Jump to content

Talk:Jared Lee Loughner/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Jared Lee Loughner

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)

Redirect

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))

Probably he falls under WP:BLP1E. Prodego talk 22:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This article was being Redirected by Ktr101 so I'm hoping he will stop redirected in order to give it a chance. (Savagemic (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC))
To me this article looks like it should pretty clearly be redirected because the subject falls under WP:BLP1E and the entire article is WP:OR (no reliable sources). Prodego talk 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've restored the redirect. IF sources emerge to build an article and the material can't go on the article on the shooting THEN at that point we can consider an article. At the moment there is noting to report that doesn't belong elsewhere. Further the Youtude stuff breaches the prohibition on original research. See also WP:NOTNEWS.--Scott Mac 22:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

An Open Letter to Editors

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)

I don't doubt that Caiti Parker knew him, but I doubt that she's qualified to make assessments of other people's politics. Anarchism is generally considered left-wing; this doesn't mean that it has anything to do with modern liberalism. Quite the opposite, in fact. Her "left-wing" assessment could very well be accurate (although Mein Kampf is hardly a left-wing manifesto). But the "liberal" part of it seems speculative at best, and uninformed at worst.
In any event, it's impossible to judge what his politics were based on the information at hand. As you said, it's quite possible that he suffered from psychosis, and I'm sure he will be tested for it in the coming days. StanHater (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Registered INDEPENDENT

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)

Give me 10 minutes I can make President Obama a Republican too. Let's be honest, he was a psycho. 75.150.245.242 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Is that really photoshopped? If so, that's pathetic. Some people will do anything to make reality fit their own narrative. StanHater (talk) 20:02, 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

Redirects

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)

It had been merged and redirected to 2011 Tucson shooting#Primary suspect, quite properly per custom and policy, and I agree with that decision at this point.
Going through a seven-day AfD with a current event like this is usually not the best way. I'd rather recommend trying to find quick consensus here.
Jojhutton, do you think WP:BLP1E does not apply here, and if so, why?
Amalthea 23:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Too late: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Lee Loughner. Amalthea 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
BLP1E always applies, but you and I have been around long enough to know that deletion discussions do not always agree with that assessment. Best to get more opinions than the opinion of just one or two editors.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, was trying to use that as a seed for discussion. Well, let's see how the AfD goes. I agree BTW that this is bound to be a standalone article in a couple of weeks, but IMHO it's best developed as part of the shooting article. Amalthea 00:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm just sitting back and watching and knowing how this will end eventually. With the article standing alone and whole lot of wasted time. It happens every time.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if there was a more expedient process for this. I had just been through the AfD for Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and was aware that there had already been some discussion about this above. KimChee (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I knew where this was going. No need to apologize. I'm not gonna get bent out of shape over this trivial subject. I just know in the end how this will end up. I've seen it before. Several early editors want to speedy redirect and then just when it begins to look like the article will be deleted or redirected, everything turns on a dime and a huge amount of editors start wanting to keep it. I can't explain it, it just happens that way. Maybe this one will be different.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Medical history

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)

Categories

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)

It's not "contempt of court", it's just not appropriate for wikipedia to label him in ways not yet legally demonstrated. At the moment he's an accused killer or accused assassin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, he is the assassin. It really does not matter what American law says, if reliable sources say he killed all these people – even foreign reliable sources – then Wikipedia should report that and not be restricted by legal principals. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the vast majority of reliable sources refer to the topic as "suspect" or "alleged shooter" -- see e.g. Google news (and disregard the blogs). So no, he may neither be called murderer nor failed assassin since that would be both unverifiable and libelous. Amalthea 19:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords's YouTube channel is subscribed to Loughner's.

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)

Holy crap your right, that is, if the youtube channel that is suppose to be Giffords, really is hers. Sometimes people set up fake youtube channels, cliaming to be other people, but this one looks legit. I wonder if there is a reliable source that will back this up, because we can't add it to the article because it may beconstrued as original research.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It would need a reliable source, and I haven't seen reliable proof that the subscription pre-dated the shooting--the idea that the subscription doesn't show up in recent activity is not real proof, that's not uncommon either due to how the channel is setup or just youtube lag.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This is discussed at Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting#Gabrielle_Giffords_was_subscribed_to_Jared_Lee_Loughner.27s_YouTube_channel.2C_classitup10. Probably not significant at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Band name

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 • talkblp-r 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dreaming

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)

Regardless of whether he meant "conscious dreaming" or not, the book is totally off-topic unless and until it is discussed in mainstream media sources etc. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Atheist?

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)

The Guardian is a trustable source yes?

Then What's the problem? --Protostan (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this self-identification, or someone else's description of him as a "vigorous atheist"? It isn't at all clear. It is also referring to a time two or three years ago. In any case, it has yet to be established that Loughner's religious beliefs (or lack of) have any relevance to his notability. Is it normal to report the religious affiliation of suspects of criminal investigations in Wikipedia articles? - No AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I restored this inadvertently in an (edit conflict), but do view the Guardian as a *highly* reliable source... off to look at the state of the article as of now; edit conflicts about ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not questioning the Guardian as a source, I'm questioning whether it can be read as a source for 'self-identified' atheism: it isn't quoting Loughner, so we don't know how they arrived at the description. In any case, even if it established as being self-identified, it also has to be shown to be relevant. I'll ask again: Is it normal to report the religious affiliation of suspects of criminal investigations in Wikipedia articles? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
In this vein I have a relevent question: what does a person do to become identified by wikipedia as an atheist phiosopher? --Protostan (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Can we please stay on topic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It is on topic, if you don't know just say so. --Protostan (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Please stop being obtuse. If it is on topic then explain why. (you could also explain what a 'phiosopher' is) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 11 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)

Utter nonsense. This isn't a forum for random musings. Either stay on topic, or go elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 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)

Agreed, he never stated this in any released materials, and the conclusion of one media outlet is not reasonable here. The sourced statement that he is "critical of religion" seems perfectly fine to me to describe his religious views. Flodded (talk) 01:01, 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)

Violations of WP:BLPCAT are excluded from WP:3RR, I believe... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Explicitly excluded from WP:3RR: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Both sources now listed just state THEMSELVES that he is an atheist, without any attribution; they are not quoting other people. The people who knew him describe him as "critical of religion" and such, which is by no means a synonym for atheist. Besides, see the WP:BLPCAT quote at the top of this section. Loughner has never publicly identified with atheism. There are no people, other than media outlets (and Wikipedians) calling him an atheist. I am reverting the edit which says "(The article quotes people as having said he was an atheist)", because the article does NOT do so. Flodded (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's a quote Flodded "Classmates and neighbours described Loughner as "creepy" and "an emotional cripple,"...They said he was an atheist"
Again, still against WP:BLPCAT. They believed him to be an atheist...quite possibly for the same reasons that you seem to be. Also, that quote was not in either of the linked articles, as far as I could tell. Now, if you want to state that people who knew him DESCRIBED him as an atheist, referencing that quote you just provided, I would be quite happy to see that in the article, because it belongs there. Just stating outright that he is an atheist, however, does not, given currently available sources. Flodded (talk) 01:23, 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)

Well, the subject self-identifying would help. Has he? I haven't seen any such materials. The two news sources you cited did NOT quote anyone as stating he is an atheist; they appear to have arrived at the conclusion by the same means that you did. And people that knew him agreeing? I could see that being grounds to identify him as an atheist (especially since it's hard for him to release information at the moment for obvious reasons), but where are these links to people who knew him stating that he is an atheist? Being critical of religion is not being an atheist. Flodded (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Category 'American Atheists' also needs removing from the bottom of the page.
Can I remind people that WP:BLPCAT requires evidence of 'relevance with regard to mentioning religious beliefs in a BLP. So far nobody has offered any whatsoever, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 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)

Oh, and I found the source for the "They said he was an atheist" quote above: a Telegraph article titled "Gabrielle Giffords shooting: Jared Loughner may have been influenced by occult." This isn't the best source of news to start out with...and you want to base a statement about him being an atheist on that specific article? Still, it's been reported, as well as by other sources (but without quotes, just apparent media speculation.) Flodded (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I am going to raise this issue at BLP/N, as it clearly needs to be sorted out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That seems like the best solution at this point. Flodded (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Given the link presented by Zillimeter [3] it seems prudent that the article makes clear that there is a discrepancy in the news reports regarding his religious beliefs.Chhe (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jared_Lee_Loughner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
discrepancy? he had a fake plastic skull in his back yard the article says that reports were told by those who knew him that he was an atheist. --Protostan (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
"Fake plastic skull in his back yard" is completely downplaying the quite apparent photograph that does appear to be an occult-like altar; the article also says that the FBI is investigating. This calls the article into question. (Again, the Telegraph isn't the best source...) This is the only article where they state that people who know him say he was an atheist, and there's no quote. The other two sources have no references themselves...just apparent speculation. This is why I think it's quite unreasonable to state anything past that others described him as an atheist...and even that might be excessive, given the conflicting evidence. Flodded (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No views from anyone who supports the "Loughner, an atheist," text on making this compromise change for the time being? I believe my proposed change is more accurate, and it reads better because it goes with the other text describing his religious beliefs. If you do not want this change to be made, I would appreciate objections. It's not appropriate to keep potentially incorrect, poorly-source biographical material. I brought this back to the talk page as requested after I was reverted one time. The issue is being discussed on BLP/N, in the meantime it seems prudent to be conservative with any potentially incorrect material. I'm not suggesting leaving it out entirely here...just locating and describing it more appropriately. Flodded (talk) 02:29, 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)

Agreed, but I would like to see some consensus on whether or not to make the proposed change above in the interim. Other than that, the debate should be on BLP/N. Flodded (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
OK the telegraph isn't what you consider 100% trustable. Are they shady enough to print fake quotes? --Protostan (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you only trust the Telegraph when they say Loughner was an atheist, and not when they link him to occult beliefs? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, they didn't even print a direct quote. They asserted that he was described as an atheist. And the article itself is at odds with what to describe him as pointed out above... Flodded (talk) 02:37, 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)

It can be included, but only as long as it doesn't appear as though it's saying he comitted the crime 'because' he was an athiest. Loughner hasn't said he fired the weapon out of frustration with religion. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
He hasn't said he fired the weapon at all, according to reports. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There ya go. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Going to remember and bookmark this discussion as a reference the next time someone who is religious, Christian, conservative or republican is raked over the coals here when only a 'newspaper' defines them as such. 75.150.245.242 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Gfiumara, 11 January 2011

{{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)

Missing information from 2011 Tucson shooting page

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)

False Information about Abortion

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)

This isn't a forum for speculation. Unless you have a reliable source that backs that up, it is irrelevant to this talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I added the bit about the comparison being made due to the woman reading a poem on getting an abortion; this is exactly what the NYTimes quote is indicating. Who's saying he's pro-life? But what AndyTheGrump said... Flodded (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Andy, you are putting this comment underneath the "Views" heading, meaning that it is related to his political / world view. Why post a comment regarding abortion under "Views" unless you are making an inferrence about his views regarding abortion? If the comment is irrelevant regarding his views on abortion, then it doesn't even belong in the article. You are speculating too, Andy. You are speculating that the comment represent his views on abortion. So, by your own criteria, it should be removed, since it is speculation and says nothing about his views on abortion. The VIEWS section should focus on what his views actually are. Lets stick to facts about his world views, right Andy? So why don't you tell me...what about the statement regarding abortion in the article does it say about his views? Exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't put the comment there at all - Wikipedia is a cooperative effort (of sorts). We are merely repeating what can be found in reliable sources, in any case - we don't speculate about things we don't have information on (or at least, we shouldn't). The only information we have regarding Loughner's views on abortion are the ones we have sources for. If you have other sources, please provide them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You're reading into this too much, too. Nobody is calling him pro-choice, pro-life, or anything. The only thing being stated is that he has apparently expressed the view that he should call women reading poetry about having abortions terrorists. Or maybe just that specific woman. Or maybe he just didn't like the weather that day. If anything, it speaks to his lack of rationality more than anything else, but it's an exercise to you, the reader, to decide what you want the statement to mean or not mean. It was a public statement potentially speaking to his personal views, reported by the media, and it is being quoted due to that, nothing more. Flodded (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "reading into" anything. What VIEW is being expressed or inferred by that statement? The answer is obvious, but I'm hoping that you will say it. If you are not trying to express a VIEW about that statement, then why is it there? Can you answer why that statement is listed under "Views" if not meant to express a certain view...which is?? You say it potentially speaks to his personal views....what view does it speak to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It speaks to the only view we have any evidence he expressed. Unless you have a reliable source for further information, this subject is closed. This isn't a forum for speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it potentially speaks to his personal views, since he was expressing an opinion on topics that have political and cultural significance (terrorism, abortion, women, poetry), thus Wikipedians quoted him as they would with any other notable figure. In this case, as in others, it is again up to you to decide what the statement means. It's pretty reasonable to conclude that he's mentally unbalanced, so perhaps he was just raving. As for what view is actually being expressed, you would have to ask Mr. Loughner; I certainly don't know. Maybe he's pro-choice, maybe he's pro-life, maybe he's just mentally unbalanced. Or maybe he just doesn't like poetry! Flodded (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Shooting

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)

It doesn't seem to. Possibly vandalism, rapidly corrected? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Not vandalism, I'm just a moron and somehow completely screwed up the month when adding in the blurb on the shooting... :) Thanks whoever fixed that. Flodded (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL :-P Actually, given the rapid changes to the article, I'm surprised we don't screw up more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed split of "Shooting and subsequent arrest" section

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)

Okay, I went ahead and did so. There's more info on the 2011 Tucson shooting page that should be copied here regarding state charges and other related stuff (I originally didn't copy some of that because of missing citations there), and we should probably flesh out the list of federal charges. (Feel free to edit away, I'm done with this article for tonight!) Flodded (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

References to Louchner's Mental Health

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 content removed had nothing to do with motivation. Perhaps you removed the wrong section? Also The comments are by a psychiatrist not a psychologist. I'll put it back since apparently you were trying to remove something else. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I have added 3 more sources related to the mental health aspect of the Subject's behaviour; an aspect which is daily being reported exponentially in connection with the Subject and his apparent murders. Perhaps the content needs to be reworked without reference to 1 particular psychiatrist, but the aspect is becoming too notably connected with Louchner, according to Reliable Source articles, to not be given prominent attention, and is being reported by REliable Sources as a precipitating and/or facilitating part of his life. Right now on CNN a victim's wife is saying "there's none to blame; its the work of a madman". So the BLP about Louchner must try to incorporate the large quantity of mental health references currently within the Reliable Sources; we can not pretend it does not exist. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
ok, the reference to the Subject's mental health have been reduced to a couple of sentences in "background". There is some concern being expressed in good faith by 1 or 2 Editors about Coatrack; which doesn't apply in this case for several reasons. There is no bias being pushed and there are an ever increasing number of RS articles referencing the mental health aspects, e.g.[4][5][6]. In light of the Reliable Sources' emphasis on the mental health aspect, for us to leave out references to the Subject's mental health would be similar to leaving out references to the Subject's gun, I think. Regardless of any of our own opinions about the relevancy of Subject's mental health or what if any health care he accessed, the fact that the RSs are emphasizing it in their articles means we should as well; otherwise the BLP would not be NPOV by omission. We can't cherry pick what to exclude anymore than we can cherry pick what to include. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Description of pictures on his myspace

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)

This WP:OR, but can you identify the gun in the image? The Glock is also semi-automatic.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be a Glock 19. Prodego talk 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It does look like a Glock. In theory, it could be the actual gun used in the shooting, which was also a Glock 19.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It most likely is, which I don't think is particularly surprising given that we haven't heard of him owning any other guns. But it doesn't really change anything with respect to this article. Prodego talk 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Prison caption

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)

We had this debate over on my talk page yesterday at User_talk:Ianmacm#Notnews. There still seem to be doubts about whether he is being held here, perhaps the image should be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:20, 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.

The "reliable sources" jump to conclusions, and you cite them.

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm glad I haven't contributed any money to the travesty known as Wikipedia.Jeremystalked(law 296) 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you complaining about anything in particular? We aren't telepathic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If the URL in your edit summary is representative of what you believe the truth to be, then of course you will have to believe that every mainstream news report is wrong. Wikipedia policy is to assume the opposite, that facts reported in multiple reliable sources pass the threshold of verifiability, and fringe speculation about government "psyops" does not. Note also that we don't ever slant our articles based on donations or the lack thereof. (EC) AndyTheGrump, see this diff for what I mean. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD

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)

Or I guess at this point just update the WP:BLP1E policy and/or remove it. :P Same goes for that big bold part at the bottom of the WP:CRIMINAL section. "Guilty until proven innocent" is what's fashionable in the news nowadays anyway. *shrug* We can issue a retraction later if the poor guy turns out to be innocent; then, no damage done, right? :| --slakr\ talk / 09:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Scott has reopened the AfD, declaring it improperly closed, so it can be decided there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Redirect' : We should let the AfD run its full course. This has nothing to do with "Guilty until proven innocent", as he is being delcared a suspect, not a convict in a case that has made worldwide news. Orenthal James Simpson and William Kennedy Smith were both acquitted of the crimes with which they were criminally charged, and they still have articles about them in Wikipedia which talk about their cases. Assuming that this article is redirected, which I don't think it should be, the article about the 2001 Tucson shooting will more than likely discuss Loughner anyway.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Each were notable apart from their alleged crimes. This man is not. --slakr\ talk / 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding what's "fashionable nowadays", it used to be much worse than this. Decades ago, newspapers would publish pictures of arrested suspects and caption them "the killer" and such as that. They've reined it in over time and are more careful with their wording now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The AFD has been closed as not merging it. So could we please respect that.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely not true, I did not endorse keep over merge in closing the AfD. -- Y not? 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Abductive (reasoning) 19:34, 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)

May I point out that Giffords wasn't assassinated? Unless we choose to extend this to "attempted assassins" but that brings out a large influx of others that really don't belong in an encyclopedia. If we choose not to, then that means we shift to "is a federal judge a major political leader". For that I have to argue (respectfully) not. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on the AFD closing rationale, consensus for redirect shall be determined on this page, correct? On a related note, should we make a {{dontCloseThisDamnAFDBecauseYoullBeMakingThingsWorse}}? --slakr\ talk / 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Although the article has expanded I so far have seen nothing relevant that is not already in the main article here, unless someone wants to pull a rabbit of info out of a hat here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Suspect being a liberal/left-winger

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)

I've given a WP:OR note to an IP editor for adding it once. I'd really hate to think we have to ask to have the page semi'ed because the political bickering is going to get in the way of factual updates... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting. Loughner's politics are all over the place. Omit until we have better sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
too late! It didn't last 5 mins till somebody added back into the article. I wish people would use the talk page a little more. Likeminas (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
NYT quoted a classmate that said he held liberal views in high school... what's wrong with that statement in the article? -- Y not? 20:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you take the time to look at the main article's talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting#Left_Wing_Radical.3F
Did you know that other sources claim 'he was prone to right wing rants, thus, contradicting that quote from her old classmate? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/jared-lee-loughner-rightwing-rants
How about we wait till things become more clear and then we add it into the article? Does that sound reasonable?
Likeminas (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added it back per WP:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs. Clearly the new york times and the Phoenix NewTimes are both reliable and verifiable.--Hu12 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It is all ultimately sourced to a Twitter comment from a former classmate of four years ago, and without noting Loughners later confused (and arguably right-wing) rhetoric on YouTube etc is misleading and unbalanced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 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)

And, @Likeminas, [7] was just as bad as [8], so there's no need to get self-righteous. -- Y not? 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It is certainly unbalanced to post a quote (based on a tweet) claiming he was a radical liberal while ignoring The Guardian's article that says he was prone to Righ-wing rants.
IMO, we need more sources to sort things out. Likeminas (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I have understood that he is in fact a Nazi! Now, what I would really like to see is a thorough discussion on his political beliefs and affiliations in this article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. – Besides, even if he is not, the speculation of him being a Nazi / American Renaissance follower is notable on its own right. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
So make a separate section about his political beliefs, throw all this shit together, and let's develop it. Good deal? -- Y not? 21:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
From The Guardian: "At Mountain View high school, Loughner ran with a crowd that smoked marijuana most days – a common enough pastime in Arizona – and occasionally binged on tequila. His friends considered him fun but saw a serious side as Loughner immersed himself in the conspiracy theories popular with a section of the American far right – not least that the government engineered the 9/11 terrorist attacks". [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Four years ago? those tweets were at or around the time of the shooting. The New york times and the Phoenix NewTimes are both reliable and verifiable and recent.--Hu12 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The Twitter comments are from someone who knew him four years ago. They are describing what they knew of his politics then. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
@ Y I'm not being self-righteous but when something is extensively being discussed not only here but also at the main article and you simply add the stuff into the article without even discussing then it become a problem. I was hoping that you as an administrator would undertand that. Likeminas (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you see me warring over it? I added it once with a better cite, because "as an administrator" I thought that's all that is required before something can be added, not a pre-approval from the talk page, which I didn't even look at (this section, anyway) before adding. You, on the other hand, reverted inappropriately here. -- Y not? 21:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edit summary [10] tells me you knew this was being disputed.
yet you still didn't want to look at the TP?
So, yea next time might wanna take a look at the talk page, especially when you're adding potentially controversial stuff into the article of a WP:BLP that was just recently created. But I guessed you already knew that.  ;) Likeminas (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No, just me trying to be fair, since it's obviously going to be a sensitive point. -- Y not? 21:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
She knew him for more than four years, in high school and college. The New york times and the Phoenix NewTimes are cleary both reliable and verifiable sources. The case your attempting to make for exclusion is invalid, when the content meets wikipedias inclusion criteria. --Hu12 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
And to balance this, we include the Guardian quote about how he "immersed himself in the conspiracy theories popular with a section of the American far right"? This is the point, the 'left-wing' quote has repeatedly been inserted without being given any context, and without noting the contradictory sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Indiscriminatly deleting validly sourced, verifiable content which meets wikipedias inclusion criteria does not create balance. Nor does deleting the 'left-wing' sourced statement (with attribution) from reliable sources create "Undue weight" whatsoever. see "Reference Indiscriminatly deleted" below. --Hu12 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Do I really have to cite WP:BRD? There was nothing 'indiscriminate' in deleting something that had repeatedly been added and then removed with a request to discuss on talk. The talk page discussion was ongoing. If you don't check article talk pages an history before making edits to controversial articles, you aren't really in a very strong position to complain about reverts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus.
BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
--Hu12 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There are sources that claim he fell for Right-wing rhetoric as mentioned above. How are you going to add both views in a NPOV manner?
Also the entire classmate's statement says he was leftwing when I knew him in hs & college, 3 years ago. So he may have changed, who knows Might have changed politically? Changed as in formerly a liberal and now a radical right-winger? These questions we don't know. But if we're to add the classmate's tweet then we should include the entire context and not cherry-pick what we personally like or dislike. Likeminas (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Despite the fact that he was described him as “quite liberal” and “left wing,” the New York Times, Washington Post, along with a host of blogs like Huffington Post and the Daily Kos, omiting those facts and verifyable statements is WP:NPOV editing. Loughner’s political views were all over the map, sharing characteristics of conservatism, liberalism and libertarianism. He is a disturbed and deranged individual. However, verifyable first person accounts are still facts, despite ones-own personal opinions of those facts. --Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Given that the primary source admitted ignorance about Loughner's present belief system, and that "So he may have changed, who knows" implies that he may no longer be left/liberal, there are only two courses of action; to include the entire quote, or to remove it entirely as not a WP:RS. Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference Indiscriminatly deleted

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]

  1. ^ Eric Lipton; Charlie Savage; Scott Shane (2011-01-08). "Arizona Suspect's Recent Acts Offer Hints of Alienation". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-01-09.
  2. ^ King, James. "Jared Loughner, Alleged Shooter in Gabrielle Giffords Attack, Described by Classmate as "Left-Wing Pothead"". Phoenix NewTimes. Retrieved 10 January 2011.
  3. ^ Klein, Aaron. "Assassin's politics lean 'left wing, quite liberal'". Phoenix NewTimes. Retrieved 08 January 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ Sheppard, Noel. "ABC Interviews Friend of Giffords Shooter, Ignores Her Claim He's Liberal". NewsBusters. Retrieved 09 January 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  5. ^ Sheppard, Noel. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=249293 "Media covering up alleged shooter's liberal politics?"]. NewsBusters. Retrieved 09 January 2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Recommend rejecting citations from Newsbusters; they fail WP:RS as a matter of record. NYT, however, is about as reputable and verifiable as they come (these days, anyway, IMO...). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
To the extent Parker's tweets get coverage, it should note she was referring to Loughner as of 2007. He clearly deteriorated since then.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner: Left-Wing, Right-Wing, or Just Plain Nutcase?

I found these articles that might help with this issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110109/tr_ac/7569322_jared_lee_loughner_leftwing_rightwing_or_just_plain_nutcase

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)

Fringe extremist certainly fits. I suspect many right wingers (anti-communist, right wing classics like Mein Kampf and Ayn Rand's We the Living are two of his favorite books) might also have read the The Communist Manifesto out of curiosity. His Democratic Party target (the ultimate proof of his political direction) certainly indicates a more right wing agenda at present, but he's all over the map, IOW basically an unstable extremist. Under certain influences he could have ended up as a left wing extremist, but Arizona would have been a bad place for him to live! -- Brangifer (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
He shot up his district's Representative. No reason so far to suspect that a different party affiliation would have saved her the trouble. -- Y not? 22:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. We need to find a way to add these contradicting sources in a way that balances both views. Likeminas (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Care must be taken when trying to identify this guy's politics though, because certain quarters have a good deal invested in getting this guy pegged as being a product of their political enemies. Paul Krugman, a mere two hours after it happened, tried to pin this guy's actions on the tea party and Sarah Palin. DailyKos tweeted that Palin's mission had been accomplished. There is little to be gained from trying to find a tenuous thread to connect this guy politically, except to score points for the other side. I see no reason why Wikipedia should be indulging the wishes of one political faction to exploit this to destroy another.173.173.11.106 (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In an Interview with ABC's “Good Morning America”, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, Zach Osler, stated[1][2][3]
  1. ^ a b Ariens, Chris. "Jared Loughner's friend says suspect 'Did not watch TV … disliked the news'". mediabistro.com. Retrieved 12 January 2011.
  2. ^ a b FoxNews.com. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=249293 "Report: Arizona Gunman Was Not Motivated By Politics"]. Fox News. Retrieved 12 January 2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  3. ^ a b ASHLEIGH BANFIELD and JESSICA HOPPER. "Tucson Shooting: Friend of Jared Loughner Speaks Out About Motive". ABC News. Retrieved 12 January 2011.

--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)

That is conjecture, and therefore of no significance. It isn't our job to do WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, kinda new to WP. I'll link as soon as I come accross something63.166.247.24 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, now that I've had a chance to go back and look at your entries, AndyTheGrump, it seems you have your own agenda, including deciding what's conjecture and of no significance (Loughner's parent's political affiliations) and what should be included in WP (the conjecture that Sarah Palin somehow magically had more influence on him than his own parents). You can shut me out but I'll figure out how to get my important point included. Thanks. 63.166.247.24 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If it is your point, it isn't 'important': We only include topics that have been noted in reliable sources. If you want a forum to discuss your own theories, you'll have to find one elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 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)

I'd say your addition was very well written, Nightscream.--Hu12 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Nightscream, I think there's a problem with ZO's testimony (as compelling as it is) -- he hasn't had contact with JLL for 2 years. So, how does he know what JLL was watching on TV or hearing on the radio recently? --Kenatipo (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

IPA

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)

Rename

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)

This article is a bio of Loughner. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If someone wants to read about the attempt on Congresswoman Giffords' life, they'll google for her, find her article, and see that it's linked to the shooting article. Not difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.200.24.18 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Take $1LENCE D00600D's suggestion as a !vote for merging the article to 2011 Tucson shooting. Abductive (reasoning) 14:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

satanist

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)

This comes from a New York Daily News story at [11]. Not sure about the WP:V and WP:BLP angles on this, what do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The only other "major" story is a Guardian article alleging that the FBI is investigating it. Seems rather sketchy, and the New York Daily News isn't what I consider an accurate source either. Also, the NYDN and Guardian articles have some of the exact same text, e.g. concerning the camouflage tent and oranges. (And the same picture.) Either they have the same EXCLUSIVE! source, or one is plagiarizing the other. Other sources I found are all blogs and such things referencing those other two. I believe it should be left out unless a more mainstream and trusted source reports on it. Just seems to be likely tabloid junk for now. Flodded (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I fear we're bordering on OR and Wikipedia:I just don't like it when we have 2 RSs report an interesting aspect and we don't include it for vague reasons. This is the type of content which should go into a section on his state of mind or "strange behaviour". There is just so much of this kind of thing it seems to call out for a section in the BLP, I think, and its pov by omission to exclude a lot of this type of RS content; let's face it; this guy is being presented by RSs as being off his rocker so the BLP needs to more fully represent that RS content; I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

YouTube Page

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)

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik stated his belief that the YouTube channel was Loughner's soon after the shooting. It has been known about since within a few hours of the shooting on Saturday.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You are mistaken, the videos are all dated/uploaded in December and October 2010. 178.25.213.210 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There is WP:PRIMARY here. Sheriff Dupnik and the world's media have reported the link to the YouTube channel, the article is reflecting this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in doing some WP:OR, they could look back into the history for this article to find when the YouTube video link was first included - not that this would satisfy the conspiracy theorists I expect. (And yes, I know we can't include OR in the article). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I watched the videos on Saturday, so they couldnt have been uploaded yesterday. Do we have a troll among us?Jojhutton (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The first wiki reference to Classitup10 is Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting/Archive_1#Youtube_channel_of_shooter at 21:39 UTC on the day of the shooting, around 4.5 hours after the shooting. I had a look at the channel around 22:00 UTC, it does not seem to have changed since then. Anyway, we are stuck with what Dupnik and the media have said for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:47, 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)

Forum description as 'schizophrenic'.

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)

It is here, but I think it should go because ATS is not really a reliable source. Worth noting, though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:38, 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)

no, it definitely does not belong in the article at this point in time; that's a specific medical diagnostic term. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotes section

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)

I think the Religion and Favorite Books section are un-needed as well they can easily be added in other places in the article and dont need their own sections. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the quotes section so I looked at the youtubes of Dec. 15th. and noticed 1 quote (which I added to the BLP Quotes section): "If B.C.E. years are unable to start then A.D.E. years are unable to begin." Might be notable in the context of how strange his thinking was. This particular part of his youtube has very long numbers which he used, I think, to illustrate that since the BC dates go backwards (2 B.C. is further back than 1 B.C.) then the series of B.C. dates do not start at 0 and has no known starting point; and he further extrapolates that if the BC #s have no starting point then they don't really exist,thus, neither do the A.D. dates since they follow the B.C. series. Somehow he seems to connect that observation with his other brainwashing theories. All of his quotes might provide some insight maybe into what was going on inside his heads, but I guess all that really matters is how much attention Reliable Sources give to these quotes. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the 'B.C.E' quote, as it wasn't in the source cited. I don't think we need to include his entire output, in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh,sorry, I see you are right; its in the youtube but not the secondary source cited. And you're also right in that its not needed anyway. Thanks. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:59, 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)

That one is too tangential and not quite notable enough. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Internal inconsistencies

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)

Section on Loughner's Mental Condition

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)

Usually, assessments of a person's mental condition are not reliable unless the person offering the opinion is a physician and has actually met the person. There have been a lot of remote diagnoses of Loughner, but most of these would not meet WP:RS.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but OR means we don't determine whether those assessments are reliable,right? Its the RS articles content related to his behaviour more than the armchair assessments. hmmm, maybe we could cover it with a section header of "strange behaviour"? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
OR means we don't determine whether a source is reliable? That's a novel interpretation of WP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm referring to assessments, not sources. Ianmacm'S comment "...assessments of a person's mental condition are not reliable..." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Than why do we have Historical figures sometimes considered autistic and other such lists including speculation on things like Abrham Linclon's sexuality? Is this policy only for living persons? --Rarian rakista (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
We have a stricter biography policy for living people--Guerillero | My Talk 04:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

More relevant information on political views

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)

Not sure what party affiliation or lack thereof, has to do with one's state of mind. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Then maybe you should remove the entire section labeled "Views" as someone has decided that his views are important. If his views are important, and if it is important to mention a comment about abortion, which is speculation, then it is even more relevant to mention the non-speculative fact that he is a registered independent. Since most of the "facts" in this article are quotes from sources like the NYT, which contain vast amounts of speculation, facts are few and far between. I believe GoodDay that every fact we have right now about this person is a benefit. Half of the items in his article are speculative, so perhaps we should really embrace the hard facts as they come out. I do not see the logical consistency that you would see as more relevant the speculative comment about abortion to be included under "Views" (which say what about his views again?), and yet would turn down a hard fact about his political ideology as less relevant. Does that make sense GoodDay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Mr./Ms. 67.183.191.86, we've already talked about this at length with you in the "False Information about Abortion" section. You don't need to bring the issue back up again, it's been covered. You are more than welcome to create an account and help edit the page yourself, following Wikipedia guidelines. I am not going to debate this with you further, unless you actually decide to participate in the editing process. Thank you for your input. Flodded (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This was added in and seems relevant, however, stating that he did not vote in 2010 is purely speculative, as the article states only that Pima County's information has him last voting in 2008. He could have voted in another county, state, not been recorded, or whatever. I changed the article to note that he last voted in 2008. We cannot simply assume he did not vote in 2010, even if it is likely. Flodded (talk) 08:20, 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)

request re Christina

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

Information on her, and the other victims, is at 2011 Tucson shooting. I'm not sure the redundant material would be helpful. Perhaps a Wikilink to the list of victims would be in order... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Move to Jared Loughner

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)

Yes I object, for the same reasons given elsewhere to meaningless move requests made while events are rapidly evolving. This is disruptive, and totally unnecessary. If there isn't a redirect from 'Jared Loughner', make one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, the last thing the article needs at the moment is drama over what to name it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I would oppose this because the sources clearly refer to him with the three names. And isn't it an unwritten rule that political assassins must have three names?Jojhutton (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't use the unwritten rule to support using all 3 names. Governor Ventura says that unwritten rule is part of one of Ventura's brainwashing conspiracy theories ([16]at the 9:30 mark). Charles Manson excludes the "Milles", so maybe we should try to be consistent. RSs don't determine Wikipedia BLP Titles do they? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. 4 reasons: Consistency in title style:Timothy McVeigh and Charles Manson do not include middle names. By having it 3 names it reinforces Ventura's conspiracy theory (see comment,link directly above), which I prefer we avoid,even by happenstance, if we reasonably can. The Editor who created this BLP and decided to use all 3 names is a SPA and never responded/collaberated to questions on his talk page [17]; a non-responsive SPA should not be the 1 to make this decision. There is no compelling reason to keep it 3 names. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no compelling reason to keep farting around with article titles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
to get them right? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nihilist and atheist, critical of religion

... 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)

It isn't a chapter it is a sub-chapter. Some people find that information important yet it does not belong under Conspiracy theories or Quotes. Could merge politics and religion, but then again it was a political assassination so the politics sub-chapter takes on a special significance. I understand your point though.--EchetusXe 17:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we can say categorically that it was a classic political assassination or attempted political assassination because just as many RSs are framing it as the rampage of a madman who could've just as easily picked another target. Also, most of the victims were not politicians so as a matter of fact it was not simply a political assassination. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

an Atheist and critical of religion

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)

Those aren't the reasons I'm an athiest. Also, not all athiests are Americans. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

"...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?--EchetusXe 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. Unless this is discussed in reliable sources (rather than noted in passing), it is of no real relevance to the article. There seems to be strong evidence that Loughner was mentally unbalanced, so his view don't need to 'make sense' in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"Gabrielle Giffords shooting: Gunman linked to grammar 'judge', Activist apparently shared Jared Lee Loughner's obsession with grammar and mind-control theories"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-grammar-extremist Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo: Loughner family home

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)

Is it really necessary?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Not a hugely interesting photo, and some WP:NPF issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
As well as WP:NPF, we'd need independent verification that it actually is his home, given the possible consequences of getting this wrong. Definitely can't go in without this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this is a useful addition, but for the record, it is verifiable as an image of the house in question; see similar photographs here and here, for example. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
We do it with Oswald's apartment but with Loughner I think its in bad taste since Loughner's parents live there and he no longer does. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't live there of course because he's incarcerated, but thats beside the point. Its not all that interesting a photo, to say the least, and adds nothing to the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I doubt he'll ever live there again, so its not beside the point, because my point is that at this time the photo is of a house in which only his parents live and unless the article shows every house the Subject ever lived in(some sort of historical photo album) it serves no purpose at all to be showing one house that the Subject used to live in. I also think its classic rubbernecking voyeurism. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It would add nothing of value to the article for the readers. There's also an issue of the identifying info in the image, i.e. license plates on the vehicles. I'd note that the initiator of this topic is also the image uploader, and on top of the last two concerns I'd rather not see the Wikipedia be a supporter of amateur paparazzi. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 13 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 doubt the media are going to be posting pictures of their house, but given the nature of the media, I wouldn't count anything out. Also, unless there's something unusual about the house, I doubt it would tell us very much about his background that's useful in explaining what happened. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
For better or worse (worse, I think, but oh well) he now has his own article. "Useful in explaining what happened" would be the criteria for 2011 Tucson shooting, but the criteria for this one is "tells us something about Jared Loughner". --FormerIP (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's been described as a quiet, middle class neighborhood. I don't see how a picture of a specific quiet, middle class neighborhood house would really add any new info, and as Sarek notes below, it could have negative impact on the family. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:51, 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)

Put on hold any discussions about deletion or merging

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)

I disagree. A consensus is forming because in the past 2 days(11th and 12th) there have been 4 opposed to every 1 merge(28-7). I also think the discussion page looks as it should; its not an eyesore at all but rather a real work in progress. Is a high rise in the process of being built an eyesore; with mud,men and sweat and piles of building materials,ropes and cranes moving in different directions and in seemingly uncoordinated fashion an eyesore? Perhaps you're right; but then let's celebrate the eyesore. This BLP is not going anywhere; like it or not, it is what it is. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but this isn't a !vote. What really matters is the points each side makes.--Guerillero | My Talk 03:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Very true. The opposed points are generally more objective and salient, I think :) Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
@Mr.Grantevans2 - re "opposed points are generally more objective and salient" - I disagree.... I think we should vote on it. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from RaymondKertezc, 13 January 2011

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)

 Done--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

occupation

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)

I'm inclined to agree, though I'm not sure that I'd call it a 'smear' - just irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If there's a compelling need to fill in the "occupation" line, "student" should be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Height and weight?

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)

I haven't, and I wouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
== Image ==

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)

If you know anyone in the cellblock he's in, maybe you could ask them to take a picture. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Banana but I dont see anything that disproves it is a free use image, if you feel otherwise you should take it up at the commons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think using a mugshot in this case counts as "a false or disparaging light" per WP:MUG. --FormerIP (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that Banana tagged the picture for deletion for those that want to join in that discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It was nice of him to mention that here. The user is trying various end-arounds to get his way with this article. Someone needs to put the brakes on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 13. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the "di-disputed fair use rationale" template. The concern voiced there does not address that the photo showing Loughner as he appeared just after the shooting is not replaceable. Additionally, it is doubtful that Loughner will ever be in a position where a free image of him can be taken. He is likely to spend a very long time in courtrooms or prison cells, and photography is forbidden in both. Active Banana, if you nonetheless believe that the image is irremediably inappropriate, you should start a deletion discussion.  Sandstein  21:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) I do not see that the fact that it may not be easy to get a free use image right now is a justification in the use of an image of a living person. WP:FAIR and to make a prediction that we will never be able to get a free image is also not a valid one. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You're wiki-lawyering to try to get the image removed because you don't like it. However, it's in wide circulation, so it's news-worthy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It says "to what degree is the image replaceable". If it would currently be a criminal offence and require extraordinary planning to attempt to do so, then surely that's good enough, just at a pinch. (ie the bits you put in bold are in the wording, Active Banana) --FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 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)

Comment: I have to agree that it does not meet the non-free argument as this individual is not dead and there is a possibility that a federal agency could take another photo (that would be free) of him later. I think the best fair use argument I have seen from the uploader is that this image may have some historical value in that it has been the subject of much media discussion over the subject's appearance. KimChee (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
But we would have to have content in our article about that discussion and I am not seeing it and not sure that "based on his picture, people are saying he looks creepy" would meet WP:BLP Active Banana (bananaphone 22:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Mug shots often look "creepy". The picture was "released to the public", so there's really no reason not to keep it in the article, although it could maybe be shrunk a bit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
and see "Mugshots are rarely appropriate as a depiction of someone's appearance; even in the article Rosa Parks, where the mugshot is the single most famous image of the subject is and used directly in the article, we don't use it for the primary image, because of problems with using mugshots for identification. Likewise, per WP:BLP we must not allow our article to imply that a person is guilty of a crime they have not been convicted of, so the use of mugshots for individuals like Loughner who are only notable for alleged crimes they have not been convicted of is especially problematic" and "Also, he hasn't been convicted of a crime, so we should make an effort to not use a mug shot as a principle way to identify him" Active Banana (bananaphone 23:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
So get busy and find a better photo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree and am abstaining from voting. I have left my comment because I feel many of the keep votes are making an incorrect fair use argument. Here are some links to media analyses of media use of the photo [18] [19], in which I concur at best, the image should be moved to a section on public reaction if a "historic" fair use argument can be sustained. KimChee (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it should be kept fotr the reasons given by several others. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kerka1jb, 13 January 2011

{{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)

I have deleted the movie review and made this explanation for deletion in the edit summary; "Unsourced pov; reach consensus on talk before reinserting a clearly pov movie review." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Further to this, we now have a statement by a 'best friend' saying the movie influenced Loughner, and a statement from its creator calling this 'irresponsible' and 'disingenuous'. Frankly, the 'best friend's' comment can only be speculation, and link tenuous at best. Is there any good reason not to delete the lot, rather than get into a to-and-fro argument about a marginal issue? Without evidence for external reliable sources giving any weight to the issue, it seems of marginal significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Andy that the statement by the movie maker that someone added is not a reliable source. I'm removing it. The one thing useful that statement did do was point out that there has been substantial RS reporting by ABC,Fox and NBC about the best friend's comment that the movie influenced Loughner and a google check [20] does confirm that to be the case. So that part will stay in. I'll add another source or 2 for that. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

'Genocide school' video

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)

Slant in Article

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.”

Source: http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2011/01/10/friends-co-workers-loughner-had-curious-dark-change/

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)

While I can see merit in your argument, we have to reflect what sources say - and when they are about someone alleged to have been responsible for multiple killings, it is going to be negative. As for what 'caused something to snap in him', this may well be discussed in greater detail later, but we can't include our own theories on this: see WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
What Neurolanis presented is a source, Andy. Why can't we reflect that? --FormerIP (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, what the girlfriend said should be included in the article if the source is valid. The only problem (?) is that it will interfere with the almost perfect negative flow of the article. Saji Loupgarou (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I also think it should be included. I'll put it in. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
If its sourced, it may offer a perfect juxtaposition to the other information.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yea, because most assassins are perfectly fine people. Some would even say they're awesome. I mean, Sirhan Sirhan was a great dude. Capt. Colonel (edits) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Last I checked, this man has not been convicted of anything concerning the shooting. Besides, refusal to include a legit perspective because you have formed your own opinions to the contrary puts you in violation of NPOV. Saji Loupgarou (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I see your NPOV and raise UNDUE. Capt. Colonel (edits) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The NPOV issue here is not just about being nice or nasty to Loughner. It's also whether we explain Loughner (and, by extension, the phenomenon of people who commit murder) to our readers via our own confirmation bias that only reporting unmitigated negative information is appropriate. Wikipedia should attempt to communicate the shading of the picture, not just paint it all one colour. --FormerIP (talk) 03:37, 16 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)

Normally I might agree, but in this case, RSs and people who knew him are using the term a lot and in this BLP it seems to be appropriate for usage. I've also come to the opinion that the term is rapidly losing its pov status, aided by former governor Jesse Ventura's TV show, Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura as well as the sheer volume of people who now doubt Government versions of some events (like 75% do not believe Oswald acted alone[21]). Right now the term is only used in a pov way,typically by politicians or talk show people, to support an otherwise weak argument or cast aspersions on an otherwise valid argument. Its also still used by pre-teens povishly (as well as the "tin foil hat" phrase) to appear intellectually sophisticated. But in terms of this BLP; its multiple usage is quite valid(many RSs) and not povish within the "views" section, I think. I do not think it needs its own section header as it once had. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats

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)

Hmm, I wish I could share your enthusiasm. I read a biography full of vague, dubiously sourced irrelevant detail - a focus on the nasty parts of his life and a distinc ant-Loughner bent (despite the work of BLP editors). It's a WP:RECENTISM travesty :) --Errant (chat!) 14:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Vive la difference (in our opinions) Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtube

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)

As ever, Wikipedia is limited to reporting material that has appeared in reliable secondary sources. Things may change over time, but that is what the "edit" button is for.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you are saying there? It is completely unrelated to the issue I am raising. the material removed is primary sourced, please provide a secondary source for the material. Primary sourced material must be treated extremely cautiously in the case of a BLP and it is not acceptable for the content you are reverting back in to be primary sourced. I strongly encourage you to self revert or provide a secondary source to use! --Errant (chat!) 14:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There has been extensive media coverage of Classitup10. Clarence Dupnik stated his belief that the material was posted by Loughner, as have multiple media sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Great. Please provide those sources; ones discussing the Youtuve channel, and ones discussing his fav books. The content in the article is primary sourced as it is and that is not appropriate. If there are secondary sources, please use those. This is the basis of WP:V and BLP policy --Errant (chat!) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody from the media was sat next to Loughner at the computer while the Classitup10 material was posted. However, it has been generally reported that he was the source of this material. According to the Los Angeles Times, Loughner was suspended from school after posting the "Genocide school" video, which was removed from YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That is NOT the material I am discussing. --Errant (chat!) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the policy doesn't forbid primary sources.

-- Avanu (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY has more specific advice for BLP's. Certainly contentious material (and the material I removed is reasonably contentious) cannot be primary sourced very easily - and in this case it is incorrectly done. The issue here is that this text in paraphrase says:
  • "he had a youtube channel"; source is the purported Youtuve channel
  • "his profile lists these books as favourites"; source is above purported Youtube channel

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)

Facepalm Facepalm And now we have the following new text: ima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik stated his belief that the suspect had a YouTube channel under an account called "Classitup10". - fine , no huge issue there. BUT it is sourced to the Youtube channel, which fails verification entirely. Please provide the source in which Dupnik is listed as stating this is his Youtube channel. --Errant (chat!) 15:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been trying to edit the article to match the sourcing more closely. Instead of being an armchair critic on the talk page, please edit the article if you consider it to be wrong in some way.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine, *sigh*, I will try and find a source for you. But the aim was to try and explain to you a piece of policy more than anything... do you understand the issue with this content? --Errant (chat!) 15:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, this demonstrates the entire point I was making. I can find a source enough to say this may have been his Youtube channel, but nothing that sources Dupnik saying this directly (as the article states); what is your source. It would be really helpful if you could list it. --Errant (chat!) 16:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
As explained, nobody knows for a 100% fact that Loughner is Classitup10. However, this has been in reliable sources since within a few hours of the shooting, eg the CNN source in the article (Dupnik was removed).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Great, that source didn't name the account (which we do) so I subbed in a Bloomberg one that does. I appreciate that this has been in reliable sources since the start - but that is the place to source it from :) not the primary source of the youtube channel - because that fails [{WP:V]]. looking good now :) --Errant (chat!) 16:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

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)

newspaper/magazine article

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)

Proposed merge

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

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)

WP:BLP1E supports the sustaining of this article. It states: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Event is extremely significant with this person having a substantial role. --Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You are incorrect. As of now, Loughner is only ALLEGED involvement. Until conviction or admission, that reading of BLP1E does CANNOT be applied to this situation. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E states "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial..." It says nothing about being "alleged" or needing to be "convicted." Already even without conviction, this person's role in this very significant event has been substantial. Under your criteria, there could be no John Hinckley, Jr. article until over a year after Reagan's assassination attempt because it took that long for him to be convicted. --Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
CORRECTION: Hinckley wasn't even convicted and yet WP:BLP1E specifically uses him as an example of when its appropriate to have an article. --Oakshade (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The outcome of the afd? You mean your preferred outcome, considering your reaction when I closed it the other way. --slakr\ talk / 09:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If the AfD runs its full 8 day course, I have no issue with that. --Oakshade (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
That means that anybody can demand to keep open a WP:POLICY-violating BLP for 8 days by merely initiating an AFD. This is Wikilawyering of the worst sort. The proper course of action is to redirect this article first, then debate. Abductive (reasoning) 14:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Not only is there very strong contention against the claim that this article is a violation of BLP, but there's strong contention that WP:BLP1E supports the sustaining of this article. --Oakshade (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, Abductive. It's especially a perk for prosecutors wanting to paint a suspect as the villain before it even goes to trial. --slakr\ talk / 23:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The reading of BLP1E that would support the stand alone article is ONLY applicable if Laughner is proven to have a connection to the event and right now it is only allegations, not proof. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no "must have been convicted" clause in WP:BLP1E. As a matter of fact it states the person can have an article "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial..." Even with no conviction, the person's role is already very substantial. You are simply inventing words in BLP1E that don't exist. --Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the cost of tea in China? Most of the recent comments at the AFD have leaned toward keep, and this merge proposal appears to be a forum for many of the deflationists to vote again. One voice one vote. Let the AFD take its course, rather than attempting to exhaust all other means.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a vote. Even if there was only one person correctly pointing out that WP:BLP is a policy, that person is correct and the page must be redirected. Abductive (reasoning) 14:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge per MZMcBride (and also to protest the cost of tea in China).  --Lambiam 13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support These sort of pages glorify the perpetrators of horrendous acts of violence and give them the notoriety they seek. Time and again articles appear which are tantamount to fan pages dressed up as objective reportage. Like the other articles giving undue attention to lunatics which have since been deleted, so should this one. Any unique content should be transferred to the main wiki and in a minimalist style.James Frankcom (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
He's not a suspect; he did it. This is what people in the AFD were discussing when you closed it without reading their comments. The difference is that right now he's a suspect and thus should be redirected. --slakr\ talk / 23:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
insult notwithstanding, he did it. He may or may not be criminally liable, but we don't need to pretend that there is any doubt as to whether he did it. -- Y not? 03:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, there was talk about redirects or keeping the article in the AfD no place was there a discussion of a merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with you. This is WP:GAME the system. Your AfD didn't work, and so you want it to be in your way. Well, this is not how it works. --Hinata talk 20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This discussion was made after someone had closed the AfD though, it was reopened soon after. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
it doesn't matter, we should respect the AfD's outcome. --Hinata talk 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
An AfD and a merge discussion are two diffrent things, both discussions should be respected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
But not when the exact same editors make comments on its contents on here, and at the AfD. This is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue --Hinata talk 20:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
But the editors are not voting on the same thing, a redirect and a merge are two diffrent things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh... but look at the top. That was similar when the AfD appeared... and ended. So my point remains valid. --Hinata talk 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
And what if he's innocent? "Oops, our bad?" --slakr\ talk / 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, he's a suspect—not a convict. --slakr\ talk / 23:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge It is not the quantity of activities an individual is notable for that merits their own Wikipedia page, but how profound their actions are. Congresswomen Giffords might not have been as internationally famous as John F. Kennedy or John Lennon, but that doesn't mean the shooting is any less significant. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, and John Allen Muhammad never even killed anyone of any degree of fame nore are they known for anything notable outside of their murders yet they each get their own pages, albeit the Columbine shooters have to share a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.17.116 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose mergeThis man's murders have already generated articles connecting the lack of effective mental health care with violence[22] which, along with the Sheriff's assertions that Lochner is mentally deranged, are connecting mental illness,mental health treatment and violence in a way that makes him, as a person, more notable, I think. Usually,like with John Hinckley, Jr., the mental health stuff does not come out for quite awhile; with Louchner it was almost immediate. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, he's a suspect—not a convict. --slakr\ talk / 23:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge (weakly) - but why the hurry? I agree that this would be a BLP1E issue but for the Hinkley rule (not just as a rule for its own sake, but the logic of why we follow the sources' lead in profiling high profile assassins). Is the nearly-successful assassinations of a US member of congress that prominent? Usually not, I think, but in this case perhaps because of the nature of the event. Mr. Grantevans2, above, has a very good argument regarding the mental health concern and the focus of the media on the person as an individual with his own issues to report, but I think the question of poor mental health care leading to violence could also be treated in the article on the shootings as one of the wider concerns. Anyway, whatever the result is here, it might bear revisiting in another two or three months once this is out of the current events news cycle. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge: Hinckley, this guy aint. At the moment, this is a BLP1E case, as all coverage of Loughner is in regards to this shooting. Maybe in a few weeks or months, once it drops off the news cycles, we can examine to see if there's any long-lasting notability. Sceptre (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge This falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe he will go down in history (for what I will choose not to speculate, lest I be attacked by various sides of the political spectrum or whatever). But we don't know that now. I doubt there is enough information on him to write a sufficiently decent article anyway. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - I believe that since the 1 noted exception to BLP1E is a political assassin this should be given a lot more thought. As Sceptre states above he isn't Hinckley, but just because he doesn't have an unbelievably elaborate back story as to his reasons for attempting to kill a political leader, it doesn't make him any less of a assassin. Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 23:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Giffords wasn't assassinated though so that does not make him an assassin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
...and he's still a suspect—not a convicted assassin. --slakr\ talk / 23:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - So he is only notable for one act. So what? How about Hinkley? Bradley Manning? Right now, events are still ongoing, this article is still developing quickly, and the encyclopedia would be best served if this article were allowed to develop, rather than smothering it out and forcing all material into the parent, while inevitably losing other supplementary biographical information. - hahnchen 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here, we can only go with what is out there right now saying that this will quickly develop is WP:CRYSTAL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
He's still a suspect, and our policies state that since he's just a suspect, he's not yet notable enough to have his own article. --slakr\ talk / 23:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, we're now putting random letters together instead of arguments. Yes, other articles exist, and with good reason, reasons which apply to this one. It's not crystal ball when it's actually happening right now, its not hypothetical development, it's happening as we speak. Compare where it is now, to where it was when I made my original comment. And our policies mean that even though he's still a suspect, he is notable for an article, given the nature of the crime. Oh, and had our policies said something else? Then the policy would have to change, we're an encyclopedia. - hahnchen 19:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Perhaps in a few weeks if nothing of interest has been added to his article then we can talk merge, but for now, I wouldn't want additions to HIM cluttering up the article about THE EVENT. Plus, in time we will need to add info about his trial etc which may not fit nicely into the event's article or which would be more appropriately placed in his. Thmazing (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge per WP:BLP1E. The article on the incident will suffice. Before this isolated incident (i.e. single event, i.e. BLP1E), Loughner wasn't even remotely notable. I'd suggest merging, redirecting, and then fully protecting the article for a few months. SnottyWong confabulate 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. MZM, sorry, but I think this one's got legs. See my post on Talk:Sarah Palin, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge He is not a household name, nor should he be turned into one. Another way to view this: If this were an encyclopedia in book form, would he actually have his on article? No he wouldn't; he would be mentioned under the event itself. A section can simply be set aside in 2011 Tucson shooting referring to him, and it can be updated with any relevant information about his upcoming trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Put on hold Let's wait until this story calms down, and then it'll be more obvious what is appropriate to do. At the moment, a discussion like this will remain a stalemate. It'll also be an eyesore to those wanting to discuss other improvements to this article (or the content that could be merged). In another week or so, it may produce a different result. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge The craigslist killer was not merged. We cannot act arbitarily and capriciously. The suspect is along the same lines as Hinckley, who qualifies almost as a matter of policy. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge per WP:BLP1E. Perhaps in the future, if Loughner becomes and remains well known, this page should be created. But for now, BLP1E. Prodego talk 02:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge let's face it sooner or later the guy will get his own article, might as well be now. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge , meets (WP:BLP1E) and (WP:BIO1E);
Comment: there is too much public information available to be covered in a user friendly way in one long article on the shootings. We need a separate bio page for the criminal to both name and shame AND have somewhere to add in the extra information that keeps coming up, like the emails about this guy that fellow students sent which probably is not related to the "shootings" but is critical to his biography. The notoriety of both the crime and the extensive coverage of the biography of the criminal meets the criteria for "Criteria for spinning-out" listed elsewhere and meets standard for (WP:BLP1E) and (WP:BIO1E; Wombat24 (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
article on Nidal Malik Hasan shows the standard to follow here in this very well known case since a politician was targeted Wombat24 (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Details regarding the "suspect charged" and not related to the 2011 Tucson shooting will add unnecessary length to the shooting article, and those details wouldn't really fit that article. The "suspect charged" will be a person of note for some time. The two articles should stay separate. Basileias (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per the reasons others have given already, especially prior precedents of the many mass murderers and serial killers with articles on Wikipedia. —Lowellian (reply) 06:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per reasons given, and how much fleshing out has happened on this article just today alone. It already has far more relevant information on Loughner than would fit into the 2011 Tucson shooting article, and it will likely continue to accumulate information of the type that would be much more relevant to him than to the shooting itself. The Loughner section on the 2011 Tucson article can be pared down a bit now, too. Flodded (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • For those who are finding validity in this argument which is an example of begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point"), please ask yourselves the question, "Why do Wikipedia readers have a reason to read about Jared Lee Loughner?" You will find the answer, "because he attempted to murder a congresswoman and did kill or injure nearly two dozen people near Tuscon in 2011". Argument that this article "will likely continue to accumulate information of the type that would be much more relevant to him than to the shooting itself" assumes that "him" is a topic of importance worthy of something that can trump BLP1E. It is most definitely not, this article is an example of a biography of a person known for one event and would not exist except for that single event. Sswonk (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Ugh, stop making me side with the inclusionists; I feel dirty. :) Sometimes the event is of such magnitude that a person connected to it as a perpetrator is can become a noted exception to BLP1E. I support a standalone article as this/he is right now, for the simple fact of allegedly assassinating a federal judge and nearly a Congresswoman. No assumptions or concerns on what may or many not accumulate down the road. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I am not a deletionist, but I get your smiling comment. I have to be away from the keyboard for a few hours, so I can't respond after this, I am still however interested in how you see what you have just written as not also begging the question. You are saying what I am saying but simply putting your statement of belief as conclusion without support: "He deserves an article because he is known for this event, which trumps BLP1E." I don't see how that makes sense, honestly. Sswonk (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You gave your opinion twice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - as per the reasons stated above and because it is too soon to make this decision. This article will only grow as more details emerge as on tonight's news.DocOfSoc (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just wanted to point out that of the two arguments for keeping the argument separate, one of them is "wait since this is way too early for such decisions." Perhaps instead of rushing this it would be wise to simply postpone this discussion for a few days and pick it up then? Logically that would seem most wise. 24.13.209.23 (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Loughner is notable. While he is notable only for one event, due to similarities with the explicit counterexample of John Hinckley, Jr. he is not a clear case of WP:BLP1E. It is hard to evaluate at this point how persistent the coverage of the event in reliable sources will be, and whether it will shift focus. This depends on many factors, such as possible copycat crimes.
Therefore merging or not is a purely editorial decision. Given the size of this article I would say merging is appropriate. Given the size of the event article, I would say not merging is also appropriate. Personally, with Herostratus in mind, I tend towards merging. Hans Adler 09:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Response to comment. John Hinckley, Jr. is a rather poor example since he wasn't just notable for trying to assassinate Ronald Reagan, but also mimicking Taxi Driver in the process. That’s two things he’s notable for and instead of including that in the Reagan article, the Taxi Driver article, the Jodi Foster article and the assassination article, it's easier that he has his own page. That's not the case with Loughner who can simply only be linked to notable victims. Loughner being inspired for whacked views is nothing new, in fact it’s common among those who decide to go on a shooting spree; being inspired by a film, as Hinckley was, is unordinary and notable in itself. It’s different. Geeky Randy (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - the subject is noteworthy and the individual is notable, having receiving a significant amount of in-depth coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. In addition, there is a good case study model at the article Seung-Hui Cho, which is of WP:GA quality. -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my AfD rationale based on WP:BLP1E, which also applies here: I quote, "If that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Loughner is going to be highly profiled, much like Seung-Hui Cho was. In addition, WP:BLP1E says, "Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit" into the category of having a separate biography. Loughner is on even ground with Hinckley as the would-be assassin of a U.S. national politician. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - for NOW. I may well vote to merge this article into the event article in time (in fact, if I had to guess, I would guess that I will vote merge once the dust has settled), but this fight seems to be driven by emotion and is really premature. Just as Wikipedia isn't a news site and shouldn't be driven by deadlines as a news site, we should always step carefully when considering merges/deletions. Please, everyone, let's let the entire news story play out first in the news media, where it belongs, and then revisit this once we feel most of the relevant info is available. We aren't even CLOSE to that point yet.ArchieOof (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge, currently Loughner is notable for a single event, meaning we have two articles covering one event. That makes no sense. Loughner is only relevant to the 2011 Tucson shooting, therefore his article should be merged to that. John Hinckley, Jr. is a rather poor example since he wasn't just notable for trying to assassinate Ronald Reagan, but also mimicking Taxi Driver in the process. That’s two things he’s notable for and instead of including that in the Reagan article, the Taxi Driver article, the Jodi Foster article and the assassination article, it's easier that he has his own page. That's not the case with Loughner who can simply only be linked to notable victims. Loughner being inspired for whacked views is nothing new, in fact it’s common among those who decide to go on a shooting spree; being inspired by a film, as Hinckley was, is unordinary and notable in itself. It’s different. Merge. Geeky Randy (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Per those who have opposed it thus. Alex (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - the shooter is, at this point, notable, and placing his biography on the shooting page seems regressive at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE This guy is certainly notable- Chapman, Hinkley Jr., Wilkes Booth, Sirhan, Oswald, and Guiteau all have articles, so give this maniac one. He will be notable in the near future. Soxrock24 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge strongly. As time goes by and the criminal investigation and the juristic battle goes ahead more and more details will be known and that for the assassination attempt as well as on the life of the perpretator of the crime. I think that the trial against Loughner should rather be handled in this article than the article on the assassination attempt. Therefor a merging now would be contraproductive. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Some people are important enough to merit exceptions to WP:BLP1E, as the policy itself acknowledges, and as the presence of numerous articles such as Nidal Malik Hasan, Seung-Hui_Cho, Charles J. Guiteau, and Charles Whitman attests. If someone can provide a distinction between those people, who are only notable for mass killings, and Loughner, I would be happy to consider it; I am not interested in hearing an argument as to why none of those articles should exist either. SS451 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge; looking at the criteria under BLP1E, this qualifies for a separate article. The event is significant; the individual's ALLEGED (get to that in a minute) role in it is substantial, indeed, it is central; he is notable for a well-documented event, just as is John Hinkley, Jr., the example used in the policy -- not to mention James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, Byron De La Beckwith, Sara Jane Moore, Giuseppe Zangara, and many others who are known for the single event in which they killed, or tried to kill, a famous person. The coverage of this person in reliable sources seems "persistent", at least for now, which is the only time-perspective we have. The one thing that does give me some pause is that he is at this point, a suspect who has not been tried, and as far as the sources know, has not confessed. But we do not have a "No article until proven guilty" rule on Wikipedia, just as the reliable sources (i.e. newspapers, magazines, reputable web sites) have no such rule. Obviously we have to be careful with how we refer to people who have not been convicted, but I think this article is careful in that regard; it has all the necessary qualifiers, i.e. "charged", "allegedly", "suspect" etc. Neutron (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge If this were a guy that had had a history of being a criminal, that would be one thing, but besides doing some drugs and being a weirdo, this guy is basically a new criminal. He has only been charged with something minor, being drug possession. He is only really known for the shooting, so it SHOULD be merged with the article about the shooting... --BluWik (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Once again, put on hold I feel this is not a good time to discuss whether to keep, delete, or merge this page when the event surrounding is person is current, and forming is consensus is not easy. Better wait a week or so until this story has calmed down, then re-open such a discussion. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE This guy is certainly notable- Chapman, Hinkley Jr., Wilkes Booth, Sirhan, Oswald, and Guiteau all have articles, so give this maniac one. He will be notable in the near future. Soxrock24 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC
You gave your opinion twice Soxrock. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
My bad Soxrock24 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Also to the people above listing other articles please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Guerillero | My Talk 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment So does this pass WP:BLP1E or not? I feel as if this merge discussion has gotton huge and I wonder who is going to be the person who does close it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Merge And if people are seeking consensus, my comments make it 32 in support and 40 opposed. No consensus. They should be merged -for now-, as we don't know how Loughner is going to affect history, not yet anyway. He'll likely be "deserving" of his own article soon enough, but for now let's let the timeline proceed. Fate and events spread out like the ripples in the pond caused by the stone being thrown in... let the ripples get far enough out to allow us some perspective on this. Most logical road to take, and you won't be losing info... Cesium 133 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Jack the Ripper is more interesting than any of the murders he committed. This is why he has his own article on Wikipedia. The same rationale applies to Jared Lee Loughner. Fi11222 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to not merge this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not to mention the Fill222 is comparing apples to oranges. Geeky Randy (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge To anyone who has not checked out the news in the last few hours, this guy is being covered extensively. This article qualifies as a separate article under BLP1E and time will only strengthen the argument to keep the articles separate. Plenty of reliable sources support the claim of independent notability; he has gotten a lot of coverage in several newspapers this morning for anyone who is not current on this situation. 69.68.27.101 (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seem to be people who think that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (part of an essay, which also has other shortcuts) means that in supporting a "keep" (or in this case, a non-merge), it's never valid to refer to another article by way of comparison. This is not the case. That essay includes the following: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.... While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." (Bolding added.) So this essay does not justify disregarding any comments just because they include comparisons as part of their argument. This is especially important in this case because many of the "don't merge" comments are responding to the invocation of WP:BLP1E, which itself uses a particular article (John Hinckley, Jr.)as an example of an article about a person known for a single event which should not be deleted. BLP1E (which is a policy, not an essay) could also use many other examples, some of which have been mentioned in this discussion, and there is nothing wrong with mentioning them. Neutron (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Nuetron on this argument. I never understood the Other Stuff Exists argument, as it pertains to deleting articles, or in this case merging one. Obviously if an article exists on a certain topic, then its valid to have another article on a similar topic.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Each article needs to be delt with individual because they are different. Take Hinckley for example: he isn't just notable for trying to assassinate Ronald Reagan, but also notable for mimicking Taxi Driver in the process. That’s two things he’s notable for and instead of including that in the Reagan article, the Taxi Driver article, the Jodi Foster article and the assassination article, it's easier that he has his own page. That's not the case with Loughner who can simply only be linked to the event and the notable victims affected. Loughner being inspired for whacked views is nothing new, in fact it’s common among those who decide to go on a shooting spree; being inspired by a film, as Hinckley was, is unordinary and notable in itself. It’s different. Loughner is notable for nothing except the shooting. All the coverage is given to him because of the shooting. Nothing else. Hinckley was given coverage for the attempted assassination, but also the strange circumstances that inspired him to attempt it--which, arguable, may have meritted him an article even if he tried to assassinate someone not notable. Geeky Randy (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Geeky Randy, John Hinckley is notable for one thing and one thing only: He shot and almost killed a president of the United States (and three others.) It was a single incident, that's what he's known for and that's why he has an article. Even if we didn't know what actresses or films he was obsessed with, he would still have an article. On the other hand, regardless of who or what he was obsessed with, if he never tried to kill anybody, he wouldn't have an article. And why does Mark David Chapman have an article? Because he was obsessed with Catcher in the Rye? No. He has an article because he killed someone famous. Why does Arthur Bremer have an article? Because he shot someone famous. Why does John Patler have an article? (I'll admit I had to look this one up.) Because he killed someone famous. There are dozens of other examples, and those are just the living ones, otherwise I could ask the same questions about Ramón Mercader, Gavrilo Princip, Leon Czolgosz, Nathuram Godse, and on and on. They have articles because they killed famous people. That's it. After awhile, you begin to see a pattern here, don't you? Neutron (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Careful In your attempt to demonstrate a pattern to me--which I must say, you made a valid point--you're beginning to dip your feet in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Simply put, Loughner is notable for the 2011 Tucson shooting and that's it. If you want to ignore policy (which if you do, you'll just waste your time because you won't win) let's just use common sense: You have two articles about one thing. I could reverse the conversation and argue that much of what Loughner has done is done by many people who don't have an article, therefore we should merge. At the end of the day, Loughner is notable for one thing and we wouldn't be talking right now if that tragic event didn't happen. So if you want to use Hinckley, Chapman, Bremer, etc. to support your argue, perhaps you should review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and consider if they merit their own article. Whether they do or don't is irrelivant since we're talking specifically (and should only be) Loughner, and policy leans more toward merging. Geeky Randy (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you read this sub-thread's parent comment (also written by Neutron)? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not automatically invalidate any comparison to other articles' existence or nonexistence. Such an argument is weak when it's based solely on what other articles do or don't exist. In this instance, people have explained why such articles exist (and why this benefits the encyclopedia) and pointed out that the matter has been discussed (and consensus established) to the extent that it's explicitly mentioned in the policy that various users have cited in an attempt to justify the proposed merger.
Your attempt to reverse Neutron's argument about Loughner's background fallaciously ignores the simple reality that his alleged perpetration of the shooting causes his background to be noteworthy. —David Levy 14:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm unaware that a consensus has been established. Perhaps you're right in your stance of opposing the merge. I don't see it, so I'm going to maintain my stance on supporting the merge. You are wrong to accuse me of reversing the argument as I'm simply just pointing out where I stand and why I think it should be that way. Using words like "fallaciously" is uncalled for and while I sympathize with this tragedy and understand that it's very emotional, it really doesn't belong here. If you're taking this debate personal, you need to step back. I'm trying to debate in good faith and Neutron and I were doing just that. There is no room here, nor do I have the patience for, accusations. If you think I'm wrong, we'll have to agree to disagree. Perhaps upon reflecting, I'll change my stance, but until then, we disagree and you need to chill. Geeky Randy (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
1. You misunderstood. My reference to "consensus established" pertains to the fact that convicted/accused assassins and attempted assassins often receive dedicated Wikipedia articles (as noted within BLP 1E). My point is that people aren't merely arguing that "other stuff exists." They're also explaining why this makes sense and pointing out that it reflects discussion/consensus.
2. I'm "wrong to accuse [you] of reversing the argument"? Your exact words were "I could reverse the conversation..." I'm referring to that.
3. I don't know why you interpreted "fallaciously" as some sort of personal attack or accusation of wrongdoing. It means that I regard your logic as flawed. That's all. I haven't taken anything personally, nor have I asserted that you aren't acting in good faith. So please chill.  :) —David Levy 00:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge There seems to be a considerable amoung of material on Loughner that would be specific to an article on him, and this will presumably only grow as his case makes its way through the legal system. As for being notable for only one event, well, so are Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, and a lot of other people with unchallenged articles on Wikipedia, articles whose existence, IMO, are perfectly legitimate. Nightscream (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger. When this proposal was introduced, I considered supporting it, but I decided to wait and see how the article developed. It now contains far more encyclopedic information than could reasonably be included in 2011 Tucson shooting.
    BLP 1E explicitly does not apply to high-profile persons (with assassins and attempted assassins cited as examples). It's intended to protect the privacy of low-profile individuals involved in a single event (e.g. the shooting's victims other than Gabrielle Giffords and John Roll), not to weed out articles about high-profile individuals whose notability happens to arise through such an occurrence. Provided that we base the article's content upon statements from reliable sources and clearly indicate that Loughner's role in the shooting is alleged, the article's existence is entirely appropriate. —David Levy 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Well the first part is your opinion David. Far more? The merger would remove much duplicated material. Right now this is <28KB and 2011 Tucson shooting is <84KB. I repeat again, this person is the 2011 Tucson shooter and he is the reason for the 2011 Tucson shooting article, this is really a type of content fork if you want my opinion. I see it as too early for an article, no I can't give you a way to know when it will be not too early and yes I know the merger is unlikely based on no consensus. But, I don't think it is fair to say that this could not reasonably be included in the 2011 Tucson article, they are really one and the same for what is presently known. No one has found Loughner was also notable for x or y any other thing, unless painting graffiti on signs and being unqualified for the Army are notable. Sswonk (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Yes, it's my opinion that the article contains far more encyclopedic information than could reasonably be included in 2011 Tucson shooting. I base my position on this opinion, just as I previously leaned toward favoring a merger when the article was relatively short.
2. There is no requirement that a high-profile person be notable for more than one "thing" before an article is written about him/her. As noted above, BLP 1E explicitly applies to low-profile individuals.
3. You appear to have confused splitting with content forking. I suggest that you read those pages. —David Levy 22:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You know, I was trying to be kind and friendly about this. I still will, don't think I am dissing you with the following. However, I don't need to read either of those, I meant exactly what I said, in my opinion this is a type of content fork. Not going to argue why, you have been sprinkled with sysop magic so must know better :), but I wouldn't write it if I didn't mean it and I know exactly what I meant. As for your other argument, about low vs. high, all that does to mine is ignore it, not answer it. My position is that current BLP treatment of these folks should be changed, I wrote about that in my !vote. I think, yes David my opinion, just like yours, that these articles should default to redirect immediately after such terrible events. I think that if down the road, if some other lunatic fanatic flies a plane full of travelers into a building full of thousands of workers on a busy day or pathetic reject kills a well-liked peace advocate in front of his devoted wife, the event should be written about, and editors who want to write an article about the future piece of shit perpetrator should wait. Those editors should be forced to state their case for an article, and consensus for one should be established at a high threshold, and several days should be taken to establish that consensus. Well, if you think that is a good idea I would be happy. Right now you just repeat what the policy says to back up your opinion. All I can do is express mine, and am left knowing I was true to my principles. Have a nice day. Sswonk (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
1. I made no mention of the fact that I'm a sysop, and I never would imply that this adds weight to my arguments.
2. I'm sorry, but if you perceive this article as a content fork rather than a split, you don't correctly understand how those terms are used at Wikipedia. This, of course, has no bearing on whether the split is an appropriate one; splits can be ill-advised, and that's why we're having this discussion.
3. Your opinion that the policy should be modified is reasonable, but this is not the forum in which to propose such a change. Also note that I didn't introduce BLP 1E to the debate; I'm merely responding to claims regarding its content/purpose.
For the record, I happen to agree with the current policy. When a person attains a high profile via mainstream media, nothing that we do or don't do will change that. Our obligation is to present a neutral article whose statements are attributable to reliable sources, not to ignore her/her notability. —David Levy 23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
David makes an excellent point about BLP1E and the difference between high-profile and low-profile individuals, using the victims of this tragedy as examples. The only two victims who have articles, Rep. Gifford and Judge Roll, had articles before this event ever took place. They are/were high-profile individuals. On the other hand, I have not seen anyone try to create articles about Christina Taylor-Green, Gabriel Zimmerman or any of the other victims. Christina is an interesting case, having appeared in a book as a baby (because she was born on 9-11), having a famous grandfather, and now this, but none of it adds up to notability, and if there was any doubt about whether her murder makes her notable, WP:1E answers the question (not BLP1E since she is no longer living). It is very difficult to become notable for one event or incident, but it can be done. The examples that come most readily to mind (and are sprinkled throughout the discussion above) are those who killed or tried to kill, or (in this case) are accused of killing, someone(s) famous. That's why Jared Loughner gets his own article. (And on the point that he has not been convicted, there are cases where someone is notable simply for having been tried for killing someone famous -- Clay Shaw being the example that comes to mind most easily. If, in the future, it is found that Loughner actually had nothing to do with any of this, we can deal with it then.) Neutron (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Caution This is a tough one. I absolutely cannot stand this would-be assassin either, but one thing you have to consider aside from the emotion of this, is that all would-be and successful assassins of U.S. presidents have their own web pages. On the other side of it, Leo Ryan was an assassinated congressman, but Larry Layton does not have his own article. It was merged into the article about Jonestown, which could easily be argued was a more relevant place to put the information about Leo Ryan's assassination. In this case, it really seems like a toss-up because this event was completely owned by one person (and not as in the case of Jonestown, shared among several responsible parties -- namely Jim Jones). I tend to side 51% with the logic that the infamous person probably should NOT have their own Wikipedia entry (but it may just be my emotion getting the best of me). However that seems to create a tricky precedent for the future, where it depends on how powerful the person is as to whether the assassin is 'awarded' (really not an award of which any sane person would be proud) their own Wikipedia article.Ssybesma (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge! As per WP:PERPETRATOR, this guy is clearly not notable beyond the single event. This article contains a lot of extraneous information (he worked at Quizno's, etc) that can be dropped, and the important stuff can fit in the main article. Please, let's not have an overly-detailed article for every idiot with a gun. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
One could just as easily argue that WP:PERPETRATOR supports keeping this as a separate article -- specifically points 2 and 3 of that guideline. (You only have to meet one criterion, and actually you don't necessarily have to meet any of them, but let's assume for the moment that you have to meet one.) Point 2 says: "The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities. A good test for this (but not a necessary prerequisite) would be if the victim has an uncontested Wikipedia article that predates the alleged crime or death." The kicker here is the word "world." If that word weren't there, it would be obvious that the involvement of both Rep. Giffords and Judge Roll make their alleged assailant/killer notable. What does "world" mean here? I think the second sentence (basically a pre-existing article test) suggests that "world" should be construed very broadly. (Though I think this guideline needs to be clarified.) Both of the above-mentioned victims have "an uncontested Wikipedia article that predates the alleged crime or death." Point 3 says: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime." That point is satisfied in this case as well, for the same reason that WP:BLP1E is satisfied, which has been discussed at length in this discussion. While we don't really know the motivation for the crime (especially since nobody's been convicted of it yet) we do know that its "execution" was "unusual" and "noteworthy" "such that it is a well-document historic event." Now I already hear people saying, how can we know it's "historic" only a day or two or five after the event? We can only do the best we can. It seems "historic." This was not a "mere" murder or even a "mere" assassination, it was really a "massacre" as well, given that six people were killed, not to mention the many others who were injured. It was also an attempted assassination of a congresswoman (someone notable enough to have had a pre-existing article.) It was also a murder of a federal judge (whether one chooses to call it an "assassination" of him or not -- I probably wouldn't since there is no suggestion that the shooter knew that the judge was was a judge.) This event has not only dominated the news for several days, it has basically brought the U.S. legislative process to a halt for several days, not mention prompting what has to be considered a "major speech" by the president. "Historic" does not mean it has to be more historic than World War II, it just has to be an event that will be noted in history, and I'm pretty sure this qualifies. Neutron (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Tentatively oppose - I've bounced back and forth on this one, especially after seeing all the good information in this article. For the time being, the wealth of information in this article leads me to tentatively oppose the merger. I say leave it as is for now, and then let's see how things are once we know more about him and the shooting.--Witan (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whether Loughner killed before or not is irrelevant, and should not affect the decision to merge. Consider Seung-Hui Cho, the man who committed the Virginia Tech shootings and suicide in 2007; he did not commit murder prior to the shootings and yet his biography and actions are described in an article on Wikipedia. There is precedent to keep the Loughner page as it's own article as it is relevant as to who committed the crime and the story behind the person.Rubinkaman (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • SupportWeak Support merge - Seems to be a shining example of WP:BLP1E. NickCT (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Upon reflection I think this guy might meet WP:BLP1E's "event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial," exemption. I therefore move from Support to Weak Support. NickCT (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
At this point, the invovlement is still "alleged". Active Banana (bananaphone 18:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"Alleged" doesn't matter in this case. Even if Loughner had been killed during the attack, the amount of rock-solid documentation existing up to now would be enough to justify a separate article on him, even if he forever remained the "alleged" shooter.Shirtwaist (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • strongly support merge the individuals only "claim to fame" is alleged invovlement in a criminal activity. This is EXACTLY the type of situation that BLP BLP1E and WP:CRIME were designed to address. Until such time as Loughner admits to the crime or is officially convicted, Wikipedia SHOULD NOT have a stand alone article. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    You regard Loughner as a low-profile individual? —David Levy 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge. Disagree with Active Banana slightly, in that this is likely to become a legitimate spinoff article when there's enough reliably sourced background information concerning the subject, which will probably happen sooner than a conviction. In fact it may happen before this discussion gets closed. So I might be spitting in the wind here, but there's no justification to doing these things prematurely. --FormerIP (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge As much as it pains me to even write about the SOB, as a would be assassin or failed assassin, but successful (allegedly) murderer of note, he needs his own article.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger. As the alleged sole perpetrator of a crime that has made worldwide headlines, the subject and his life are legitimate subjects of detailed Wikipedia coverage. Because merging the contents to the article about the event would make that article too large, a dedicated subarticle about the alleged perpetrator is justified per WP:SS.  Sandstein  20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    I am pretty sure that BLP trumps SS. Active Banana (bananaphone 23:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    Indeed, but the article complies with WP:BLP. —David Levy 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    The individual's single "claim to fame" is the association as prime suspect in a crime. Simply putting the word "alleged" into the article does not then give us basis to have an article.
    Of course not. A large amount of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources does. That Loughner's involvement is alleged is merely an important fact. —David Levy 00:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge (aka. Keep them separate)- Though this cretin is directly involved with the incident, he deserves his own Wikipedia article, just like all the other high-profile criminals that have their own pages on here (ex: the guys in the Watergate scandal besides Nixon).--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment To those of you who feel that this article shouldn't exist because he hasn't been convicted of anything, then I assume that we should AFD John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, and John Hinkley, Jr.. None of whom were ever convicted of anything. We don't need a conviction to determine notability, thats already been established by reliable sources, we just need a reason for him to be notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    WP:BLP doesnt apply to long dead people. Active Banana (bananaphone 14:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    It also doesn't determine notability (the matter addressed in the message to which you replied). —David Levy 14:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    Notability is determined by the sources. Even without a conviction, he's notable enough as being the person accused of an assassination attempt.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    Agreed. In case it was unclear, I was expressing disagreement with Active Banana. —David Levy 20:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. His article is likely to grow as the trial takes place, etc. John Wilkes Booth has an article, and WP:PERP is a precedent for such an article. — Timneu22 · talk 11:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Clearly notable and deserving of his own article. One event, and not news do not apply here. BLP concerns should be dealt with through proper editing. Ridernyc (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge WP:PERP is controlling and he clearly meets #2. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose merge I strongly oppose the merger. Jared Lee Loughner has become quite notable, and will remain so. Without the Death of John Lennon, then Mark David Chapman would not have a page - no matter what motivated him. Without the death of a man named Kent Leppink, who was not even notable as far as Wikipedia, then Mechele Linehan would not have a page here either. I understand that folks don't want Wikipedia "diluted" with too much content, but for Petes sake, too many people take the notability policy WAY too far. I have always felt, and often said on these pages, that CONSENSUS should be paramount here on Wikipedia, NOT notability. Incidentally, I thought that I had already !voted, but apparently it did not save. If I simply too quickly scanned it and missed my earlier !vote, please count them both as one. AlaskaMike (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    This is NOT about "dilution" - this is about how wikipedia treats living people. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    Again, BLP 1E (to which you've linked above) explicitly applies strictly to low-profile individuals. This has been noted several times. Do you intend to address it? —David Levy 20:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    The "Battering Ram" approach (perfected by a U.S.President named W.) only allows for 1 way discourse coupled with self righteous repetitions and only addressing points/questions to which a rational appearing soundbite is handy. I'm not demeaning Banana, as I say, its a proven and effective approach. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge This is about precedent and rules, not personal opinion. Since WP has articles on folks like Timothy McVeigh, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, and John Wilkes Booth, it makes sense to give Loughner a separate article. Personally, I think his name should be blotted out of human memory if he is guilty, but WP is about remembering notable facts, regardless of personal merit. God be with the victims, their families and their nation in this terrible time. Wikibojopayne (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support merge & redirect per MZM's proposal. The dust hasn't settled on the events yet, and as the first line of WP:BLP1E states, "Wikipedia is not news...". Some editors citing the John Hinckley, Jr. clause have conveniently left out the "separate biography MAY be appropriate" part [emphasis mine; may = perhaps]. I say "perhaps" not.
If it has been established under WP:BLP1E that a separate biography is appropriate for Hinckley, why would it not be so for Loughner? The two cases seem strikingly similar to me.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
And, contrary to the Sections below, I feel barely 5 days (so-far) isn't enough time passed to call for no more comments. I just now saw the "hat notice" about this discussion on the main article space. I am happy to be able to contribute to the consensus. — DennisDallas (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
That first line of WP:BLP1E links to WP:NOTNEWS which is meant for routine news coverage of people and events. It even states it's for "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities... " The extremely in-depth coverage of this person by practically every major news outlet on earth is nothing even close to "routine" coverage. It would be a valid argument to say "Oppose merge per the first line of WP:BLP1E." --Oakshade (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Oppose merge per the first line of WP:BLP1E -- and many other WP:BLP1E arguments made here. The similarity to Hinckley, as mentioned there, seems very clear to me.Shirtwaist (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose merge. The tucson shooting is a separate topic to this biography.Someone65 (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge I'm sympathetic to the feeling that Loughner does not DESERVE the claim on permanent notoriety represented by a separate Wikipedia page, but nevertheless, I think some reasonable anticipations about the future course of events surrounding this case indicates that one is, or will shortly become, necessary. As the trial progresses, information about Loughner's life will inevitably enter into the court records and be covered by the media. I imagine it'll be a copious amount of information; too much to include it all on the page for the shooting. There are subtle and persuasive arguments that cut against Loughner being given a separate page, but I think it's all over-ridden by the necessity to organize the information so that it's useful. Leoniceno (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge I think this is a rare case where it meets the BLP1E criteria of a significant event, where the individual is well-documented (as shown by the article currently), and so think a separate article is merited. As others have pointed out there is enough material for a article on him, which would not be merited on an article on the shooting itself. Davewild (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge I think we should keep the Jared Lougher article separated. It gives us a better understanding about him and people like him and why they commit such crimes. It's important to know about their personal background. M4rilyn (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is comprehensive enough now. —Siddharth Patil (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There seems to be quite a lot of information in the article already, and without trying to wp:crystalball anything, I think the it is safe to say that once some sort of trial gets going the amount of content on this person will only increase. I think it is pretty likely that if these articles were to get merged, they would pretty soon have to get split again as both this article and the Tucson shooting article are getting quite extensive.TheFreeloader (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. We're going to have more and more information on Loughner as he moves through the legal system. This article is only going to get bigger. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • PLEASE ERASE THIS PAGE. THERE ARE MORE NOTORIOUS PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THAT DESERVE A PAGE. LETS NOT GLORIFY SCUMBAGS LIKE THIS ONE! BECAUSE HE IS WINNING THIS WAY, HE IS GETTING THE FAME HE SEEKS!!! HIS NAME SHOULD BE FORGOTTEN AND HE SHOULD BE ONLY KNOWN TO MENTAL CARE PROFESSIONALS FOR A CASE STUDY!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.188.98 (talk • contribs)
I don't think anyone is glorifying him by supporting having a separate article about him. Wikipedia has many articles about "bad guys" (or in this case, an alleged bad guy.) Neutron (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Jared Lee Loughner will become a cult classic. There will be someone out there who will do a biography on him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.7.46 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose Merge Individual is notable enough to have own articles. There are probably hundreds of articles about murderers, rapists, and terrorist on Wikipedia. Why should Loughner be an exemption? Philipmj24 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion needs to be closed

Although 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)

I don't think consensus is "very clear". I did a rough count and got 33 merge and 43 no merge. Frankly though, I wouldn't oppose a "close as no merge" decision here, even though I think it's the wrong choice, and I think this entire debate is driven by WP:RECENTISM. In a year we will look back at this, and recognize that we should have merged.... unless of course Loughner becomes significantly more notable in the mean time. NickCT (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a vote, consensus is based on the weight of the arguements not on how many people chose to go for x. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You want it your way, but read it and you'll see it's a no-no to do... --Hinata talk 19:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't care if this article exists or not. However, I don't think there is a reason to close the above active discussion now if there isn't a consensus either way. Simply closing as no consensus will not solve anything and the discussion will need to be had again anyway. -Atmoz (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If Loughner is convicted of the assassination attempt, then it's possible his article may remain. I believe he would be the first person in US history, to attempt an assassination on a female member of the United States government. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 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)

Even though I voted for merge, it is pretty clear by now that this is a case of no consensus. The discussion is not going to serve as anything more than a distraction from here on in, so I think it is time to close now. --FormerIP (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Right now I think its 53 opposed and 38 support, relatively close in total, but in the past 4 days its been 34 opposed to 11 support which is a 3-1 ratio. against redirect. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Unsure if you're objecting to what I said or not, Grant, but you are right in pointing out that this is not going to end in a merge, so there's no need to continue it. --FormerIP (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just trying to reinforce/support(with some numbers) your suggestion for closure. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirect and protection

Just 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)

Unless I am reading the logs incorrectly, did David Fuchs just redirect against consensus then protect the page so non-admins would have been unable to reverse that? That is a cause for concern/scrutiny if so, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Per BLP we do not leave contentious information in place "while we discuss". We err on the side of protecting the individual while disucssion is underway. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You are just Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. --Hinata talk 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
That's why we (and the news media for that matter) sprinkle the word "alleged" throughout the article. I think we can talk about Loughner's possible involvement in the subject matter while being mindful of BLP. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
(e/c)Since when is action suggested by the straightfowards reading and intent of multiple rules and guidelines Wikilawyering? It appears to me that those who are saying "nothing should be done until the process has been completed" are the wikilawyers. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
And as "alleged criminal" "Note: Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." Active Banana (bananaphone 19:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
And as I said at ANI a few minutes ago, "serious consideration" has been given, and the consideration is that this person warrants a separate article. You appear to be interpreting WP:PERP as "Thou shalt not", when what it actually says is "Thou shall usually not, but there are exceptions". Tarc (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
And as I replied there, the above discussion is the "serious consideration" being given. The results of the serious consideration have not yet determined that we should have the article. And per BLP, while such discussions are underway, we err on the side of protecting individuals. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Um, in case you didn't notice, someone already created it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Just my thoughts but this is quickly getting out of hand and impacting wiki admin and editors alike. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Maybe it's just me, but the last 2 sections here - "Discussion needs to be closed" and "Redirect and protection" seem to be a series of nearly random comments, with each subsequent comment mainly non-responsive to prior comments. For what it's worth, I withdraw my suggestion to close the merge discussion KeptSouth (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Its not just you and its a huge development in communication(non?) here and elsewhere; likely a product of Human multitasking or what my mother called "scatterbrained". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:37, 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)

Actually BLP1E supports keeping this article. If you read the entire section, it states this very clearly. Significant event+ Significant person in the event= Own article.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As I (just now) stated in the "Merge" discussion above, several editors (you included) citing WP:BLP1E conveniently leave out the qualifying "a separate article MAY be appropriate"; it's not a fait accompli. — DennisDallas (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner/Archive_1&oldid=1142765512"