Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Balanced and Unbiased, my Foot

The article goes on ad nauseum about all of the allegations that the shooting was the result of right-wing hate rhetoric, but only passes over the fact that there was no evidence for this conclusion, and offers none of the evidence to the contrary. Writes Paul Bond, "the narrative [was]that the killer was egged on by violent political rhetoric, particularly from Palin... even after it was learned that the shooter was an atheist, flag-burning, Bush-hating, 9/11 Truther who enjoyed joking about abortion (not exactly the portrait of a Palin supporter)" The article mentions nothing about the youtube videos and social media posts in which Loughner expressed his bizzare beleifs and hatred of America and religion.

What does it mean when the media almost universially accepts a premise that is patently false, and "unbiased" wikipedia does nothing to challenge it? Good job wikipedia - way to keep it "objective." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDiq06K5ZA4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aQpE5aBn98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.13.212 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussions about mental health aside, I might remind that Ayn Rand was an atheist. Flag-burning has been employed by both the right (especially libertarian) and the left. (Look it up.)

Another correction is that the shooter did not joke about abortion. In the link which documented his reaction to abortion, he called the woman who had had the abortion a terrorist. (Not a video, this happened in person, and is in a linked reference.) Several different government conspiracies were mentioned by the shooter, of which 9/11 was only one. While the 9/11 Truther issue happens not to have traction among the right, other conspiracies mentioned by the shooter do.

Overall, based on his writings and videos, the shooter's opinions might more accurately be defined as government-hating than Bush-hating. While there is a specific focus on Gifford, this may well have been at least partly because he actually met her earlier, unlike most other people in government. - Tenebris 20:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.252 (talk)

Memoir

"In Kelly's memoir, Gabby: A Story of Courage and Hope, released in November 2011, he reports that Giffords vows to return to Congress, although she continues to struggle with language and has lost 50 percent of her vision in both eyes.[57]"

This Kelly person is not mentioned prior, shouldn't he at least be introduced first? It would be nice to know why his memoir is deemed credible. Was it authorised by Giffords, did she commission it? If it's mentioned solely as a source of her vow to return and state of health, I'm left to wonder if there's not a more direct source like her congressional website. (That and *Kelly's memoir* leads to be believe it's a memoir about Kelly because memoirs tend to be autobiographical or at the very least ghost written.) Nom du Clavier (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Mark Kelly is her husband... Awkward... --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Including/Bolding the title

Is everyone okay with this edit by The Devil's Advocate? I don't mind either way these days, but I feel that this is something that should be discussed, since, during the GA review, it was argued in this discussion that the title should not be used/bolded because of the WP:BOLDTITLE guideline. As that edit by The Devil's Advocate shows, there was even a hidden note about it in the lead. I was originally against the non-bolding, but GA reviewer/editor SilkTork and editor David Levy argued against me on that and the non-bolding format remained. The Devil's Advocate's change of this article appears to be in response to a debate about this type of style going on at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article; David Levy is also a part of that discussion.

I will inform SilkTork, David Levy and The Devil's Advocate of this discussion so that WP:CONSENSUS may be formed about this at this article. I ask that others who watch this article and therefore its talk page also weigh in. My opinion on the matter is what I've already stated above in this section (I no longer care either way). Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for going against WP:BOLDTITLE. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposed change to that article doesn't actually go against the guideline, just to be clear.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Tuscon shooting appears to be the common name at this point. Levy seems to insist on removing descriptive titles from such articles altogether and adding these little notes when he does it. SilkTork appeared to simply be stating what the guideline states, and that is that descriptive titles can be included if they are included in a natural fashion rather than saying whether it should or should not be used in this instance. If you look at the example given on MOS:BOLDTITLE, the Mississippi River Floods article, the title was not really removed entirely. Rather, their example sees the year removed and any use of the same words as the title being altered to be less redundant. Completely excising the title is neither mandated nor encouraged by the guideline. I think having proseline in the first sentence of the lede is more of an issue in terms of style than using the title in the first sentence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Tuscon shooting appears to be the common name at this point" is not true. The event had a variety of names at the time, and still does. It is also widely known as "Gabrielle Giffords shooting". The title chosen was descriptive, and therefore should not be used in the article as though it had a formal recognition. A way forward may be to consider Wikipedia:Alternative titles, and to have some mention of what names were used by the media for the incident. It would be inappropriate, however, for Wikipedia to be presenting the incident as though it were formally called 2011 Tucson shooting as that would mean that we end up as an influence, which is not what we are about at all. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the title of this article has been extensively debated, and this current one -- 2011 Tucson shooting (with the 2011 in the title) -- was never considered a common name; everyone can refer to this talk page's archives for that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your new version, in which various descriptions are presented in context, seems sensible. —David Levy 19:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying for everybody: SilkTork changed the lead so that it now names more than one title.[1][2] This is what David means by his "various descriptions are presented in context" line above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite ridiculous to have in the lede, possibly more ridiculous then starting out an encyclopedic article about an event with "on x date" and this is my problem. You are shoving in this trivial stylistic argument everywhere you can at the expense of good writing, much worse than the theoretical prospect of us making an already popular name for a subject even more popular. When it comes to "official names" it is a trivial point to make. If there are similarly popular and distinctive names then they can be noted and that prevents the possibility of someone thinking there is an "official name" for the event, even if that were a credible risk.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but stating that a shooting took place when people were shot isn't my idea of "good writing". —David Levy 23:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

1. The problem is that your versions aren't natural. When no de facto name for an event exists, we needn't redundantly state that a shooting occurred when people were shot or misrepresent mere descriptions as widely recognized names.

2. Where in the "Mississippi River Floods" example do you see the article's title or a portion thereof displayed in bold? —David Levy 19:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, if your only objection is the bolding then we can just restore my change without the bolding, someone will probably add it eventually but then you can just edit-war to keep out some minor wiki-markup rather than to restore poor writing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, if your only objection is the bolding then we can just restore my change without the bolding,

That isn't my only objection. (I've cited others.) I'm simply attempting to understand your argument.

someone will probably add it eventually but then you can just edit-war to keep out some minor wiki-markup rather than to restore poor writing.

As far as I can tell, your definition of "edit-warring" is "reverting to a version of which The Devil's Advocate disapproves".

Never mind the fact that you performed four reversions to an article's lead in a span of less than eleven hours yesterday/today. After all, your edits are right.

Likewise, when I argue that a certain style should be used, it's "frivolous" "POV-pushing", but when you argue that a certain style should be used, it's a laudable attempt to inject "good writing". —David Levy 23:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I made an edit that I think suitably addresses all of your objections. Honestly, I don't care too much about the bolding, though I think the name Tucson shooting is the one showing up as the common name and bolding it does not actually conflict with the MOS.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

For a record of the changes here on this talk page, here are the changes The Devil's Advocate is referring to:[3][4]. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your efforts, but two redundancies remain.

The opening sentence now reads "In the Tucson shooting of January 8, 2011, a gunman fired on a constituent meeting being held by U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, Arizona, near Tucson."

We're stating that the Tucson shooting occurred near Tucson when a gunman fired (the definition of a shooting). —David Levy 01:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No, neither the change or on the Sandy Hook article are redundant. Although it would be apparent that someone "fired on" somebody during a shooting, the term "shooting" communicates nothing about who or what was being fired upon so it is not redundant to elaborate on that point. Similarly, on the Sandy Hook article the term "shooting" communicates nothing about who was shot or how many were shot. Please undo your revert there and accept this edit here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You've missed my point (and helped to make it).

Indeed, the term "shooting" communicates nothing about who or what was being fired upon. So how is the lead improved by its addition?

Stating that "a gunman fired on a constituent meeting being held by U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in a supermarket parking lot" is necessary, while prefacing this with a vague mention of a "shooting" is an unnecessary redundancy that communicates no additional information.

But the worse redundancy is the statement that the Tucson shooting occurred near Tucson. Please explain how this is an improvement.

This isn't the correct talk page on which to discuss the other article in detail, but that redundancy was worse and wasn't your wording's only problem. —David Levy 02:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "tucson shooting" communicates the subject we are talking about in terms that are widely used in the media before we define and describe it as is customary for an encyclopedic article. The area in question is part of the Tuscon metro area so I have changed the article to note this. Does that satisfy you?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to the change to "Tucson metropolitan area", but this doesn't eliminate the redundancy.

I disagree that adding the phrase "Tucson shooting" to the opening sentence contributes any useful information. You note that such styling is "customary for an encyclopedic article", but the MoS indicates that this formatting isn't necessarily used and shouldn't be forced into the lead for the sake of having it in the lead.

As discussed above, "Tucson shooting" is not the event's common name. For example,"Gabrielle Giffords shooting" appears to be more than nine times as common, so I disagree with the premise that readers widely identify this subject as the "Tucson shooting" and expect to see it labeled as such (let alone in this context). —David Levy 05:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Raw web results are never that reliable, especially since they can be from years back. Recent news results show "Tucson shooting" used in far greater frequency two years after the fact than the name you mention. At any rate, people will recognize this more readily. On to your other points, saying the Tucson shooting was in the Tucson metropolitan area is actually not redundant, but elaborating on the point of what we mean by "Tucson" so you are mistaken there. As for the MoS, it only says that we don't need to incorporate the title verbatim. Even the example it gives provides a term that closely mimics the article title.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Raw web results are never that reliable, especially since they can be from years back. Recent news results show "Tucson shooting" used in far greater frequency two years after the fact than the name you mention.

This is a valid consideration, but that type of search is skewed in favor of topics recently in the news (including headlines). On and around the shooting's second anniversary, "Tucson shooting" was an obvious description because the focus was on the victims, their families and reflections upon the event, not on Gabrielle Giffords in particular. That doesn't mean that her involvement isn't emphasized in a historical, encyclopedic context.

At any rate, people will recognize this more readily.

I don't know what you mean.

On to your other points, saying the Tucson shooting was in the Tucson metropolitan area is actually not redundant, but elaborating on the point of what we mean by "Tucson" so you are mistaken there.

This is exactly the same argument that you made above (regarding the term "shooting"). And my response is the same too.

There's no dispute that "Tucson" alone is insufficient. That's why its addition doesn't improve the lead. It's the redundancy.

We needn't state that the Tucson shooting occurred when people were shot in the Tucson metropolitan area. Simply stating that people were shot in the Tucson metropolitan area conveys exactly the same information without the redundancies.

As for the MoS, it only says that we don't need to incorporate the title verbatim. Even the example it gives provides a term that closely mimics the article title.

I don't assert that such formatting is never appropriate. I'm addressing your statement that it's "customary for an encyclopedic article" by noting that it sometimes isn't. —David Levy 07:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This is getting to the stage of WP:POINTy editing by The Devil's Advocate, because the lead of an article should not be changed substantially without a consensus. There are no rules set in stone on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ian, you can condemn me all you like, but my conscience is clear because I have been trying to work with people to improve the article despite this uncooperative atmosphere. I imagine I can feel much better about that than you or Levy can feel about what you guys are doing. Don't worry, though, I am not going to try and discuss this article or edit it any more.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Gun Jamming

There is the claim that Loughner was attacked while reloading, however I have found multiple articles that believe he was tackled instead while trying to clear a gun jam. The distinction is important because the time it can take to reload versus the time to clear a stubborn jam can be significant. Eye witnesses may not have understood the distinction between the two. Further, G. Giffords and others often cite this shooting incident as reason for limiting handgun magazine size to 10 rounds, so pointing out this uncertainty is socially important. On that matter, I would like the main entry to mention that the video of the shooting has not been released to the public. I just added that to the main article -- we'll see if it lasts. Eye witness accounts, especially when people are under stress, have often proven to be unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.30.202 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)