Talk:Jared Lee Loughner

Loughner's politics
The following paragraph is false.

"Loughner's high-school friend Zach Osler said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right."[18] The tone of Loughner's online writings and videos from immediately before the attack was described by The Guardian as "almost exclusively conservative and anti-government, with echoes of the populist campaigning of the Tea Party movement".[39]"

A slanderous lie by The Guardian.

Before the shooting, I knew Jared online only. We were both members of the same political message board on Yahoo (when they had message boards on all sorts of subjects, not just political. These message boards are now defunct as Yahoo decided to shut down all their message boards). Jared was a very prolific poster. Posting 15, 20, or more times a day, 7 days a week for years. More than I ever did. His avatar was a picture of himself (sporting a full head of hair though) and his user name was his first name: Jared. Perhaps he never watched TV or listened to political radio or took political sides out in the open like his former high school friend claimed. But online, it was a different story (its possible Jared's friend never knew about Jared's online presence).

Jared was STRICTLY left wing. I, among many other, spent every day of the week for years discussing, debating, and arguing politics with Jared online. There was NOTHING conservative, much less "exclusively conservative", nothing right wing, in his online writings. True, he was anti-government. But that was when Bush was in office. When Obama took over, he wasnt anti-government all of the sudden. He dropped his anti-government rantings for the most part except to criticize and denounce various republican politicians individually. He wasn't anti-government as much as he was just anti-republican government. He never exactly said that with his words. But his actions, his postings said so. He also hated everything about the then emerging Tea Party movement because he saw it for what it was: a right wing populist movement. The claim by the Guardian that Jared's postings echoed the populist rhetoric of the Tea Party movement is false, laughable, and slanderous.

Around couple days or so before the shooting, all of the sudden Jared stopped posting. He was such a prolific, well known poster, that out of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of political board members, his absence was noticeable. Almost everyone on both sides of the political aisle were going "Where's Jared? Where's Jared?" After a couple days of his absence, the news broke of the shooting in Arizona. Shortly afterwards came the name of the shooter: Jared Loughner. As far as I know, none of us knew his real last name up until that time. But still, some were saying something along the lines of, "could this be our Jared?" As it turned out, it was. Very soon the behind the scenes powers that be of the Yahoo message boards deleted Jared's account as well as deleted as many of his postings they could find (evidently deleting his account didn't remove his message board posts and they had to do that separately). They didn't delete all his message board posts as there were a few they missed. 69.124.185.183 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia bases article content on published reliable sources. Not unverifiable claims by anonymous contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Wikipedia also has a NPOV policy. Couldn't they use a different published reliable source that didn't include such a opinionated sentence, a "POV", or at at the very least edit out the opinion (POV) part before including excerpts of said articles on wikipedia.

"The tone of Loughner's online writings and videos from immediately before the attack was described by The Guardian as "almost exclusively conservative and anti-government, with echoes of the populist campaigning of the Tea Party movement"

That's a POV. Doesn't matter if the Guardian is a reliable published source. Even reliable published sources have their opinionated moments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.185.183 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * By describing a POV held by the writers at The Guardian, the article is taking an NPOV stance. See Neutral_point_of_view
 * Wikipedia articles on current events are by design based on what top newspapers (The Guardian, New York Times, etc), scholarly books and articles, etc. say about a case. The information published in those sources makes the cut, and stuff not published does not.
 * Verifiability: "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences."
 * Trying to add unpublished information to an article would be No original research
 * Any insight into the subject which comes from unpublished sources just can't make the cut.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Own personal page
Does anyone know why this article exists in the first place? I think there should be some sort of Wikipedia policy to define which shooters get their own articles? Why do Loughner and Dylann Roof both have their own pages SEPARATE from their shootings while shooters like Robert Card, Salvador Ramos, Devin Patrick Kelley and Adam Lanza doubled Roof and tripled Loughner in kill count but do not have their own pages. I understand if more info about Loughner should be put here that would make the 2011 Tucson shooting article too long, but why isn't this case for the other shooters I mentioned as well? - Genberg47 (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to suggest a merge. GenQuest  "scribble" 17:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)