of Jared Lee Loughner ( http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10 ). 188.102.7.187 ( talk) 12:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So the Caitie Parker tweets which have been widely reported on include one saying she was in a band with Loughner. Has this band name been reported?-- Milowent • talk blp-r 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I just removed an OR addition of a book about " concious dreaming". Yes, he might mean "conscious dreaming", but he clearly writes "conscience dreaming". Does conscience dreaming make sense? No, but then much of what he writes doesn't make much sense either. -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."
The Guardian is being cited [1] for this statement: "Loughner also stood out as a vigorous atheist in a religious part of the world.". To me, that doesn't seem to be 'self-identified', and on that basis, I am removing the description of Loughner as 'an atheist' from the 'Views' section. If someone can find a source for self-identified atheism, and show why it is relevant, it can of course go back in. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Then What's the problem? -- Protostan ( talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to figue out if the shooter qualifies as this sort of philosopher. -- Protostan ( talk) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Any references claiming he is an atheist need to be removed because it's speculative and prejudicial. Also, various news sources are providing photographic evidence that he worshipped the occult
[2]
Zillimeter (
talk)
00:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, folks, ya think we could edit any faster? ( edit conflict) more than twice a minute? Anyway, there seem to be ample sources re his atheism, and it's gone to and fro a bunch; anyone at 3RR, yet? Jack Merridew 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
So we've got two major news sources and a people who knew him agreeing. What more evidence is needed? -- Protostan ( talk) 01:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Compromise suggestion: How about we remove the ", an atheist," from the first sentence, and change "Classmates noted that Loughner was critical of religion." to read "Classmates said Loughner was an atheist and noted that he was critical of religion." It makes sense that the religious-related descriptions should go together anyways. Flodded ( talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I suggest that this debate should move to BLP/N. It is difficult enough having multiple articles involving the Giffords shooting, without having to engage in the same argument in two different places. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
A single sentence noting "Loughner was also critical of religion, and identified as an atheist." was added by another editor (and the opening ", an atheist" removed); I merged the atheism bit because the text about classmates being critical of religion was being duplicated; this is now along the lines of what was proposed above. I hope this satisfies everyone for the time being. The discussion is still on BLP/N ( Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jared_Lee_Loughner) as to whether this material should be included at all without additional sources. Flodded ( talk) 03:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} In the last paragraph of the Views section, it mentions a post on Myspace "the morning of the shooting," but previous paragraphs don't mention a shooting. This should say something like "the morning of his 2011 arrest" or "the morning of the 2011 Tucson shooting" since the shooting is not yet in context in the article. gfiumara ( talk) 00:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Done Makes sense, I made it reference the date as requested.
Flodded (
talk)
00:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There was a lot of information about the arrest on that page that wasn't here. It seemed appropriate to copy much of it verbatim into the "2011 arrest" section. Is there any reason we shouldn't be copying pretty much anything directly related to him from there? It seems there are other pieces where there's more information about Loughner on the 2011 shooting page, but this is supposed to be the main article about Loughner...I see no reason not to flesh this out with anything relevant that shows up there. Flodded ( talk) 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Chip Berlet, the classmate source who mentioned the abortion issue, stated that Jared mocked the woman who read a poem about an abortion, and said the fetus should strap on a bomb and blow up. The idea that from this statement you should conclude Jared is pro-life is absurd. There is NO INDICATION whatsoever that Jared is pro-life, and to infer that in his views is false. If anything, being that he is a fervent atheist, it is much more likely he is pro-choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 ( talk) 02:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
In the article it states the shooting took place on September 8, 2011 at 10 am. Should say January 8, 2011 at 10 am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.24.182.169 ( talk) 04:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thought I'd propose such a reasonably large change here first...
I suggest we split this into two sections: "Tucson Shooting" and "Arrest and Legal Proceedings".
The latter section is likely to grow quite a bit in the coming months, and potentially require subsections of its own. I think it makes sense to keep the shooting part (which really should just be a blurb as it would be, since it has its own article) separate from the arrest and any further legal action/etc, since those are more relevant to Loughner himself. Flodded ( talk) 05:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I am removing the television psychologist's comments. It is the sole mention of motivation, by a psychologist who has never interviewed Loughner, and thus is obviously just a guess as to his motivation. Adelson Velsky Landis ( talk) 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says "Photos on the Myspace page showed a close-up picture of an automatic handgun sitting atop a document titled "United States History."
http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/myspace2.jpg
That is a semi-automatic handgun, not an automatic handgun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinai462003 ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The image of the prison in Tucson is cationed "U.S. Penitentiary, Tucson, where Loughner is being held." Is he still being held there? I heard on the radio that he had been transferred to a facility in Phoenix. His court appearance was in Phoenix. Dsmdgold ( talk) 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Due to the low resolution of the image, it appears to me as if the media is using it to put a bad light on similar looking people. I think the presses manipulation of this image is racist.
You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm glad I haven't contributed any money to the travesty known as Wikipedia. Jeremy stalked (law 296) 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Abductive, please don't revert again to the redirect. If people disagree with the AfD result, it should be taken to DRV. If reverting continues and the page is protected, it will stop everyone from improving it, so please go to DRV instead. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 09:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - According to WP:ONEVENT, "assassins of major political leaders" are generally notable enough to have their own articles. Based on that, I think this discussion should boil down to whether one of the 535 members of the United States Congress counts as a "major political leader" or not. As someone in Giffords' district, my "vote" would be too biased, so I'm leaving it as just a comment. -- MarkGyver ( talk) 20:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
dontCloseThisDamnAFDBecauseYoullBeMakingThingsWorse}}
? --
slakr\
talk /
23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Somebody keeps adding that this guy was a radical liberal, despite the lack of reliable sources corroborating it. The Telegraph article says nothing about him being a left or right winger for that matter. So please do not add it unless it is explicitly stated in a reliable source. Thank you. Likeminas ( talk) 20:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked at that talk page. I welcome the addition of conflicting sourced information. Let's be inclusive and err on the side of completeness. Whatever the NYT reports is good enough for me, even if Twitter was involved. -- Y not? 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Caitie Parker, who claimed she knew the suspect in high school four years earlier, described him as having been "" left wing", quite liberal", [1] and a " political radical." [2] [3] [4] [5]
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
I found these articles that might help with this issue.
and this article's piece look like it could be added into the article Conservatives looking to label Loughner as liberal have also pointed to Tweets from one apparent former friend who wrote he had once been "very liberal" and added, "he was leftwing when I knew him in hs & college, 3 years ago. So he may have changed, who knows."
Ultimately, it seems illegitimate to tie Loughner to the mainstream right or mainstream left, as his beliefs were well within the realm of the fringe. Indeed, Loughner appears to have simply been a disturbed individual who lacked a coherent political philosophy other than a deep-seated anti-government sentiment. 21:49 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028022-503544.html Likeminas ( talk) 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
“ | He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right." [1] [2] [3] | ” |
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
-- Hu12 ( talk) 18:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I would think it useful to know his parents' political affiliations. While he is a 22 year old grown man (physically), with no known political affiliations, I would think that his parents' views would have more influence on his outlook than any outside influence. Does anyone know them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.247.24 ( talk) 18:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I just added material relating statements by Loughner's best friend one what did and did not influence his worldview, along with the source, which is World News with Diane Sawyer, which is produced by ABC News. Hope this helps. Nightscream ( talk) 20:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The IPA was added because of the different pronunciation of the English words cough and tough. Media reports seem to agree on the "cough" pronunciation of Loughner, but there is room for debate about how to pronounce the r. I had a look in the dictionary for laughter and it ended in ə, but the main issue is consistency, because the IPA is in 2011 Tucson shooting as well.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I briefly heard a newsman make a snide comment about his name being polish and he pronounced it as Lochner. Perhaps he is more Anglixized than he realizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.136.5 ( talk) 07:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
As an Az citizen who was born in Tucson I think this page should be renamed the Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt or something like that. Tucson is a pretty violent city there is without a doubt going to be several more "shootings" of whatever sort in Tucson sometime before the end of the year. 2011 Tucson shooting is way too vague. I don't think the article needs to be merged, more people will remember Gifford's name than they will that psycho Loughner.-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 04:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
nothing about the satanic altar found in his yard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.197.40 ( talk) 09:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The YouTube channel at Classitup10's is not Jared L. Loughner's. The videos posted on that page were posted 22 hours ago at the time of this writing (Tuesday, 11:01 a.m. Berlin, Germany). Loughner has been in custody more that 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaDharma ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Btw the song played in that video is Bodies [12] if you take a look at the original Drowning Pool's video to me it has an evil meaning, like this guy was obsessioned with execution ... to me it's important to write that reference to the song go check the lyrics and video and read about it on our wikipedia voice listed above. -- Florathewiseful ( talk) 12:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
A recent edit has added a quote ultimately derived from the "Above Top Secret" forum that says ", "I think youre (sic) frankly schizophrenic, and no that's not an amateur opinion and not intended as an uninformed or insulting remark, you clearly make no sense and are unable to communicate. I really do care... Seek help before you hurt yourself or others.". I think the inclusion of this comment may violate WP:BLP, because it clearly is an "amateur opinion" from someone unqualified to make a medical diagnosis, and of little relevance anyway. If we are going to include comments about Loughner's mental state, they should at least be sourced to people qualified to judge. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Definitely doesn't belong in the article, this is the kind of stuff that makes people say that Wikipedia is unreliable -- 75.111.135.8 ( talk) 06:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Can the quotes section be removed? Lists within articles are discouraged and I can't see that this list adds anything to the article, that everything else in the personal section hasn't already said. cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 03:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello there I just thing it could be important to add the reference to Jared Lee Loughner video on youtube [13], for people to know what this guy really had in his mind. Btw the song played in that video is Bodies [14] if you take a look at the original Drowning Pool's video to me it has an evil meaning, like this guy was obsessioned with execution ... -- 88.36.207.254 ( talk) 07:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)-- Florathewiseful ( talk) 08:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
While the articles between the suspect and the event are unmerged I wanted to point inconsistencies between them and thought here was a good place. 1: The suspect article reads: "The question was, 'What is government if words have no meaning?'"[25]" The event article reads: "where he asked the congresswoman, "How do you know words mean anything?"[70]" 2: The suspect article reads: "He left the store before completing the purchase, but ended up going to another Wal-Mart, this time making the purchase.[29]" The event article reads: "but he was behaving so oddly a shop assistant lied to him and said he was out of stock of 9mm bullets. Loughner just went to the next nearest Wal-Mart"
I would like to help more by changing the articles but since merging would solve problems like that how do you solve them if the articles are not merged? 216.239.95.167 ( talk) 11:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
There are already 263 possible Reliable Source articles [15] which describe and emphasize Louchner's apparent state of mind. Any objections to having a section for this? It can not be a coattail section and need not promote any bias but its become such a notable and even primary, in some cass,part of the RS articles that I think it deserves its own section. Thoughts? Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/jared-lee-loughner-was-a-regis.html shows that he was an independent. And, most importantly regarding the current political debate...he didn't even vote in the 2010 elections. There goes any tea-party ties. 2010 was the tea-party election, and Jared didn't even vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 ( talk) 04:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read both articles again. Both say he did not vote in 2010. One quotes the registrar himself saying JLL did not vote in 2010. There is no speculation involved. -- Kenatipo ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
hi can someone add in information about Christina Taylor Green, the 9 year old girl that was shot. change The incident left six people dead and fourteen others wounded. Giffords, the apparent target of the attack,[28] was shot in the head and left in critical condition.[21] to The incident left six people dead and fourteen others wounded. One of those killed was a 9 year old girl named Christina Taylor Green, she had appeared in the book "Faces of Hope", a book of babies born on the day of the September 11th attacks. Giffords, the apparent target of the attack,[28] was shot in the head and left in critical condition.[21] cite http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_girl
Does anyone object to this? Google news search shows "Jared Loughner" has about 15,200 results and "Jared Lee Loughner" about 10,300. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
... why is this one sentence supossed to be important enough to justify a single chapter? Is there any proof that this information is more important than... lets say ... he drank milk as a kid? -- 87.145.0.168 ( talk) 13:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have read the sources that claim that he is an atheist and this what they had to say:An ardent atheist, he began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the government and the monotony of modern life. I know many atheists, some of are right wingers who are for some government and some are light wingers who believe that government needs to help those who cant help themselves regardless of its size. But none whatsoever have think the government size and religion (or the lack of it) have anything to do with why the are atheists. this also goes for the monotony of modern life. The reason he said Jared Lee Loughner won't "trust in god" is because he wants money to go back on the Gold Standard. Is Ron Paul an atheist? -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 11:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"...the government was using mind control to brainwash people by controlling grammar."
Is this really what he believed? It does not appear to make sense, how could anyone believe that? The other conspiracy theories are well known but this one appears to have been made up either by Loughner or by someone just editing this article. Can we get a reference on the claim?-- Echetus Xe 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is a photo for the article: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Loughner_family_home.JPG
Suggested caption: Loughner family home as it appeared on January 11, 2011. Photo by Steve Karp. Steve Karp ( talk) 20:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually think this picture would add value, because it tells us something about Loughner's background. Per Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_victimization, though, it should definitely not be included, unless similar images become very widely published elsewhere. -- FormerIP ( talk) 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd say "absolutely not", on the assumption that his family still lives there, and even if they don't, it could adversely affect the current residents. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If you look at this talk page, a good percentage of it (I can't calculate it exactly, plus it changes often) is taken up by a discussion over whether or not this page should be merged into the article on the related event. There was also an Afd on this page that was quickly closed. Altogether, I feel that these are quite disruptive. The merge discussion is an eyesore to this page, and the Afd doesn't lead anywhere productive. As things stand now, with this story still dominating news broadcasting, a consensus will never be formed.
I think it is better to wait a week or maybe longer until the dust settles. Then, such a discussion will have more productive results and easily gain consensus. By then, it'll be more obvious which titles have stood the test of time and deserve standalone articles. Shaliya waya ( talk) 01:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Under the Views section, the line "Another old friend, Bruce Tierney, discussed several of Loughner's views." The name of the friend is Bryce, not Bruce, as seen from the Mother Jones source article.
RaymondKertezc ( talk) 10:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Short term unemployment is not an occupation.
Smearing him only helps him in the trial.
If you are a lawyer and are between jobs, your occupation is still lawyer.
It is best to leave it blank. Student may be ok because he was a student less than 3 months ago. Madrid 2020 ( talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone seen this info reported anywhere? If so, would you add it to the infobox? Thanks. 69.217.203.113 ( talk) 20:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The image appears to be in violation of WP:MUG and WP:FAIR - him being a living person and thus the possibility of someone taking a free use image. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ouch. The picture is non-free? Sorry guys, we can't use it because the subject is still alive and so a free alternative is a possibility (I know I know, he is in jail, but out policy is well established on this - we almost always assume a photo is possible) -- Errant ( chat!) 21:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
This section of the "Views" section is incorrect and misleading:
The film promotes a number of debunked ideas and conspiracy theories, including the idea that Christianity is a myth used for political control, that the United States Government was responsible for the September 11 attacks, that international bankers from the Federal Reserve forced President George W. Bush into starting the War on Terror, and that bankers manipulate the international monetary system and the media in order to consolidate power.
1. Zeitgeist: the Movie has never been "debunked." 2. Does not say "christianity is a myth used for political control 3. Does not say that "international bankers from the Federal Reserve forced President George W. Bush into starting the War on Terror" 4. This film has nothing to do with the shooting this person perpetrated Kerka1jb ( talk) 03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
School releases YouTube post from Loughner
<copyrighted material removed, for the same reason as on
Talk:2011 Tucson shooting
Risker (
talk)
07:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC) >
(hopefully I transcribed the text correctly, not sure what to do with it, might help for quotations in certain sections) -- Avanu ( talk) 06:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly there is a biased slant in this article, like much of the mainstream media on this subject. It focuses on aspects of his personality, work and social life which cast him in a negative light. As well as making him sound strange and usual. What about the other side of the story? Quoting from a source already used on the page, his ex-girlfriend said:
“I’ve always known him as the sweet, caring Jared,” says Hawkes, 21, a junior at the University of Arizona. She recalls him as being shy and having low self-esteem. “It’s sad knowing the person he was and the person who he could have become — and who he is now.”
And:
“He was a great sax player, a great musician,” says Jes Gundy, 22, who played in the school jazz band with him. “The band director was always trying to get him to play more solos. … He was reserved, quiet, but not like scary, anti-social quiet. I got nothing but good vibes from him.”
It’s important to have the whole story in order to better understand the full reality of what happened; what might turn someone into a killer. It seems obvious to me that failures in his job and a volunteer position caused something to snap in him. But it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else here thinks, this information should just be put out there to let readers decide for themselves. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of facts and so it should give all the key facts, which tell the whole story and not just the ‘light’ that some people would like to cast him in. Neurolanis ( talk) 03:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we sneak the term "conspiracy theory" about a dozen more times into this article? ;) Actually, a single use of that term smacks of POV and has no place in an encyclopedia.-- Hutcher ( talk) 03:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
To all. I just read the entire BLP. Imo it is absolutely stunning in its information content, visual appearance, NPOV, understandability,conciseness and flow. I'm amazed that it could be at such a state after only 1 week. Its also amazing how many different Editors who have contributed thus far. Obviously it will keep changing, but right now, for this date in time, I give it 10 out of 10. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The youtube content regarding the books is sourced to a primary source - the youtube channel. This is a big BLP problem and it should stay out until a third party source is available. There is also vague OR problems with using this primary source. Even were a secondary source provided I still have concerns due to the fact that the article even identifies it as speculative that this is his Youube channel - I think we need more careful discussion of this. I have removed the content again because it is a BLP issue and should stay out until agreement is reached (as opposed to the usual BRD process) -- Errant ( chat!) 14:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the policy doesn't forbid primary sources.
“ | A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources | ” |
-- Avanu ( talk) 15:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This is inappropriate sourcing because it a) does not include a secondary source identifying it as possibly his youtube channel (hence we have a verification problem and a possible OR issue) and b) we do not have anything identifying the significance of the books listed, or a secondary source discussing them (they are tangentially mentioned in the other Youtube source but that source does not draw specific attention to the ones highlighted here...). This is why it is tentative. I am told there are sources available for this material - I reviewed the articles that mention youtube and none of them sufficiently support this specific material. Please provide the RS's mentioned. -- Errant ( chat!) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There is more detail about the timeline in Arizona shooting: Jared Loughner 'posed with gun in women's underwear'. Some of this could be used in the article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
My preference is to delete the article as inappropriate for an encyclopaedia but, if people insist on keeping it, then let's put the sources where they belong for a current affairs document. The sources should be cited within the main body of the article, as is normal for newspapers and magazines: "Joe Smith of The Guardian wrote that...", "A correspondent with The Morning Surmise reported that...". That way it would be at least as factual as a newspaper or a magazine. Right now it is mutton dressed as lamb. McZeus ( talk) 07:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The result was No Consensus By a strict headcount there are clearly more users in favor of keeping this as a stand-alone article. Weighing the strength of argument, both sides appear to have a policy and a certain amount of logic on their side. The discussion has gotten longer and longer without any new game-changing arguments coming to light. Therefore it seems appropriate to close this as no consensus. I would strongly advise all parties to let this matter rest for a while. Information is coming out on a daily basis that may clarify the situation. Give it some time before re-opening this debate. I would also ask my fellow admins to be very careful what actions they take here as there has already been some ill-advised admin action and we don't want a wheel war on our hands here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
I propose that this article's content be merged to 2011 Tucson shooting. There isn't anything of substance in the current version of this article. The media has successfully rooted out this individual's past history, but almost none of it seems relevant to the reason he's getting a mention on Wikipedia. He's notable for a single act, an act that already has an article. A redirect seems appropriate here; a separate article does not. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 07:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion needs to be closedAlthough I believe this subject is not worthy of a stand alone article because of his one event identity, and because I believe it is best to give such individuals the least amount of attention possible, my initial response was this this article should be merged. However, I think the consensus to not merge is now very clear and that an uninvolved ed or sysop should close this discussion and remove the tag. KeptSouth ( talk) 11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Just underscoring what I said (just now) in the Merge discussion Section, I think your calling for an end to the dialog after 4 days (and it's barely been 5 now) is a bit premature. None of the Giffords/2011_Tucson/Loughner stuff was on my Watchlist, so I hadn't taken notice of discussions until today. (Some of us Wikipedians do have real lives Monday-Friday.) Let the Weekend Warriors on here have their say. — DennisDallas ( talk) 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Redirect and protectionJust noting here that I've reverted a redirect and full protection by David Fuchs, because there's clearly no consensus to merge, either here or at the AfD. If people think a consensus to merge might evolve, the discussion should be left open longer and closed by an uninvolved admin. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
How can there be no consensus to merge this? It's a clear case of WP:1E if there ever was any. If this isn't merged we can as well scrap that guideline because it is obviously not being honoured. -- dab (𒁳) 18:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
|
![]() | 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 4 |
It seems like this guy's mindset, background and motivations will be an important component of the historical record over time. The "why" of this event is yet to be determined, but it will center, to some extent, around Jared Lee Loughner.
574jerry ( talk) 22:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This person needs to be expanded on. if it is redirected there is no reason for more information to be added. Lets leave it for a little while if no one contributes then redirect. Don't kill the article before it has a chance.
( Savagemic ( talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC))
Though the article mentions a "former classmate" claiming he was "liberal when she knew him" (...knew him how well? There's no clarification on this, is there...?), and some of the other details, such as reading the Communist Manifesto and being critical of "religion" might suggest a left-wing radical, I would like to caution future editors to be very careful of stating things without citations as we get an influx of more news and commentary on the issue, or that matter, listing him as explicitly "left-wing" - or "right-wing" for that matter - since while being a fan of the Communist Manifesto certainly isn't "conservative", "returning to the gold standard" is also NOT a liberal position nor is anti-federalism necessarily a liberal position either, in the US; the American left-wing is actually generally pro-federalist and against the gold standard, whereas the right-wing is likely to support "states' rights" and more likely to support a gold or silver standard. Moreover, there is such a thing as what an American would classify as a "social conservative" who is an atheist (Christopher Hitchens, for instance), so the anti-religion thing isn't exactly exclusive to the left wing either.
In short, this guy seems to have views from all across the spectrum; even if he were to claim he was "liberal" or "conservative", I would want editors to be aware that he does supposedly hold some very conservative views in terms of the US political scene alongside his many alleged liberal ones, and that this should be made clear for, well, clarity's sake. Most of all, I want to make sure we don't get too bad of an edit war on this thing, because this is the kind of politically-involved story that will get one side accusing the other having spawned a monster and then the next side gets indignant and then next thing you know, the article's locked and people are wishing they hadn't touched the Talk page. :P
Also... honestly, the fact that he thinks there is a "5% literacy rate" in any part of Arizona... pure OR speculation here, but I'm wondering if by "literacy" he means "hip to the same Truth [he is]". Particularly since the Congresswoman he shot apparently was in favor of public education and against the oft-criticized No Child Left Behind act (hardly surprising for a Democrat, as that's a liberal/Democratic standby) meanwhile, he seems to have been bizarrely fixated on a lack of "literacy" at the same time as he was claiming that a community college was "unconstitutional" (an argument so out of the mainstream of either side that I've never come across it before, to be honest). Honestly, he sounds just flat-out psychotic (I don't mean that as a generic pejorative, either; I mean it literally, as in, paranoid schizophrenic or the like, seeing conspiracies everywhere, assuming he himself has the only access to The Truth, described as having been prone to "random outbursts" and problems with authority figures since his teen years, etc.).
HOWEVER, even though this is an easy, obvious assumption to make, keep in mind what I am - that it's still an opinion! I won't be surprised if he gets some kind of mental illness diagnosis, I'm sure many people won't, BUT until anything is official, be careful about adding such speculation! Even if others make it, make sure it's clear who is making it, and what if any basis they have for it; if you don't know, either don't add it, or add that it "isn't clear".
Let's try to keep this article super-accurate so we have fewer headeaches! :) 68.202.85.105 ( talk) 08:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_78272a23-fe75-5bee-ba38-f8171cda3fb7.html -- Gregory pecker ( talk) 18:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Photoshopped hoax of registration page from AZ Secretary of State googuse ( talk) 16:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no way you could access this information unless you had his VoterID number or Drivers License information. Goodmorninworld9 ( talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)goodmorninworld9
The constant redirects from this article are not proper wikipedia policy. If anyone feels that the article should not belong then please do a formal request to delete the article, otherwise the redirects are obviously being challenged.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The Columbine shooter was rejected from the military because he was on anti-depressants. I wonder if this guy was too. Would his medical records be closed till the trial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.42.133.231 ( talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, if Loughner can be classified as a failed assassin prior to conviction, then why couldn't he be considered a mass murderer? If a conviction is required for one, then shouldn't it be required for both? - Janers0217 ( talk) 10:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
As he hasn't been tried yet, isn't it contempt of court to refer to him as either?-- 82.207.96.223 ( talk) 12:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Gabrielle Giffords's official YouTube channel ( http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2 ) is subscribed to only two channels. One is the official YouTube channel of Congressman Ike Skelton, and the other is that of Jared Lee Loughner ( http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10 ). 188.102.7.187 ( talk) 12:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So the Caitie Parker tweets which have been widely reported on include one saying she was in a band with Loughner. Has this band name been reported?-- Milowent • talk blp-r 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I just removed an OR addition of a book about " concious dreaming". Yes, he might mean "conscious dreaming", but he clearly writes "conscience dreaming". Does conscience dreaming make sense? No, but then much of what he writes doesn't make much sense either. -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."
The Guardian is being cited [1] for this statement: "Loughner also stood out as a vigorous atheist in a religious part of the world.". To me, that doesn't seem to be 'self-identified', and on that basis, I am removing the description of Loughner as 'an atheist' from the 'Views' section. If someone can find a source for self-identified atheism, and show why it is relevant, it can of course go back in. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Then What's the problem? -- Protostan ( talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to figue out if the shooter qualifies as this sort of philosopher. -- Protostan ( talk) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Any references claiming he is an atheist need to be removed because it's speculative and prejudicial. Also, various news sources are providing photographic evidence that he worshipped the occult
[2]
Zillimeter (
talk)
00:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, folks, ya think we could edit any faster? ( edit conflict) more than twice a minute? Anyway, there seem to be ample sources re his atheism, and it's gone to and fro a bunch; anyone at 3RR, yet? Jack Merridew 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
So we've got two major news sources and a people who knew him agreeing. What more evidence is needed? -- Protostan ( talk) 01:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Compromise suggestion: How about we remove the ", an atheist," from the first sentence, and change "Classmates noted that Loughner was critical of religion." to read "Classmates said Loughner was an atheist and noted that he was critical of religion." It makes sense that the religious-related descriptions should go together anyways. Flodded ( talk) 01:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I suggest that this debate should move to BLP/N. It is difficult enough having multiple articles involving the Giffords shooting, without having to engage in the same argument in two different places. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
A single sentence noting "Loughner was also critical of religion, and identified as an atheist." was added by another editor (and the opening ", an atheist" removed); I merged the atheism bit because the text about classmates being critical of religion was being duplicated; this is now along the lines of what was proposed above. I hope this satisfies everyone for the time being. The discussion is still on BLP/N ( Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jared_Lee_Loughner) as to whether this material should be included at all without additional sources. Flodded ( talk) 03:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} In the last paragraph of the Views section, it mentions a post on Myspace "the morning of the shooting," but previous paragraphs don't mention a shooting. This should say something like "the morning of his 2011 arrest" or "the morning of the 2011 Tucson shooting" since the shooting is not yet in context in the article. gfiumara ( talk) 00:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Done Makes sense, I made it reference the date as requested.
Flodded (
talk)
00:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There was a lot of information about the arrest on that page that wasn't here. It seemed appropriate to copy much of it verbatim into the "2011 arrest" section. Is there any reason we shouldn't be copying pretty much anything directly related to him from there? It seems there are other pieces where there's more information about Loughner on the 2011 shooting page, but this is supposed to be the main article about Loughner...I see no reason not to flesh this out with anything relevant that shows up there. Flodded ( talk) 00:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Chip Berlet, the classmate source who mentioned the abortion issue, stated that Jared mocked the woman who read a poem about an abortion, and said the fetus should strap on a bomb and blow up. The idea that from this statement you should conclude Jared is pro-life is absurd. There is NO INDICATION whatsoever that Jared is pro-life, and to infer that in his views is false. If anything, being that he is a fervent atheist, it is much more likely he is pro-choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 ( talk) 02:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
In the article it states the shooting took place on September 8, 2011 at 10 am. Should say January 8, 2011 at 10 am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.24.182.169 ( talk) 04:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thought I'd propose such a reasonably large change here first...
I suggest we split this into two sections: "Tucson Shooting" and "Arrest and Legal Proceedings".
The latter section is likely to grow quite a bit in the coming months, and potentially require subsections of its own. I think it makes sense to keep the shooting part (which really should just be a blurb as it would be, since it has its own article) separate from the arrest and any further legal action/etc, since those are more relevant to Loughner himself. Flodded ( talk) 05:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I am removing the television psychologist's comments. It is the sole mention of motivation, by a psychologist who has never interviewed Loughner, and thus is obviously just a guess as to his motivation. Adelson Velsky Landis ( talk) 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says "Photos on the Myspace page showed a close-up picture of an automatic handgun sitting atop a document titled "United States History."
http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/myspace2.jpg
That is a semi-automatic handgun, not an automatic handgun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinai462003 ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The image of the prison in Tucson is cationed "U.S. Penitentiary, Tucson, where Loughner is being held." Is he still being held there? I heard on the radio that he had been transferred to a facility in Phoenix. His court appearance was in Phoenix. Dsmdgold ( talk) 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Due to the low resolution of the image, it appears to me as if the media is using it to put a bad light on similar looking people. I think the presses manipulation of this image is racist.
You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm glad I haven't contributed any money to the travesty known as Wikipedia. Jeremy stalked (law 296) 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Abductive, please don't revert again to the redirect. If people disagree with the AfD result, it should be taken to DRV. If reverting continues and the page is protected, it will stop everyone from improving it, so please go to DRV instead. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 09:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - According to WP:ONEVENT, "assassins of major political leaders" are generally notable enough to have their own articles. Based on that, I think this discussion should boil down to whether one of the 535 members of the United States Congress counts as a "major political leader" or not. As someone in Giffords' district, my "vote" would be too biased, so I'm leaving it as just a comment. -- MarkGyver ( talk) 20:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
dontCloseThisDamnAFDBecauseYoullBeMakingThingsWorse}}
? --
slakr\
talk /
23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Somebody keeps adding that this guy was a radical liberal, despite the lack of reliable sources corroborating it. The Telegraph article says nothing about him being a left or right winger for that matter. So please do not add it unless it is explicitly stated in a reliable source. Thank you. Likeminas ( talk) 20:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked at that talk page. I welcome the addition of conflicting sourced information. Let's be inclusive and err on the side of completeness. Whatever the NYT reports is good enough for me, even if Twitter was involved. -- Y not? 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Caitie Parker, who claimed she knew the suspect in high school four years earlier, described him as having been "" left wing", quite liberal", [1] and a " political radical." [2] [3] [4] [5]
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
I found these articles that might help with this issue.
and this article's piece look like it could be added into the article Conservatives looking to label Loughner as liberal have also pointed to Tweets from one apparent former friend who wrote he had once been "very liberal" and added, "he was leftwing when I knew him in hs & college, 3 years ago. So he may have changed, who knows."
Ultimately, it seems illegitimate to tie Loughner to the mainstream right or mainstream left, as his beliefs were well within the realm of the fringe. Indeed, Loughner appears to have simply been a disturbed individual who lacked a coherent political philosophy other than a deep-seated anti-government sentiment. 21:49 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028022-503544.html Likeminas ( talk) 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
“ | He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right." [1] [2] [3] | ” |
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
-- Hu12 ( talk) 18:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I would think it useful to know his parents' political affiliations. While he is a 22 year old grown man (physically), with no known political affiliations, I would think that his parents' views would have more influence on his outlook than any outside influence. Does anyone know them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.247.24 ( talk) 18:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I just added material relating statements by Loughner's best friend one what did and did not influence his worldview, along with the source, which is World News with Diane Sawyer, which is produced by ABC News. Hope this helps. Nightscream ( talk) 20:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The IPA was added because of the different pronunciation of the English words cough and tough. Media reports seem to agree on the "cough" pronunciation of Loughner, but there is room for debate about how to pronounce the r. I had a look in the dictionary for laughter and it ended in ə, but the main issue is consistency, because the IPA is in 2011 Tucson shooting as well.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I briefly heard a newsman make a snide comment about his name being polish and he pronounced it as Lochner. Perhaps he is more Anglixized than he realizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.136.5 ( talk) 07:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
As an Az citizen who was born in Tucson I think this page should be renamed the Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt or something like that. Tucson is a pretty violent city there is without a doubt going to be several more "shootings" of whatever sort in Tucson sometime before the end of the year. 2011 Tucson shooting is way too vague. I don't think the article needs to be merged, more people will remember Gifford's name than they will that psycho Loughner.-- $1LENCE D00600D ( talk) 04:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
nothing about the satanic altar found in his yard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.197.40 ( talk) 09:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The YouTube channel at Classitup10's is not Jared L. Loughner's. The videos posted on that page were posted 22 hours ago at the time of this writing (Tuesday, 11:01 a.m. Berlin, Germany). Loughner has been in custody more that 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaDharma ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Btw the song played in that video is Bodies [12] if you take a look at the original Drowning Pool's video to me it has an evil meaning, like this guy was obsessioned with execution ... to me it's important to write that reference to the song go check the lyrics and video and read about it on our wikipedia voice listed above. -- Florathewiseful ( talk) 12:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
A recent edit has added a quote ultimately derived from the "Above Top Secret" forum that says ", "I think youre (sic) frankly schizophrenic, and no that's not an amateur opinion and not intended as an uninformed or insulting remark, you clearly make no sense and are unable to communicate. I really do care... Seek help before you hurt yourself or others.". I think the inclusion of this comment may violate WP:BLP, because it clearly is an "amateur opinion" from someone unqualified to make a medical diagnosis, and of little relevance anyway. If we are going to include comments about Loughner's mental state, they should at least be sourced to people qualified to judge. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Definitely doesn't belong in the article, this is the kind of stuff that makes people say that Wikipedia is unreliable -- 75.111.135.8 ( talk) 06:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Can the quotes section be removed? Lists within articles are discouraged and I can't see that this list adds anything to the article, that everything else in the personal section hasn't already said. cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 03:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello there I just thing it could be important to add the reference to Jared Lee Loughner video on youtube [13], for people to know what this guy really had in his mind. Btw the song played in that video is Bodies [14] if you take a look at the original Drowning Pool's video to me it has an evil meaning, like this guy was obsessioned with execution ... -- 88.36.207.254 ( talk) 07:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)-- Florathewiseful ( talk) 08:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
While the articles between the suspect and the event are unmerged I wanted to point inconsistencies between them and thought here was a good place. 1: The suspect article reads: "The question was, 'What is government if words have no meaning?'"[25]" The event article reads: "where he asked the congresswoman, "How do you know words mean anything?"[70]" 2: The suspect article reads: "He left the store before completing the purchase, but ended up going to another Wal-Mart, this time making the purchase.[29]" The event article reads: "but he was behaving so oddly a shop assistant lied to him and said he was out of stock of 9mm bullets. Loughner just went to the next nearest Wal-Mart"
I would like to help more by changing the articles but since merging would solve problems like that how do you solve them if the articles are not merged? 216.239.95.167 ( talk) 11:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
There are already 263 possible Reliable Source articles [15] which describe and emphasize Louchner's apparent state of mind. Any objections to having a section for this? It can not be a coattail section and need not promote any bias but its become such a notable and even primary, in some cass,part of the RS articles that I think it deserves its own section. Thoughts? Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/jared-lee-loughner-was-a-regis.html shows that he was an independent. And, most importantly regarding the current political debate...he didn't even vote in the 2010 elections. There goes any tea-party ties. 2010 was the tea-party election, and Jared didn't even vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 ( talk) 04:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read both articles again. Both say he did not vote in 2010. One quotes the registrar himself saying JLL did not vote in 2010. There is no speculation involved. -- Kenatipo ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
hi can someone add in information about Christina Taylor Green, the 9 year old girl that was shot. change The incident left six people dead and fourteen others wounded. Giffords, the apparent target of the attack,[28] was shot in the head and left in critical condition.[21] to The incident left six people dead and fourteen others wounded. One of those killed was a 9 year old girl named Christina Taylor Green, she had appeared in the book "Faces of Hope", a book of babies born on the day of the September 11th attacks. Giffords, the apparent target of the attack,[28] was shot in the head and left in critical condition.[21] cite http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_girl
Does anyone object to this? Google news search shows "Jared Loughner" has about 15,200 results and "Jared Lee Loughner" about 10,300. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
... why is this one sentence supossed to be important enough to justify a single chapter? Is there any proof that this information is more important than... lets say ... he drank milk as a kid? -- 87.145.0.168 ( talk) 13:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I have read the sources that claim that he is an atheist and this what they had to say:An ardent atheist, he began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the government and the monotony of modern life. I know many atheists, some of are right wingers who are for some government and some are light wingers who believe that government needs to help those who cant help themselves regardless of its size. But none whatsoever have think the government size and religion (or the lack of it) have anything to do with why the are atheists. this also goes for the monotony of modern life. The reason he said Jared Lee Loughner won't "trust in god" is because he wants money to go back on the Gold Standard. Is Ron Paul an atheist? -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 11:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"...the government was using mind control to brainwash people by controlling grammar."
Is this really what he believed? It does not appear to make sense, how could anyone believe that? The other conspiracy theories are well known but this one appears to have been made up either by Loughner or by someone just editing this article. Can we get a reference on the claim?-- Echetus Xe 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is a photo for the article: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Loughner_family_home.JPG
Suggested caption: Loughner family home as it appeared on January 11, 2011. Photo by Steve Karp. Steve Karp ( talk) 20:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually think this picture would add value, because it tells us something about Loughner's background. Per Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_victimization, though, it should definitely not be included, unless similar images become very widely published elsewhere. -- FormerIP ( talk) 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd say "absolutely not", on the assumption that his family still lives there, and even if they don't, it could adversely affect the current residents. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If you look at this talk page, a good percentage of it (I can't calculate it exactly, plus it changes often) is taken up by a discussion over whether or not this page should be merged into the article on the related event. There was also an Afd on this page that was quickly closed. Altogether, I feel that these are quite disruptive. The merge discussion is an eyesore to this page, and the Afd doesn't lead anywhere productive. As things stand now, with this story still dominating news broadcasting, a consensus will never be formed.
I think it is better to wait a week or maybe longer until the dust settles. Then, such a discussion will have more productive results and easily gain consensus. By then, it'll be more obvious which titles have stood the test of time and deserve standalone articles. Shaliya waya ( talk) 01:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Under the Views section, the line "Another old friend, Bruce Tierney, discussed several of Loughner's views." The name of the friend is Bryce, not Bruce, as seen from the Mother Jones source article.
RaymondKertezc ( talk) 10:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Short term unemployment is not an occupation.
Smearing him only helps him in the trial.
If you are a lawyer and are between jobs, your occupation is still lawyer.
It is best to leave it blank. Student may be ok because he was a student less than 3 months ago. Madrid 2020 ( talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone seen this info reported anywhere? If so, would you add it to the infobox? Thanks. 69.217.203.113 ( talk) 20:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The image appears to be in violation of WP:MUG and WP:FAIR - him being a living person and thus the possibility of someone taking a free use image. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ouch. The picture is non-free? Sorry guys, we can't use it because the subject is still alive and so a free alternative is a possibility (I know I know, he is in jail, but out policy is well established on this - we almost always assume a photo is possible) -- Errant ( chat!) 21:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
This section of the "Views" section is incorrect and misleading:
The film promotes a number of debunked ideas and conspiracy theories, including the idea that Christianity is a myth used for political control, that the United States Government was responsible for the September 11 attacks, that international bankers from the Federal Reserve forced President George W. Bush into starting the War on Terror, and that bankers manipulate the international monetary system and the media in order to consolidate power.
1. Zeitgeist: the Movie has never been "debunked." 2. Does not say "christianity is a myth used for political control 3. Does not say that "international bankers from the Federal Reserve forced President George W. Bush into starting the War on Terror" 4. This film has nothing to do with the shooting this person perpetrated Kerka1jb ( talk) 03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
School releases YouTube post from Loughner
<copyrighted material removed, for the same reason as on
Talk:2011 Tucson shooting
Risker (
talk)
07:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC) >
(hopefully I transcribed the text correctly, not sure what to do with it, might help for quotations in certain sections) -- Avanu ( talk) 06:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly there is a biased slant in this article, like much of the mainstream media on this subject. It focuses on aspects of his personality, work and social life which cast him in a negative light. As well as making him sound strange and usual. What about the other side of the story? Quoting from a source already used on the page, his ex-girlfriend said:
“I’ve always known him as the sweet, caring Jared,” says Hawkes, 21, a junior at the University of Arizona. She recalls him as being shy and having low self-esteem. “It’s sad knowing the person he was and the person who he could have become — and who he is now.”
And:
“He was a great sax player, a great musician,” says Jes Gundy, 22, who played in the school jazz band with him. “The band director was always trying to get him to play more solos. … He was reserved, quiet, but not like scary, anti-social quiet. I got nothing but good vibes from him.”
It’s important to have the whole story in order to better understand the full reality of what happened; what might turn someone into a killer. It seems obvious to me that failures in his job and a volunteer position caused something to snap in him. But it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else here thinks, this information should just be put out there to let readers decide for themselves. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of facts and so it should give all the key facts, which tell the whole story and not just the ‘light’ that some people would like to cast him in. Neurolanis ( talk) 03:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we sneak the term "conspiracy theory" about a dozen more times into this article? ;) Actually, a single use of that term smacks of POV and has no place in an encyclopedia.-- Hutcher ( talk) 03:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
To all. I just read the entire BLP. Imo it is absolutely stunning in its information content, visual appearance, NPOV, understandability,conciseness and flow. I'm amazed that it could be at such a state after only 1 week. Its also amazing how many different Editors who have contributed thus far. Obviously it will keep changing, but right now, for this date in time, I give it 10 out of 10. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The youtube content regarding the books is sourced to a primary source - the youtube channel. This is a big BLP problem and it should stay out until a third party source is available. There is also vague OR problems with using this primary source. Even were a secondary source provided I still have concerns due to the fact that the article even identifies it as speculative that this is his Youube channel - I think we need more careful discussion of this. I have removed the content again because it is a BLP issue and should stay out until agreement is reached (as opposed to the usual BRD process) -- Errant ( chat!) 14:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the policy doesn't forbid primary sources.
“ | A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources | ” |
-- Avanu ( talk) 15:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This is inappropriate sourcing because it a) does not include a secondary source identifying it as possibly his youtube channel (hence we have a verification problem and a possible OR issue) and b) we do not have anything identifying the significance of the books listed, or a secondary source discussing them (they are tangentially mentioned in the other Youtube source but that source does not draw specific attention to the ones highlighted here...). This is why it is tentative. I am told there are sources available for this material - I reviewed the articles that mention youtube and none of them sufficiently support this specific material. Please provide the RS's mentioned. -- Errant ( chat!) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There is more detail about the timeline in Arizona shooting: Jared Loughner 'posed with gun in women's underwear'. Some of this could be used in the article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
My preference is to delete the article as inappropriate for an encyclopaedia but, if people insist on keeping it, then let's put the sources where they belong for a current affairs document. The sources should be cited within the main body of the article, as is normal for newspapers and magazines: "Joe Smith of The Guardian wrote that...", "A correspondent with The Morning Surmise reported that...". That way it would be at least as factual as a newspaper or a magazine. Right now it is mutton dressed as lamb. McZeus ( talk) 07:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The result was No Consensus By a strict headcount there are clearly more users in favor of keeping this as a stand-alone article. Weighing the strength of argument, both sides appear to have a policy and a certain amount of logic on their side. The discussion has gotten longer and longer without any new game-changing arguments coming to light. Therefore it seems appropriate to close this as no consensus. I would strongly advise all parties to let this matter rest for a while. Information is coming out on a daily basis that may clarify the situation. Give it some time before re-opening this debate. I would also ask my fellow admins to be very careful what actions they take here as there has already been some ill-advised admin action and we don't want a wheel war on our hands here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
I propose that this article's content be merged to 2011 Tucson shooting. There isn't anything of substance in the current version of this article. The media has successfully rooted out this individual's past history, but almost none of it seems relevant to the reason he's getting a mention on Wikipedia. He's notable for a single act, an act that already has an article. A redirect seems appropriate here; a separate article does not. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 07:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion needs to be closedAlthough I believe this subject is not worthy of a stand alone article because of his one event identity, and because I believe it is best to give such individuals the least amount of attention possible, my initial response was this this article should be merged. However, I think the consensus to not merge is now very clear and that an uninvolved ed or sysop should close this discussion and remove the tag. KeptSouth ( talk) 11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Just underscoring what I said (just now) in the Merge discussion Section, I think your calling for an end to the dialog after 4 days (and it's barely been 5 now) is a bit premature. None of the Giffords/2011_Tucson/Loughner stuff was on my Watchlist, so I hadn't taken notice of discussions until today. (Some of us Wikipedians do have real lives Monday-Friday.) Let the Weekend Warriors on here have their say. — DennisDallas ( talk) 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Redirect and protectionJust noting here that I've reverted a redirect and full protection by David Fuchs, because there's clearly no consensus to merge, either here or at the AfD. If people think a consensus to merge might evolve, the discussion should be left open longer and closed by an uninvolved admin. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
How can there be no consensus to merge this? It's a clear case of WP:1E if there ever was any. If this isn't merged we can as well scrap that guideline because it is obviously not being honoured. -- dab (𒁳) 18:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
|