Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/Archive 6

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=132766402
 * In Jared Lee Loughner on 2011-05-03 06:23:25, 404 Not Found
 * In 2011 Tucson shooting on 2011-06-19 03:01:08, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DEADLINK, the information should not be removed simply because the url link stopped working. I checked at Internet Archive, and didn't see a copy there. Next, someone can look for a different reliable source that has reported this same material. After that, I'm not sure what to do, but I don't feel that removing the material is the answer. Citing sources says, "If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the webpage (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you are unable to find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverifiable." Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Article title issues
I take exception with the title of this article. One is that the shooting did not happen in Tucson, but from start to finish was in the unincorporated suburb of Casas Adobes, a town that is geographically, physically, and politically different from Tucson proper. As read, 2011 Tucson shooting could refer to any firing of a weapon in the city of Tucson, Arizona which is not what happened here. I propose that the article either be titled Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt as she was the intended target, or 2011 Casas Adobes shooting spree. Combuchan (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Both issues have been discussed before. I suggest you read through the archives before proposing any changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Loughner's atheism and criticism of religion
I do not believe that this man's religious views belong in this article. It doesn't pertain to the shooting, and atheism is not a known factor in criminally violent behavior. I can't help but assume that someone is hoping readers will think his atheism contributed to his actions. I removed the line, and my removal was reverted. Can someone point to a policy that describes how the line either does or does not belong? The line in question is: "Classmates noted that Loughner was an atheist and actively critical of religion." Breakspirit (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Most news outlets, in trying to determine the shooter's motive, reported political and religious leanings. If there is any speculation, it's coming from verifiable sources. It belongs in the article and should stay. M3I5K7E  21:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a great deal of speculation about Loughner in the days immediately after the shootings. Given what we now know about his mental state, much of it seems no longer relevant. I think the article could do with a good cleanup to remove content based on initial speculations, and instead report the pertinent facts - of which, Loughner's religious beliefs (or lack of) aren't examples, not least because reports were based on what others claimed, rather than any hard evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot regarding this topic has to do with speculation, so I don't feel that all or most of that should be removed. For example, most of what is in the Speculation on causation section is (as the title says) about speculation and the debates that arose from it. I don't feel that most of that should be removed (for reasons already gone over in past discussions, and we certainly trimmed it enough). I do feel that it should be titled back to "Political climate," though, because that title more accurately sums up this particular detail about the aftermath. As for Loughner's religious beliefs, I'm not sure. Right now, that same information is in his article (with more than one source attributed to it). So do we just leave it up to his article to cover that and remove it from this one? Or have it in both? Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Atheism is probably unlikely to be the cause of Loughner's mental state. He's just off. -- Avanu (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does it say that atheism is the cause. Keep this article as is including speculations by the media. M3I5K7E  16:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

no surprise
Wikipedians got it wrong again, titling this article "tuscon shooting" when it happened in the unincorporated settlement of Casas Adobes. When is this going to be fixed?
 * It isn't - Wikipedia articles are named according to the common term, and we don't expect our readers to be familiar with the intimate details of municipal geography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point Andy, Casas Adobes is part of Tucson anyway.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tucson Shooting
I believe the article is well-written and informative. However, it is incomplete. Head shots are normally fatal. Why is Gabrielle Giffords alive? I would like to know what type of bullet was used. Was it full metal jacket or hollow point, or some other type? Also, what path did the bullet travel through, or along her head? Obviously it didn't go through the middle of her head.

I am not being crass. This shooting was a terrible tragedy filled with sadness. I happen to be a firearms enthusiast and would like to know the facts of how a victim survived a point blank head shot. It sounds like a miracle.

Dave Salmon Sparta, NJ184.6.213.48 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is more detail on this issue in Gabrielle_Giffords. Also a BBC News article here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 02:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on using and bolding the article title in the lead
[Moved from GAN] Something I don't like is the decision by an editor to not have the title of this article bolded. It looks odd because it deviates from standard practice. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When an article's title is descriptive (as opposed to a formal or de facto name for the subject), not displaying it in bold is our standard convention. Please see WP:BOLDTITLE (the relevant guideline) and WP:SBE (the page on which the reasoning behind it is explained).  —David Levy 03:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of that guideline, but I've never seen it practiced until now. Unless we count editors who simply did not know we are usually supposed to bold the title. And any in case, the lead doesn't even start off with the title anymore, which is just as odd as not bolding it. I just don't feel that it's necessary to follow the "no bolding" guideline. But I can live with it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll see this style if you view other articles about events with no formal/de facto names. You also will see the other style, which is being gradually phased out as more editors become aware of the guideline and realize that the boldface title's omission isn't accidental and needn't be "fixed".  (I regularly examine newly created articles appearing in the main page's ITN section, and I've been finding the MoS style with increasing frequency.)  —David Levy 03:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The wording that descriptive titles should not appear in boldface was introduced in 2008. That it has not been altered does not in itself imply that the wording has consensus. It is interesting that most of the examples given in WP:SBE do show the descriptive title in bold. I suspect that the wording might be more appropriate as it was previously - "it need not be in boldface". These featured articles use bold type for descriptive titles: Yellowstone fires of 1988, Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, July 2009 Ürümqi riots, Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre. If the consensus among editors on this article is that the title is preferred boldened, I would support that.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This article's lead has lacked a boldface title throughout most of its existence (with its occasional insertion reverted by multiple editors), so that doesn't appear to be the case.
 * Incidentally, the wording used in the first sentences of Yellowstone fires of 1988 and Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre comprise natural, straightforward English. Conversely, the statements that "the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident took place in Tiananmen Square" and "the July 2009 Ürümqi riots were a series of violent riots" contain obvious redundancies.  No one would ever say such a thing, except to awkwardly cram the article's title into the lead.  —David Levy 12:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear that there is a consensus on bolding the title. I looked in the talk archive and found discussions on the title itself, but nothing on bolding:


 * Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting
 * Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting/Archive_6
 * Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting/Archive_5
 * Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting/Archive_5
 * Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting/Archive_4
 * Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting/Archive_3

I looked back at the editing history of the article to see how the bolding had come and gone:


 * starts with 2011 Tucson shooting 8 Jan
 * David Levy altered 2011 Tucson shooting to A shooting occurred near Tucson, Arizona 9 Jan
 * Swarm reworded, removing shooting near Tucson, Arizona 30 Jan
 * a new account puts in 2011 Tucson shooting 15 Dec
 * Muboshgu reverts on the basis that it was decided long ago the exact title isn't needed 15 Dec
 * SilkTork rewords opening sentence "in line with similar articles", which includes using 2011 Tucson shooting 21 Dec
 * David Levy rewords, removing title and adding instruction not to use article title, citing MOS:BOLDTITLE 22 Dec

It may be worth having a discussion to see what the consensus is, though the matter doesn't impact on this GAN, so it should really be discussed on the talkpage.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the matter is separate from the GAN.
 * Note, incidentally, that the lack of clear consensus regarding the article's title demonstrates that "2011 Tucson shooting" is merely descriptive (not a widely accepted name for the event). —David Levy 15:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There is some discussion above in the GA review of using and bolding the title in the lead section. The guideline on the lead section in articles is WP:Lead, the section dealing with the first paragraph is WP:MOSINTRO, and that of the format of the first sentence is WP:BOLDTITLE. Actual convention on how to use article titles in the first sentence varies across Wikipedia. Where the article title is the identified name of the topic, the format is to bold the title and include it in the first sentence. Where the title may be classified as "descriptive", the title tends to be used (and bolded) when it can be used without forcing the language, and usage varies when the title cannot be used naturally. Sometimes people don't use the title, and other times they try to get it in and bold it - occasionally the words of the title are bolded even though they don't appear together in the sentence, as in The Beatles in the United States (The Beatles' rise to prominence in the United States...). As the MOS doesn't suggest that descriptive titles are avoided altogether (the wording is "does not need to appear verbatim", which means that descriptive titles should not be forced into the first sentence if they don't naturally fit), the title can appear in this article if that is the consensus. The question of the bolding is under discussion.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above summary.
 * In my view, this is a textbook example of when not to force the article's title into the lead. "2011 Tucson shooting" isn't a widely accepted name for the incident.  (As noted in the GA review, there isn't even strong consensus to use it as the article's title.)  And unlike cases such as Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre, the phrase doesn't arise naturally when referring to the event.  (In normal speech, no one would state that "the 2011 Tucson shooting was a shooting that occurred near Tucson in 2011" or similar.)
 * WP:SBE explains the reasoning behind the guideline. —David Levy 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Title
(I though I brought this up once before.) The phrase "2011 Tucson shooting" is way to vague. Tucson is very violent and there has been dozens of shooting incidents in Tucson over the past few years, including a couple by the DC snipers. Anyway this article should be called the "Safeway Massacre" as it seems to be pretty common for the people who actually liver here in the Tucson area. The "Gabriel Giffords Assassisnation Attempt" would also work but either way the "2011 Tucson shooting" title has to go.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Gabriel Giffords assassination attempt" was rejected because of the death of Judge John Roll and the other killings. "2011 Tucson shooting" is acceptable as long as it does not lead to confusion with other Wikipedia articles.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This title makes it sound like the perp accidentally shot off a few rounds. "Tucson shooting" is not an acceptable title for this subject by any stretch of the imagination.  Innocent people were deliberately targeted, shot, and murdered.  The location of "Tucson" in the title followed by the apathetic "shooting" is not an accurate summary of the topic. Viriditas (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Source contradiction
The text in the article

"After the gunman ran out of ammunition in the first magazine, he stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it."

is sourced from the CNN article at http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-09/justice/arizona.shooting_1_arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-people-shot-doctors that states:

Authorities said the suspect, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, was tackled by two men when he tried to reload his pistol -- while a woman in the crowd, Patricia Maisch, took away the fresh magazine Loughner had dropped.

but The New York Times article at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10reconstruct.html provides a different account

"His ammunition spent, the assailant stopped to reload, the authorities said, inserting a 31-round clip into the chamber of his Glock semiautomatic pistol before raising the gun again.

And in what was perhaps the only fortunate event of the day, the spring on the second clip failed. Two other men in the crowd lunged at the gunman and tackled him to the ground, and Ms. Maisch, responding to shouts from the crowd, grabbed the empty gun clip."

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Third Paragraph
'''The third paragraph (which is probably the furthest that most people will ever read) should be altered so as to give a more accurate account of the political fallout from Tucson. It should be something more like this:'''

Following the shooting, there was an outpouring of grief and condemnations from American and international politicians. Attention focused on the harsh political rhetoric in the United States. Some left-leaning commentators such as Paul Krugman blamed members of the political right wing for the shooting; in particular, they attempted to implicate Sarah Palin because of gun-related metaphors in her speeches and because of the website of her political action committee which "targeted" the districts of Giffords and others with pictures of crosshairs on an electoral map. Later it was learned that Loughner was an anarchist who hated all politicians regardless of their affiliation, which quieted the stir on the political left against Palin. Gun control advocates used the incident to renew their push for increased restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition, specifically high-capacity ammunition magazines. President Barack Obama led a nationally televised memorial service on January 12, and other memorials took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.212.249 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A Safeway in Arizona
Is there any objection to adding A Safeway in Arizona by Tom Zoellner to a further reading section? Viriditas (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)