![]() | 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 |
The article states that Loughner dropped out of highschool in 2006. Without explanation, it later indicates that he attended college. We need to clarify these pieces of information: 1. When did he start college? 2. How did he get into college if he didn't graduate highschool? Did he revive his studies and earn his GED? Failing to mention a renewed interest in education contributes to the slant that Loughner began a steady mental decline. This portrayal may lack accuracy. 3. What prompted Laughner to continue his education?
In the very least, there needs to be a segue to prevent confusion-- i.e. "Loughner later entered college in 2009." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.169.133 ( talk) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Community colleges do not require high school diplomas or GEDs. Perhaps there is a link to another wikipedia article that explains U.S. Community colleges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.161.172 ( talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The article states, with weasel words, that "experts say he has schizophrenia". This is not true. I'm not saying he isn't schizophrenic, but it cannot be reasonably stated that "experts say he has schizophrenia" unless he has been under a period of psychiatric observation and formerly been diagnosed and documented as suffering from that mental illness. It should instead read "experts theorize he is suffers from schizophrenia".
So far (before May 25) he has been in prison, not in a mental hospital. Prior to May 25, he has never been diagnosed with a mental illness in his entire life. The recent ruling that he is not competent to stand trial is standard procedure for a criminal case in which the defendant behaves erratically enough to create the possibility of a mistrial. If the judge believed he was insane then the cased would have been ruled to indicate he was insane; it was not.
He will finally be put under true psychiatric observation, for the very first time, as a consequence of tentative ruling. This is to prevent a mistrial. It is not because the judge (who is not a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist) is conceding that Loughner is mentally ill to the degree that he did not understand the consequences of his actions. Annoyed with fanboys ( talk) 18:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Under the section describing Jared Loughner's views and beliefs; I deleted a remark claiming that Jared Loughner's views points were what led to the Tuscon 2011 Murder Spree.
Given the pending status of the investigation by law enforcement officials it is premature to conclude that Jared Loughner's state of mind was the principle cause of those murders. The murders investigations are ongoing; not all of the facts are know yet and law enforcement officials may discover additional facts or actors that led or contributed to the Tuscon 2011 Murder Spree.
Harold Darling (
talk)
04:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The article states Mr Loughner is currently being held at the Federal Correctional Institution at Phoenix and includes a picture of the building. It should be noted he is actually being held at the United States Penitentiary (USP) - Tucson. [1] I believe he was held in Phoenix for the arraignment of charges.
desertskies 21:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertskies ( talk • contribs)
What are the grounds for the relevancy of mentioning these substances? Millions of high schoolers experiment with these substances and don't go on to commit violent crimes. I think the mention of them in the paragraph is meant to imply that they contributed to his "mental breakdown" but I really don't see the justification. 174.253.84.65 ( talk) 18:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:JaredMtKim.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
The picture being used here is of the West Campus which is not the one that Loughner attended. He attended the PCCC Northwest Campus which is just a few miles from his home. S.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.83.253 ( talk) 18:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
This wiki article states that Loughner was pro-life, and cites two reliable sources to back up the claim (for his allegedly comparing abortion to terrorism). Fair enough. However, I can also cite multiple reliable sources where he's alleged to have expressed pro-choice views, laughed about killing the fetus, and suggested using the fetus as a suicide bomber. Furthermore, I can cite multiple sources that describe the incident in question as part of Loughner's pattern of behavior of saying things simply to get a rise out of people. (And no, none of these sources include World Net Daily, Newsbusters, or even Fox News, so don't anyone embarrass themselves by making asinine assumptions and accusations). Just google "Jared abortion bomb" to see many of the reliable sources to which I refer.
It's not clear, based on all available sources, what his views are or were on abortion. It just seems like we're picking and choosing the sources that support "Loughner was pro-life" while ignoring the sources that allege he was pro-choice or just plain crazy.
If I have to, I can add a, "Yet other sources close to Loughner claim he was not..." followed by citations to support. But then, the article would look sloppy and would be trying to puzzle out the mind of a crazy man based on contradictory second-hand accounts. Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 22:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Why was my edit deleted? A woman named Caitie Parker tweeted: "[Loughner] was a pot head and into rock like Hendrix, The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class" and "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy."
This is a well-documented fact and a proven relationship between Parker and Loughner exists. She describes him as "quite liberal" but it continues to be scrubbed from the Wikipedia article. POV much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 04:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
This is in regards to the removal of the "citation needed" tag on the below sentence: "Loughner echoes concerns of Tea Party movement in videos that reveal fears about government brainwashing." He has nothing to do with the Tea Party or any other party for that matter, as is indicated in the article itself. This is a statement from a certain point of view. It is not fact. The sentence following it is a media report (eg: opinion) and is cited. However, the citation does not make the previous statement a fact. There's a huge difference. That statement must be proven or removed. GenQuest ( talk) 02:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed some of the work of a pov pusher. Von Restorff ( talk) 07:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC) The category is for people for whom their atheism was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and who have self-identified as atheists. Von Restorff ( talk) 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
The claim is: "Classmates also recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views."
The references are:
[12]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=132766402
[15]: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message
[26]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/jared-lee-loughner-arizona-shooting
[29]: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-7229463.htm
Reference 12 (npr.org) returns a 404 error (dead link).
Reference 15 (motherjones.com) does not support the claim that classmates recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views.
Reference 26 (guardian.co.uk) does not support the claim that classmates recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views.
Reference 29 (cbsnews.com) does not support the claim that classmates recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views.
A quote from motherjones.com about his religious views:
In another, Loughner complains that when he tried to join the military, he was handed a "mini-Bible." That upset him: "I didn't write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None," he wrote on YouTube.
Please note that not having a religion is not the same as being an atheist.
guardian.co.uk says: "Loughner also stood out as a vigorous atheist in a religious part of the world".
It does not say this was how classmates recalled him.
cbsnews.com says:
"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."
It does not say this was how classmates recalled him.
I recommend reading the sources before reverting. Von Restorff ( talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I fixed it now. Von Restorff ( talk) 21:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the dead link to npr.org because the content is the same as the cbsnews article (CBS has a few extra links). Von Restorff ( talk) 22:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose that this section be deleted, on the basis that it doesn't contain Loughner's 'expressed views' (i.e. views as expressed to a reliable source) at all. Instead, it consists of a random assortment of ex-acquaintances recollections (often from some time ago, and of questionable merit), as filtered through the media, and again through the perceptions of Wikipedia editors - at least some of which seem to be using the article as a coatrack to attack whatever cause they can associate Loughner with. Given the strong evidence regarding Loughner's mental state, any 'views' regarding abortion, or atheism, or "the nefarious designs of government" seem of little actual relevance. He was clearly deeply disturbed, and as such his 'politics' (whatever they are) can hardly be an explanation for his behaviour. It does little to Wikipedia's credit, or to the memory of the victims of this tragedy, to use the events as an excuse for mudslinging. We can do better.
At this point, I'd like to see the opinions of others on this, in the hope that we can reach a consensus. Failing that I may look at starting an RfC on the matter. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I've read extensively on reports on both cases. Frankly, in both cases, the mental condition of the accused is not that of sanity, though a court would have to deliver a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. However, if one is unfit, due to insanity, for trial and one's condition has not changed since the crime and arrest, reason follows that the person is insane and not responsible for their actions and requires treatment, not incarceration. Said treatment is best satisfied by residential care in a long term care facility with reasonable security present to prevent escape and danger to the community. Of course, even THEN, one requires a court to rule. However, both men's views were reported by the press, which is regarded as largely a reliable source, hence, the views remain. OR we reject 90% of current events here and move into the past, not covering ANYTHING contemporary, as the press suddenly became totally unreliable. Indeed, as many articles of the past present press reports as citations, THEY would be removed as well. Indeed, many, many physics articles site several scientific publications that qualify as press and they would be removed. Wzrd1 ( talk) 04:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I have removed and rewritten the section on Loughner's alleged pro-life stance; this information is wildly inaccurate and politically motivated. Ann Coulter calls this New York Times version of the events "the most bald-faced lie [she has] ever read in The New York Times -- which is saying something." According to the article in its current state, "[o]ne classmate stated that Loughner had laughed at a young woman and likened her to a terrorist after she read a poem about getting an abortion." Numerous other sources, including ABC and the Associated Press, have contradicted this story, explaining Loughner's reaction as laughing about the abortion. Indeed, only the NYT's version of the events (written by ultra-left journalist Eric Lipton) paints Loughner as a pro-life zealot. Please refer to the sources cited within the new paragraph and to Ann Coulter's January 12, 2011 column which details the incident and the resulting Times' spin. 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 04:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Vaibhavgupta1989 ( talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Te lead section is short in length. Please expand it by providing a comprehensive view on the topic. Detailed analysis coming up next week.Regards Vaibhavgupta1989 ( talk) 11:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It's been a week, where's the detailed analysis?-- Hoponpop69 ( talk) 21:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
1) First line of the lead section:"is an American man" (Inappropriate Usage); must be "is an American citizen".
2) Place a comma mark after end of parenthesis in "born September 10, 1988)".
3) Lead Section is too short. Please provide a brief description of the incident and the present status of the charges framed against him in a separate paragraph.
It would help expand the lead section and summarize the contents written in section 3 and section 4 of the article. The article, at present, has 17000 characters. As per-length criteria of the lead section, the lead section must have 2-3 paragraphs. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vaibhavgupta1989 (
talk •
contribs)
15:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Reasons for quick fail- Neutrality of the article is highly disputed and there is an edit war. Please work upon it before renominating the article for GAC. Also, work upon lead section length.
I have searched for the alleged cult affiliation of Loughner and no reliable source has reported on this. In order to claim that a living person is a member of a cult we must have multiple reliable sources for verification because this is a controversial topic. Stating in a BLP that the subject is in a cult without proper sourcing is an egregious WP:BLP violation. Until high quality RSs are cited this accusation will be reverted. Note that WP:3RR does not apply to removal--although if you edit war to restore it you will be blocked. – Lionel ( talk) 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
There never was an allegation that he was in a cult (occult is not the same as cult). The FBI was investigating due to a shrine found. Sources clearly state that the FBI was investigating Loughner's possible involvement in the occult. Please see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8251085/Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-Jared-Loughner-may-have-been-influenced-by-occult.html. AND http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-frightening-twisted-shrine-arizona-killer-jared-lee-loughner-yard-article-1.149211 {DEFINITION: oc·cult/əˈkəlt/ Noun: Supernatural, mystical, or magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena}. -- Mathnarg ( talk) 02:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: Omit "Loughner is an atheist" or provide accurate quotes. But why?: Because, it's very possibly inaccurate since we don't know if Loughner currently believes in God or not. Also it's a controversial subject about a living person and subject to lawsuits. He's currently awaiting trial. Additionally, most atheists don't be believe in the supernatural or the occult so it's not likely he is an atheist. Sources clearly state that the FBI was investigating Loughner's possible involvement in the occult. Please see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8251085/Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-Jared-Loughner-may-have-been-influenced-by-occult.html. "Occult" is not the same as "cult". People who edit should know this (hint hint, you know who you are). Try a dictionary. It's a wonderful thing. {DEFINITION: oc·cult/əˈkəlt/ Noun: Supernatural, mystical, or magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena}. The "Loughner is an atheist" comment is likely based on an agenda since the sources only say others said (hearsay). The claim he is certainly an atheist cannot stand because no such claim can be verified that he is currently an atheist. It would be reasonable to provide a quote, however. All sources cited with the "Loughner is an atheist" statement in the article offer hearsay and should be reported as such. The sources state others said he WAS an atheist---because that's all they can say, "WAS" since it was written in the past. At the very least just remove the "Loughner is an atheist" or provide an exact quote of someone saying he was an atheist, and report it accurately as such. This is all about accuracy about a living person. Or if we can't have accurate "expressed views" quotes then section should be deleted as suggested by someone earlier. People should stop putting their agenda/propaganda in WP articles so we can get the facts. I was quite disappointed when I checked the sources for "Loughner is (an) atheist" Only to find it was hearsay and no current sources of him claiming to be atheist. It's a shame people want to make things up or twist things to promote their religious or political agenda -- Mathnarg ( talk) 21:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified
You know what Jared Loughner was more than possibly an atheist? A huge nutball. Seriously, how can we say with certainty what his religious or philosophical beliefs are, when his thoughts are a muddle of incoherent babbling? You're going to take as gospel the comments of people who are saying the guy also said the space shuttle flights were faked and the government is controlling him via grammar. You call these reliable sources just because they say Guardian, CBS and Montreal Gazette. These sources REPORTED that his acquaintances believed he was an atheist. You cannot legitimately tell whether the source investigated the claims to determine whether he himself believes he is an atheist or has any religious tendencies. Leave it out until you can actually verify it with reliable sources that actually are shown to be reliable on this subject OR simply say that his aquaintances thought he was an atheist, and creepy, and scary... etc. Let's understand that the reliablility of sources is also dependent on context. -- Avanu ( talk) 01:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have uncovered more evidence which go against claims from Loughner's friends he was an atheist. The newspaper said the officer wrote of the incident, "I asked Loughner the meaning of his moniker. He stated that the 'c' meant Christian and the 'x' also meant Christian," adding in parentheses, "As personally written by Loughner on my field interviewing notebook!" What sort of atheist goes around with a Christian moniker? RS UPI: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/10/Loughner-earlier-arrested-for-graffiti/UPI-68681294700079/#ixzz1yUNDt2bp I'm just trying to illustrate we don't know if he's atheist or not. Just leave it out or be honest at least. Because if you add the atheist claim then we are also obligated to balance it out with the FBI investigation into involvement in the occult and the Christian moniker he was using.-- Mathnarg ( talk) 03:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
This obviously is self-identification. We now have at least 4 high quality independent sources confirming that he is an atheist. 2 news reports where the fact is stated unattributed, 1 report featuring interviews with friends, and 1 report where he self-identifies.– Lionel ( talk) 07:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, nobody knows whether Loughner has a belief in a god or not right now. Furthermore, such information is not relevant unless it's linked to his motives. The only reason anyone would want to include a person's belief system is if they were trying to establish a motive. For example, if Loughner said Santa came down and told him to commit the dastardly deed we would want it included because his motive was to please Santa. We would then have to implicate Santa for sure. Lacking a belief in god would be irrelevant, and again, we don't know what he believed at the time of the crimes. All we do know is that he was an atheist at some time in his life, he used a Christian moniker, and the FBI was investigating whether he was involved in the occult. Certainly, the information we do have creates a bit of confusion as to what his beliefs were, and we absolutely don't know what they are at this moment in time.-- Mathnarg ( talk) 01:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
There is totally a policy-based objection to people only wanting to include RSes that they want: NPOV. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." It becomes a little obvious there is an agenda when some editors don't want RS articles that don't support the articles they want cited.-- Mathnarg ( talk) 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I've been reading Tom Zoellner's A Safeway in Arizona: What the Gabrielle Giffords Shooting Tells Us about the Grand Canyon State and Life in America (2011). Zoellner draws a parallel between the atmosphere of violence in Dallas just before the assassination of JFK and violence in Arizona. Imagine my surprise to find that the NYT referred to Oswald as "an ardent leftist". [5] Interesting coincidence. Viriditas ( talk) 11:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
" Context matters- "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable "for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context". One source cannot be reliable in all instances. I have not seen one reliable source that tells us what Loughner currently believes or doesn't believe. Only hearsay of what he was, not what he is. So this insistence that he be put in a box and labeled an infidel wreaks of dishonesty. Also, atheism is not a religion as a few on the talk page seem to believe. It's merely a lack of a belief in a deity. If someone doesn't believe in Santa Claus there is no need to mention that. And keep in mind that Atheist is not the same as antitheist. -- Mathnarg ( talk) 10:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
In service to our readers our biography articles contain general background information to help understand the subject. For example place of birth, family members, education, military service, profession, etc. A topic that is often included is religion. In the particular case, it is the absence of faith which is at issue. This is the question: do you feel that we should Include
or Exclude
the following:
Loughner is an atheist. [1] [2] [3] [4]
[Friends and neighbors] said he was an atheist...
Loughner also stood out as a vigorous atheist in a religious part of the world.
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.
Jared Loughner posted a picture of a handgun on his MySpace page before the attack... On MySpace, Loughner complained that when he joined the military, he was given a 'mini-Bible' despite telling a recruiter that he was an atheist.
– Lionel ( talk) 09:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
There are three basic questions here:
The arguments that it is prohibited are that A) while reliable sources have claimed he is an atheist, there is no direct quote from him stating he is an atheist B) sources that have claimed he is an atheist are "sensational" and thus not reliable and/or they've concluded he is an atheist without actual evidence. There is no debate that traditionally reliable sources (AP, CBS News, the Mail) have stated he is an atheist, which is enough for us to use it unless there are sources to the contrary (or we have good reason to believe they are wrong). And there is no specific language cited here (other than WP:BLPCAT which it is agreed doesn't apply here) that requires we have the words directly from the subject. Thus while the discussion is somewhat split on this issue, there doesn't seem to be a policy-based reason that we must exclude this well-cited information.
There is an implied argument that to not include this information would be a NPOV violation ("representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views"). However, at best this argument wasn't developed well and there is certainly no consensus for it. In any case, some coverage of his religious views are found in the article, which would reduce any NPOV issue along these lines.
Next, given that policy doesn't dictate if the word "atheist" is or is not to be used, there is the question if local consensus is that we should use it to describe the subject. In addition to those making policy (BLP, NPOV) arguments to exclude the word (discussed above), there are a fair number of editors who believe we should only include the word if "... [it is] relevant to his notability" and worry that it will "make people wonder if Loughner's beliefs on this matter had any impact on the crime". These aren't policy-based reasons, but they are legitimate editorial concerns. Those wishing to exclude the material are in a clear majority, and there is weak local consensus to exclude the word when describing the subject.
Finally, I'll note that we have a subheading on the subject's views on religion. Similar words were suggested here as a compromise. While perhaps not to everyone's liking, to some extent they address the issue without using the word.
In summary, there is no strong policy-based reason we must or must not use the word "atheist" to describe the subject. But there is a local consensus not to. Further, the topic of his religious views are covered in the article in a way in line with a compromise proposed in this discussion, which seems a reasonable outcome. NAC Hobit ( talk) 01:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Just the desire to say "Loughner is an atheist" alone, without qualification, seems odd to me in an encyclopedia. Atheism is not a religion. In addition to the "living person" we have to think of the reader. A critical reader would want to know why he's being labeled an atheist, particularly for those who are well read on the subject. I think Jokestress offers a very legitimate example of how the information should be presented. As Jokestress writes: ["After Loughner took military entrance tests in Phoenix, he stated, "I didn't write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter wrote on the application: None." Loughner's statements have been interpreted by acquaintances and journalists as evidence he is an atheist.] The way Jokestress writes it here is not disputed, not too wordy, and clearly backed up by RSes. The other way, "Loughner is an atheist" (with only citations and no simple qualification) can leave false impressions. It's actually poor writing to let it stand alone, and at the very least will be challenged for clarity with a brief qualification like in Jokestress' example.-- Mathnarg ( talk) 21:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
|
This person has zero notability. When the sentencing was mentioned, it was not "Loughner sentenced", but "Arizona: Giffords' shooter sentenced to life". [9] For the rest of his life (and forever) do we want him (and others) to be able to point to this article on Wikipedia, or do we want him (them) to point to 2011 Tucson shooting#Suspect? This person has had their 15 minutes of fame, we do not need to make it longer. WP:BLP1E clearly applies. Apteva ( talk) 10:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This article uses the Daily Mail as a source. Is the Daily Mail a reliable source at all? Ryan Vesey 00:25, 12 January 2013 (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 |
The article states that Loughner dropped out of highschool in 2006. Without explanation, it later indicates that he attended college. We need to clarify these pieces of information: 1. When did he start college? 2. How did he get into college if he didn't graduate highschool? Did he revive his studies and earn his GED? Failing to mention a renewed interest in education contributes to the slant that Loughner began a steady mental decline. This portrayal may lack accuracy. 3. What prompted Laughner to continue his education?
In the very least, there needs to be a segue to prevent confusion-- i.e. "Loughner later entered college in 2009." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.169.133 ( talk) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Community colleges do not require high school diplomas or GEDs. Perhaps there is a link to another wikipedia article that explains U.S. Community colleges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.161.172 ( talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The article states, with weasel words, that "experts say he has schizophrenia". This is not true. I'm not saying he isn't schizophrenic, but it cannot be reasonably stated that "experts say he has schizophrenia" unless he has been under a period of psychiatric observation and formerly been diagnosed and documented as suffering from that mental illness. It should instead read "experts theorize he is suffers from schizophrenia".
So far (before May 25) he has been in prison, not in a mental hospital. Prior to May 25, he has never been diagnosed with a mental illness in his entire life. The recent ruling that he is not competent to stand trial is standard procedure for a criminal case in which the defendant behaves erratically enough to create the possibility of a mistrial. If the judge believed he was insane then the cased would have been ruled to indicate he was insane; it was not.
He will finally be put under true psychiatric observation, for the very first time, as a consequence of tentative ruling. This is to prevent a mistrial. It is not because the judge (who is not a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist) is conceding that Loughner is mentally ill to the degree that he did not understand the consequences of his actions. Annoyed with fanboys ( talk) 18:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Under the section describing Jared Loughner's views and beliefs; I deleted a remark claiming that Jared Loughner's views points were what led to the Tuscon 2011 Murder Spree.
Given the pending status of the investigation by law enforcement officials it is premature to conclude that Jared Loughner's state of mind was the principle cause of those murders. The murders investigations are ongoing; not all of the facts are know yet and law enforcement officials may discover additional facts or actors that led or contributed to the Tuscon 2011 Murder Spree.
Harold Darling (
talk)
04:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The article states Mr Loughner is currently being held at the Federal Correctional Institution at Phoenix and includes a picture of the building. It should be noted he is actually being held at the United States Penitentiary (USP) - Tucson. [1] I believe he was held in Phoenix for the arraignment of charges.
desertskies 21:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertskies ( talk • contribs)
What are the grounds for the relevancy of mentioning these substances? Millions of high schoolers experiment with these substances and don't go on to commit violent crimes. I think the mention of them in the paragraph is meant to imply that they contributed to his "mental breakdown" but I really don't see the justification. 174.253.84.65 ( talk) 18:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:JaredMtKim.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
The picture being used here is of the West Campus which is not the one that Loughner attended. He attended the PCCC Northwest Campus which is just a few miles from his home. S.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.83.253 ( talk) 18:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
This wiki article states that Loughner was pro-life, and cites two reliable sources to back up the claim (for his allegedly comparing abortion to terrorism). Fair enough. However, I can also cite multiple reliable sources where he's alleged to have expressed pro-choice views, laughed about killing the fetus, and suggested using the fetus as a suicide bomber. Furthermore, I can cite multiple sources that describe the incident in question as part of Loughner's pattern of behavior of saying things simply to get a rise out of people. (And no, none of these sources include World Net Daily, Newsbusters, or even Fox News, so don't anyone embarrass themselves by making asinine assumptions and accusations). Just google "Jared abortion bomb" to see many of the reliable sources to which I refer.
It's not clear, based on all available sources, what his views are or were on abortion. It just seems like we're picking and choosing the sources that support "Loughner was pro-life" while ignoring the sources that allege he was pro-choice or just plain crazy.
If I have to, I can add a, "Yet other sources close to Loughner claim he was not..." followed by citations to support. But then, the article would look sloppy and would be trying to puzzle out the mind of a crazy man based on contradictory second-hand accounts. Ynot4tony2 ( talk) 22:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Why was my edit deleted? A woman named Caitie Parker tweeted: "[Loughner] was a pot head and into rock like Hendrix, The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class" and "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy."
This is a well-documented fact and a proven relationship between Parker and Loughner exists. She describes him as "quite liberal" but it continues to be scrubbed from the Wikipedia article. POV much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 04:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
This is in regards to the removal of the "citation needed" tag on the below sentence: "Loughner echoes concerns of Tea Party movement in videos that reveal fears about government brainwashing." He has nothing to do with the Tea Party or any other party for that matter, as is indicated in the article itself. This is a statement from a certain point of view. It is not fact. The sentence following it is a media report (eg: opinion) and is cited. However, the citation does not make the previous statement a fact. There's a huge difference. That statement must be proven or removed. GenQuest ( talk) 02:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed some of the work of a pov pusher. Von Restorff ( talk) 07:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC) The category is for people for whom their atheism was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and who have self-identified as atheists. Von Restorff ( talk) 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
The claim is: "Classmates also recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views."
The references are:
[12]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=132766402
[15]: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message
[26]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/jared-lee-loughner-arizona-shooting
[29]: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-7229463.htm
Reference 12 (npr.org) returns a 404 error (dead link).
Reference 15 (motherjones.com) does not support the claim that classmates recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views.
Reference 26 (guardian.co.uk) does not support the claim that classmates recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views.
Reference 29 (cbsnews.com) does not support the claim that classmates recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views.
A quote from motherjones.com about his religious views:
In another, Loughner complains that when he tried to join the military, he was handed a "mini-Bible." That upset him: "I didn't write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None," he wrote on YouTube.
Please note that not having a religion is not the same as being an atheist.
guardian.co.uk says: "Loughner also stood out as a vigorous atheist in a religious part of the world".
It does not say this was how classmates recalled him.
cbsnews.com says:
"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."
It does not say this was how classmates recalled him.
I recommend reading the sources before reverting. Von Restorff ( talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I fixed it now. Von Restorff ( talk) 21:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the dead link to npr.org because the content is the same as the cbsnews article (CBS has a few extra links). Von Restorff ( talk) 22:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose that this section be deleted, on the basis that it doesn't contain Loughner's 'expressed views' (i.e. views as expressed to a reliable source) at all. Instead, it consists of a random assortment of ex-acquaintances recollections (often from some time ago, and of questionable merit), as filtered through the media, and again through the perceptions of Wikipedia editors - at least some of which seem to be using the article as a coatrack to attack whatever cause they can associate Loughner with. Given the strong evidence regarding Loughner's mental state, any 'views' regarding abortion, or atheism, or "the nefarious designs of government" seem of little actual relevance. He was clearly deeply disturbed, and as such his 'politics' (whatever they are) can hardly be an explanation for his behaviour. It does little to Wikipedia's credit, or to the memory of the victims of this tragedy, to use the events as an excuse for mudslinging. We can do better.
At this point, I'd like to see the opinions of others on this, in the hope that we can reach a consensus. Failing that I may look at starting an RfC on the matter. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I've read extensively on reports on both cases. Frankly, in both cases, the mental condition of the accused is not that of sanity, though a court would have to deliver a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. However, if one is unfit, due to insanity, for trial and one's condition has not changed since the crime and arrest, reason follows that the person is insane and not responsible for their actions and requires treatment, not incarceration. Said treatment is best satisfied by residential care in a long term care facility with reasonable security present to prevent escape and danger to the community. Of course, even THEN, one requires a court to rule. However, both men's views were reported by the press, which is regarded as largely a reliable source, hence, the views remain. OR we reject 90% of current events here and move into the past, not covering ANYTHING contemporary, as the press suddenly became totally unreliable. Indeed, as many articles of the past present press reports as citations, THEY would be removed as well. Indeed, many, many physics articles site several scientific publications that qualify as press and they would be removed. Wzrd1 ( talk) 04:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I have removed and rewritten the section on Loughner's alleged pro-life stance; this information is wildly inaccurate and politically motivated. Ann Coulter calls this New York Times version of the events "the most bald-faced lie [she has] ever read in The New York Times -- which is saying something." According to the article in its current state, "[o]ne classmate stated that Loughner had laughed at a young woman and likened her to a terrorist after she read a poem about getting an abortion." Numerous other sources, including ABC and the Associated Press, have contradicted this story, explaining Loughner's reaction as laughing about the abortion. Indeed, only the NYT's version of the events (written by ultra-left journalist Eric Lipton) paints Loughner as a pro-life zealot. Please refer to the sources cited within the new paragraph and to Ann Coulter's January 12, 2011 column which details the incident and the resulting Times' spin. 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 04:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Vaibhavgupta1989 ( talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Te lead section is short in length. Please expand it by providing a comprehensive view on the topic. Detailed analysis coming up next week.Regards Vaibhavgupta1989 ( talk) 11:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It's been a week, where's the detailed analysis?-- Hoponpop69 ( talk) 21:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
1) First line of the lead section:"is an American man" (Inappropriate Usage); must be "is an American citizen".
2) Place a comma mark after end of parenthesis in "born September 10, 1988)".
3) Lead Section is too short. Please provide a brief description of the incident and the present status of the charges framed against him in a separate paragraph.
It would help expand the lead section and summarize the contents written in section 3 and section 4 of the article. The article, at present, has 17000 characters. As per-length criteria of the lead section, the lead section must have 2-3 paragraphs. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vaibhavgupta1989 (
talk •
contribs)
15:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Reasons for quick fail- Neutrality of the article is highly disputed and there is an edit war. Please work upon it before renominating the article for GAC. Also, work upon lead section length.
I have searched for the alleged cult affiliation of Loughner and no reliable source has reported on this. In order to claim that a living person is a member of a cult we must have multiple reliable sources for verification because this is a controversial topic. Stating in a BLP that the subject is in a cult without proper sourcing is an egregious WP:BLP violation. Until high quality RSs are cited this accusation will be reverted. Note that WP:3RR does not apply to removal--although if you edit war to restore it you will be blocked. – Lionel ( talk) 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
There never was an allegation that he was in a cult (occult is not the same as cult). The FBI was investigating due to a shrine found. Sources clearly state that the FBI was investigating Loughner's possible involvement in the occult. Please see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8251085/Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-Jared-Loughner-may-have-been-influenced-by-occult.html. AND http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-frightening-twisted-shrine-arizona-killer-jared-lee-loughner-yard-article-1.149211 {DEFINITION: oc·cult/əˈkəlt/ Noun: Supernatural, mystical, or magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena}. -- Mathnarg ( talk) 02:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: Omit "Loughner is an atheist" or provide accurate quotes. But why?: Because, it's very possibly inaccurate since we don't know if Loughner currently believes in God or not. Also it's a controversial subject about a living person and subject to lawsuits. He's currently awaiting trial. Additionally, most atheists don't be believe in the supernatural or the occult so it's not likely he is an atheist. Sources clearly state that the FBI was investigating Loughner's possible involvement in the occult. Please see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8251085/Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-Jared-Loughner-may-have-been-influenced-by-occult.html. "Occult" is not the same as "cult". People who edit should know this (hint hint, you know who you are). Try a dictionary. It's a wonderful thing. {DEFINITION: oc·cult/əˈkəlt/ Noun: Supernatural, mystical, or magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena}. The "Loughner is an atheist" comment is likely based on an agenda since the sources only say others said (hearsay). The claim he is certainly an atheist cannot stand because no such claim can be verified that he is currently an atheist. It would be reasonable to provide a quote, however. All sources cited with the "Loughner is an atheist" statement in the article offer hearsay and should be reported as such. The sources state others said he WAS an atheist---because that's all they can say, "WAS" since it was written in the past. At the very least just remove the "Loughner is an atheist" or provide an exact quote of someone saying he was an atheist, and report it accurately as such. This is all about accuracy about a living person. Or if we can't have accurate "expressed views" quotes then section should be deleted as suggested by someone earlier. People should stop putting their agenda/propaganda in WP articles so we can get the facts. I was quite disappointed when I checked the sources for "Loughner is (an) atheist" Only to find it was hearsay and no current sources of him claiming to be atheist. It's a shame people want to make things up or twist things to promote their religious or political agenda -- Mathnarg ( talk) 21:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified
You know what Jared Loughner was more than possibly an atheist? A huge nutball. Seriously, how can we say with certainty what his religious or philosophical beliefs are, when his thoughts are a muddle of incoherent babbling? You're going to take as gospel the comments of people who are saying the guy also said the space shuttle flights were faked and the government is controlling him via grammar. You call these reliable sources just because they say Guardian, CBS and Montreal Gazette. These sources REPORTED that his acquaintances believed he was an atheist. You cannot legitimately tell whether the source investigated the claims to determine whether he himself believes he is an atheist or has any religious tendencies. Leave it out until you can actually verify it with reliable sources that actually are shown to be reliable on this subject OR simply say that his aquaintances thought he was an atheist, and creepy, and scary... etc. Let's understand that the reliablility of sources is also dependent on context. -- Avanu ( talk) 01:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have uncovered more evidence which go against claims from Loughner's friends he was an atheist. The newspaper said the officer wrote of the incident, "I asked Loughner the meaning of his moniker. He stated that the 'c' meant Christian and the 'x' also meant Christian," adding in parentheses, "As personally written by Loughner on my field interviewing notebook!" What sort of atheist goes around with a Christian moniker? RS UPI: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/10/Loughner-earlier-arrested-for-graffiti/UPI-68681294700079/#ixzz1yUNDt2bp I'm just trying to illustrate we don't know if he's atheist or not. Just leave it out or be honest at least. Because if you add the atheist claim then we are also obligated to balance it out with the FBI investigation into involvement in the occult and the Christian moniker he was using.-- Mathnarg ( talk) 03:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
This obviously is self-identification. We now have at least 4 high quality independent sources confirming that he is an atheist. 2 news reports where the fact is stated unattributed, 1 report featuring interviews with friends, and 1 report where he self-identifies.– Lionel ( talk) 07:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, nobody knows whether Loughner has a belief in a god or not right now. Furthermore, such information is not relevant unless it's linked to his motives. The only reason anyone would want to include a person's belief system is if they were trying to establish a motive. For example, if Loughner said Santa came down and told him to commit the dastardly deed we would want it included because his motive was to please Santa. We would then have to implicate Santa for sure. Lacking a belief in god would be irrelevant, and again, we don't know what he believed at the time of the crimes. All we do know is that he was an atheist at some time in his life, he used a Christian moniker, and the FBI was investigating whether he was involved in the occult. Certainly, the information we do have creates a bit of confusion as to what his beliefs were, and we absolutely don't know what they are at this moment in time.-- Mathnarg ( talk) 01:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
There is totally a policy-based objection to people only wanting to include RSes that they want: NPOV. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." It becomes a little obvious there is an agenda when some editors don't want RS articles that don't support the articles they want cited.-- Mathnarg ( talk) 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I've been reading Tom Zoellner's A Safeway in Arizona: What the Gabrielle Giffords Shooting Tells Us about the Grand Canyon State and Life in America (2011). Zoellner draws a parallel between the atmosphere of violence in Dallas just before the assassination of JFK and violence in Arizona. Imagine my surprise to find that the NYT referred to Oswald as "an ardent leftist". [5] Interesting coincidence. Viriditas ( talk) 11:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
" Context matters- "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable "for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context". One source cannot be reliable in all instances. I have not seen one reliable source that tells us what Loughner currently believes or doesn't believe. Only hearsay of what he was, not what he is. So this insistence that he be put in a box and labeled an infidel wreaks of dishonesty. Also, atheism is not a religion as a few on the talk page seem to believe. It's merely a lack of a belief in a deity. If someone doesn't believe in Santa Claus there is no need to mention that. And keep in mind that Atheist is not the same as antitheist. -- Mathnarg ( talk) 10:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
In service to our readers our biography articles contain general background information to help understand the subject. For example place of birth, family members, education, military service, profession, etc. A topic that is often included is religion. In the particular case, it is the absence of faith which is at issue. This is the question: do you feel that we should Include
or Exclude
the following:
Loughner is an atheist. [1] [2] [3] [4]
[Friends and neighbors] said he was an atheist...
Loughner also stood out as a vigorous atheist in a religious part of the world.
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.
Jared Loughner posted a picture of a handgun on his MySpace page before the attack... On MySpace, Loughner complained that when he joined the military, he was given a 'mini-Bible' despite telling a recruiter that he was an atheist.
– Lionel ( talk) 09:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
There are three basic questions here:
The arguments that it is prohibited are that A) while reliable sources have claimed he is an atheist, there is no direct quote from him stating he is an atheist B) sources that have claimed he is an atheist are "sensational" and thus not reliable and/or they've concluded he is an atheist without actual evidence. There is no debate that traditionally reliable sources (AP, CBS News, the Mail) have stated he is an atheist, which is enough for us to use it unless there are sources to the contrary (or we have good reason to believe they are wrong). And there is no specific language cited here (other than WP:BLPCAT which it is agreed doesn't apply here) that requires we have the words directly from the subject. Thus while the discussion is somewhat split on this issue, there doesn't seem to be a policy-based reason that we must exclude this well-cited information.
There is an implied argument that to not include this information would be a NPOV violation ("representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views"). However, at best this argument wasn't developed well and there is certainly no consensus for it. In any case, some coverage of his religious views are found in the article, which would reduce any NPOV issue along these lines.
Next, given that policy doesn't dictate if the word "atheist" is or is not to be used, there is the question if local consensus is that we should use it to describe the subject. In addition to those making policy (BLP, NPOV) arguments to exclude the word (discussed above), there are a fair number of editors who believe we should only include the word if "... [it is] relevant to his notability" and worry that it will "make people wonder if Loughner's beliefs on this matter had any impact on the crime". These aren't policy-based reasons, but they are legitimate editorial concerns. Those wishing to exclude the material are in a clear majority, and there is weak local consensus to exclude the word when describing the subject.
Finally, I'll note that we have a subheading on the subject's views on religion. Similar words were suggested here as a compromise. While perhaps not to everyone's liking, to some extent they address the issue without using the word.
In summary, there is no strong policy-based reason we must or must not use the word "atheist" to describe the subject. But there is a local consensus not to. Further, the topic of his religious views are covered in the article in a way in line with a compromise proposed in this discussion, which seems a reasonable outcome. NAC Hobit ( talk) 01:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Just the desire to say "Loughner is an atheist" alone, without qualification, seems odd to me in an encyclopedia. Atheism is not a religion. In addition to the "living person" we have to think of the reader. A critical reader would want to know why he's being labeled an atheist, particularly for those who are well read on the subject. I think Jokestress offers a very legitimate example of how the information should be presented. As Jokestress writes: ["After Loughner took military entrance tests in Phoenix, he stated, "I didn't write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter wrote on the application: None." Loughner's statements have been interpreted by acquaintances and journalists as evidence he is an atheist.] The way Jokestress writes it here is not disputed, not too wordy, and clearly backed up by RSes. The other way, "Loughner is an atheist" (with only citations and no simple qualification) can leave false impressions. It's actually poor writing to let it stand alone, and at the very least will be challenged for clarity with a brief qualification like in Jokestress' example.-- Mathnarg ( talk) 21:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
|
This person has zero notability. When the sentencing was mentioned, it was not "Loughner sentenced", but "Arizona: Giffords' shooter sentenced to life". [9] For the rest of his life (and forever) do we want him (and others) to be able to point to this article on Wikipedia, or do we want him (them) to point to 2011 Tucson shooting#Suspect? This person has had their 15 minutes of fame, we do not need to make it longer. WP:BLP1E clearly applies. Apteva ( talk) 10:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This article uses the Daily Mail as a source. Is the Daily Mail a reliable source at all? Ryan Vesey 00:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)