Talk:Jared Lee Loughner/Archive 3

High School/ College Discrepancy
The article states that Loughner dropped out of highschool in 2006. Without explanation, it later indicates that he attended college. We need to clarify these pieces of information: 1. When did he start college? 2. How did he get into college if he didn't graduate highschool? Did he revive his studies and earn his GED? Failing to mention a renewed interest in education contributes to the slant that Loughner began a steady mental decline. This portrayal may lack accuracy. 3. What prompted Laughner to continue his education?

In the very least, there needs to be a segue to prevent confusion-- i.e. "Loughner later entered college in 2009." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.169.133 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Community colleges do not require high school diplomas or GEDs. Perhaps there is a link to another wikipedia article that explains U.S. Community colleges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.161.172 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No schizophrenia diagnosis (prior to May 25)
The article states, with weasel words, that "experts say he has schizophrenia". This is not true. I'm not saying he isn't schizophrenic, but it cannot be reasonably stated that "experts say he has schizophrenia" unless he has been under a period of psychiatric observation and formerly been diagnosed and documented as suffering from that mental illness. It should instead read "experts theorize he is suffers from schizophrenia".

So far (before May 25) he has been in prison, not in a mental hospital. Prior to May 25, he has never been diagnosed with a mental illness in his entire life. The recent ruling that he is not competent to stand trial is standard procedure for a criminal case in which the defendant behaves erratically enough to create the possibility of a mistrial. If the judge believed he was insane then the cased would have been ruled to indicate he was insane; it was not.

He will finally be put under true psychiatric observation, for the very first time, as a consequence of tentative ruling. This is to prevent a mistrial. It is not because the judge (who is not a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist) is conceding that Loughner is mentally ill to the degree that he did not understand the consequences of his actions. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Jared Loughner's frame of mind being held out as the cause of the Tuscon 2011 Murder Spree
Under the section describing Jared Loughner's views and beliefs; I deleted a remark claiming that Jared Loughner's views points were what led to the Tuscon 2011 Murder Spree.

Given the pending status of the investigation by law enforcement officials it is premature to conclude that Jared Loughner's state of mind was the principle cause of those murders. The murders investigations are ongoing; not all of the facts are know yet and law enforcement officials may discover additional facts or actors that led or contributed to the Tuscon 2011 Murder Spree.

Harold Darling (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Location of Jared Loughner
The article states Mr Loughner is currently being held at the Federal Correctional Institution at Phoenix and includes a picture of the building. It should be noted he is actually being held at the United States Penitentiary (USP) - Tucson. I believe he was held in Phoenix for the arraignment of charges.

desertskies 21:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertskies (talk • contribs)


 * Right you are, see . I have removed the Phoenix picture and adapted the text. Ajnem (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Relevancy of Mentioning marijuana and hallucinogens in opening paragraph of Personal Background
What are the grounds for the relevancy of mentioning these substances? Millions of high schoolers experiment with these substances and don't go on to commit violent crimes. I think the mention of them in the paragraph is meant to imply that they contributed to his "mental breakdown" but I really don't see the justification.174.253.84.65 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

PCCC Picture is of the wrong campus
The picture being used here is of the West Campus which is not the one that Loughner attended. He attended the PCCC Northwest Campus which is just a few miles from his home. S.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.83.253 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is no other picture of PCC, and I don't think this one is incorrect enough to warrant its removal from the article. If you have an image you could upload that would be great! I will add a note about it though. Inverse Hypercube  08:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, he seems he attended both campuses . Inverse Hypercube  08:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion views
This wiki article states that Loughner was pro-life, and cites two reliable sources to back up the claim (for his allegedly comparing abortion to terrorism). Fair enough. However, I can also cite multiple reliable sources where he's alleged to have expressed pro-choice views, laughed about killing the fetus, and suggested using the fetus as a suicide bomber. Furthermore, I can cite multiple sources that describe the incident in question as part of Loughner's pattern of behavior of saying things simply to get a rise out of people. (And no, none of these sources include World Net Daily, Newsbusters, or even Fox News, so don't anyone embarrass themselves by making asinine assumptions and accusations). Just google "Jared abortion bomb" to see many of the reliable sources to which I refer.

It's not clear, based on all available sources, what his views are or were on abortion. It just seems like we're picking and choosing the sources that support "Loughner was pro-life" while ignoring the sources that allege he was pro-choice or just plain crazy.

If I have to, I can add a, "Yet other sources close to Loughner claim he was not..." followed by citations to support. But then, the article would look sloppy and would be trying to puzzle out the mind of a crazy man based on contradictory second-hand accounts. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's another one of the reasons why I think the whole section, "Views", should just be removed. GenQuest (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was my edit deleted? A woman named Caitie Parker tweeted: "[Loughner] was a pot head and into rock like Hendrix, The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class" and "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy."

This is a well-documented fact and a proven relationship between Parker and Loughner exists. She describes him as "quite liberal" but it continues to be scrubbed from the Wikipedia article. POV much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure what edit you are referring too, but if you have reliable source that states that, put it back in –with the source cited– then it shouldn't mysteriously disappear anymore. BTW, that section has now been changed to "Stated Views" as opposed to just "Views", which was getting filled up with speculative garbage. GenQuest (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course a Tweet isn't a reliable source for anything. There is no way to ascertain that the person posting was Parker, unless it is sourced elsewhere. But yes, trying to score political points based on something Loughner may have said years back is highly questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll say something along the lines of how she (Parker) was interviewed by several respected news agencies and then follow up with her Twitter comment (source:Twitter?) As far as political points, the left demanded that Mr. Loughner was a right-wing radical for weeks, and Caitie Parker is an unapologetic liberal (and we know they don't turn on their own kind).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

POV statement should be removed
This is in regards to the removal of the "citation needed" tag on the below sentence: "Loughner echoes concerns of Tea Party movement in videos that reveal fears about government brainwashing." He has nothing to do with the Tea Party or any other party for that matter, as is indicated in the article itself. This is a statement from a certain point of view. It is not fact. The sentence following it is a media report (eg: opinion) and is cited. However, the citation does not make the previous statement a fact. There's a huge difference. That statement must be proven or removed. GenQuest (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because you do not agree with these statements doesn't mean they should be removed. The article nor does the text in this article state that he was apart of the Tea Party, it simply states he echoes the views of the Tea Party. This isn't a POV statement, it simply states the facts. Dumaka (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "article", in fact, states nothing. It is an editorial piece by an individual which offers his OPINION. That is not a fact. Further, I didn't say I disagreed with anything other than the need to remove speculative remarks from an article. You seem highly interested in advancing your Point Of View.GenQuest (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that there is no set 'belief' of a Tea Party person, it makes no sense to include such a statement unless it is somehow relevant to furthering a true understanding of Jared Loughner. -- Avanu (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There may be no 'set' beliefs of the Tea Party as you so claim, however his ideology mirrors what the majority of Tea Partiers say, which provides an in-depth look into the character of Jared Loughner. For those reasons it should be included in this article. I'm also having a hard time understand why you decided to take it upon yourself to change the article before we could come to a agreement on what should be changed.Dumaka (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the part that is pure speculation and left the quotation, which is not speculative. If you had seen the YouTube videos of Jared Loughner actually speaking, you would know without a doubt that any mainstream interaction with political parties or movements would have been impossible for him.  Regardless of whether we speculate that he might be holding similar beliefs, the man is clearly unbalanced and his actual views are just a hodgepodge of various things.  To arbitrarily characterize him as holding beliefs that are similar to a mainstream or even fringe group would be to do a disservice to that group, as well as it being unverified Original Research. -- Avanu (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The point here being that additions to an article should advance one's understanding of the subject. This addition of an unproven statement followed by a quote from a speculative, editorialized piece does nothing to advance one's understanding of this individual nor is it helpful to the Wikipedia article itself. We can speculate all day as to what may have actually influenced this individual's actions, but until he says so himself (which may or may not ever happen) anything else is just conjecture, whether in a published "article" or not. One could just as easily attribute his actions (and say "he holds similar views with...' or, 'the tone of rantings are similar to...') with any number of philosophical beliefs, such as libertarianism - there are editorial, blog, etc. "articles" published that do just that - this, however, would also be unhelpful. Wikipedia articles need cited facts, not cited editorialized rubbish with left or right spin. To that end, the whole section, "Views", should be removed. GenQuest (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the above removal (since having the article itself make that comparison was clearly original research), it seems that people are now trying to remove the entire cited article. IMHO that goes too far -- it was a common statement and an extremely common comparison in many news reports on the subject, and we can and should cover the fact that the comparison was made without endorsing it.  Most of the edit summaries for removing it (basically saying that it's POV, that the article is by a 'left-wing reporter', that it's "contradicted" or otherwise clearly false) miss the point -- articles are required to be neutral, but they can report on opinions, as long as those opinions aren't given undue weight.  Likewise, accusing a comparison of being wrong is original research -- as long as it's not giving an opinion undue weight to cover it, we should report it neutrally and without passing judgment on it ourselves.  Now, whether it's undue weight to report this is the real issue -- I don't feel that this is giving undue weight, given how frequently his views have been characterized using that comparison overall.  However, it could perhaps be worded differently to make clear the fact that this is just a limited opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What about simply saying "It has been claimed that "he holds views that some have claimed echo those of the Tea Party"? Then a question can be raised on whether that assertion is widespread enough to merit inclusion, but I don't know enough about WP source guidelines to answer that..  It would be interesting if a Tea Party "response" to his views has been written.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.232.121 (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The claimed language should be avoided. See WP:CLAIM. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  16:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Even more pov pushing
I removed some of the work of a pov pusher. Von Restorff (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC) The category is for people for whom their atheism was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and who have self-identified as atheists. Von Restorff (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The removal of a long-standing category (American atheists) in this article by you is non-encyclopedic. The subject is, in several citations, identified as such. He is an atheist, and now, because of his actions, he is notable. After a quick check, it appears he is as much an atheist as others listed in the category: Ayn Rand, Peter Fonda, W. C. Fields, Isaac Asimov, to name just a sampling. If I was looking for notable atheists in America, I would expect to find him on the list as well. I have re-installed the category in question for the time being and ask that we all discuss here and go with whatever consensus develops. Thanks. GenQuest (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. See WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or 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 public life or notability, according to reliable published sources...". Loughner has not publicly self-identified as an atheist, and it is a violation of policy to include him in the category. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi GenQuest! If you take a look at that category you'll find the sentence I quoted in the editsummary: "Atheists either past or present for whom their atheism was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and who have self-identified as atheists". As far as I know the reason Jared is notable is because he is a murderer. His defining characteristics are: murderer and crazy. It does not even matter if he publicly self-identified as an atheist, he does not belong in that category. If you see a BLP that does not belong in this category feel free to remove the category, but it is very important to find reliable sources and always keep WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in mind. Von Restorff (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed that User:Von Restorff removed longstanding information from the article that is supported by three references. Several news agencies have reported his expressed views and I have restored them. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

The claim is: "Classmates also recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views."

The references are:

[12]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=132766402

[15]: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message

[26]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/10/jared-lee-loughner-arizona-shooting

[29]: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-7229463.htm

Reference 12 (npr.org) returns a 404 error (dead link).

Reference 15 (motherjones.com) does not support the claim that classmates recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views.

Reference 26 (guardian.co.uk) does not support the claim that classmates recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views.

Reference 29 (cbsnews.com) does not support the claim that classmates recalled Loughner as having espoused atheistic and nihilistic views.

A quote from motherjones.com about his religious views:

In another, Loughner complains that when he tried to join the military, he was handed a "mini-Bible." That upset him: "I didn't write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None," he wrote on YouTube.

Please note that not having a religion is not the same as being an atheist.

guardian.co.uk says: "Loughner also stood out as a vigorous atheist in a religious part of the world".

It does not say this was how classmates recalled him.

cbsnews.com says:

"An ardent atheist, he began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the government and the monotony of modern life."

It does not say this was how classmates recalled him.

I recommend reading the sources before reverting. Von Restorff (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed it now. Von Restorff (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the dead link to npr.org because the content is the same as the cbsnews article (CBS has a few extra links). Von Restorff (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Von Restorff, your current revision is acceptable and is supported by two reliable sources. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Anupam! In the future please read the sources before reverting people. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I too find your current revision to be acceptable and and supported by two reliable sources --Protostan (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Protostan! Please try to avoid pushing a POV; Wikipedia is trying to be a neutral encyclopedia. I think it would be a good idea if you apologized to AndyTheGrump and tried to do some edits that actually improve Wikipedia and are not religion-related. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What would I apologize for? --Protostan (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I read the conversation between Andy and you it does not come across as very friendly. Being friendly to other editors is very important on Wikipedia, because no one can write this encyclopedia alone. Von Restorff (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

'Expressed views'
I propose that this section be deleted, on the basis that it doesn't contain Loughner's 'expressed views' (i.e. views as expressed to a reliable source) at all. Instead, it consists of a random assortment of ex-acquaintances recollections (often from some time ago, and of questionable merit), as filtered through the media, and again through the perceptions of Wikipedia editors - at least some of which seem to be using the article as a coatrack to attack whatever cause they can associate Loughner with. Given the strong evidence regarding Loughner's mental state, any 'views' regarding abortion, or atheism, or "the nefarious designs of government" seem of little actual relevance. He was clearly deeply disturbed, and as such his 'politics' (whatever they are) can hardly be an explanation for his behaviour. It does little to Wikipedia's credit, or to the memory of the victims of this tragedy, to use the events as an excuse for mudslinging. We can do better.

At this point, I'd like to see the opinions of others on this, in the hope that we can reach a consensus. Failing that I may look at starting an RfC on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * His expressed views are those given in reliable sources and will continue to stay in the article. Could you please explain why you wish to remove Jared Lee Loghner's religious views from this article when you added the "Christian terrorism" category to the Anders Behring Breivik article (again here), despite the individual being in a similar mental condition to Jared Lee Loughner? I look forward to your response. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide citations for these 'expressed views'? I've not seen any source that has interviewed Loughner regarding his views on anything, and nor have I seen any sources attributing any quotes etc to him - all I've seen is second-hand opinions regarding what Loughner's views supposedly were some time ago. As for Breivik, that is another article, and each case needs to be discussed on its merits - I will however point out the obvious difference. There was considerable attention paid to Brievik's motivations, his politics, and his beliefs in multiple mainstream reliable sources. The same has not been true of Loughner. And as for Loughner and Breivik being 'in a similar mental condition' as each other, that is for the courts etc to decide - in Breivik's case, there seems to be considerable debate about this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read extensively on reports on both cases. Frankly, in both cases, the mental condition of the accused is not that of sanity, though a court would have to deliver a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. However, if one is unfit, due to insanity, for trial and one's condition has not changed since the crime and arrest, reason follows that the person is insane and not responsible for their actions and requires treatment, not incarceration. Said treatment is best satisfied by residential care in a long term care facility with reasonable security present to prevent escape and danger to the community. Of course, even THEN, one requires a court to rule. However, both men's views were reported by the press, which is regarded as largely a reliable source, hence, the views remain. OR we reject 90% of current events here and move into the past, not covering ANYTHING contemporary, as the press suddenly became totally unreliable. Indeed, as many articles of the past present press reports as citations, THEY would be removed as well. Indeed, many, many physics articles site several scientific publications that qualify as press and they would be removed.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Views on abortion
I have removed and rewritten the section on Loughner's alleged pro-life stance; this information is wildly inaccurate and politically motivated. Ann Coulter calls this New York Times version of the events "the most bald-faced lie [she has] ever read in The New York Times -- which is saying something." According to the article in its current state, "[o]ne classmate stated that Loughner had laughed at a young woman and likened her to a terrorist after she read a poem about getting an abortion." Numerous other sources, including ABC and the Associated Press, have contradicted this story, explaining Loughner's reaction as laughing about the abortion. Indeed, only the NYT's version of the events (written by ultra-left journalist Eric Lipton) paints Loughner as a pro-life zealot. Please refer to the sources cited within the new paragraph and to Ann Coulter's January 12, 2011 column which details the incident and the resulting Times' spin. 76.119.76.228 (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * With no due respect to your research on the subject, as reflected in THIS article, I reviewed citation 28 and your claim fell false. Citation 30 quoted a LOCAL media source, as the New York Times is FAR from local to ARIZONA, again, your claim falls false. Citation 31 goes back to citation 28 and 29, ABC News, which, again, is not LOCAL to the New York Times. Citation 32 isn't listing a source media, but one would suspect ABC News, as it's nearly verbatim. Citation 33 lists no source for the NPR report, wording is substantially different than the ABC News version. Citation 34 is a bad link, as it links to CURRENT EVENTS, not the article. Citation 35 (Baltimore Sun) is VERY different than ABC News, notably, so most likely original information from a first hand source. Citation 36 was nearly verbatim (regarding the key word abortion) to the wording of citation 35. In short, your claims are not valid, as MULTIPLE sources are quoted and a few have differing details that are noteworthy and further fulfilling foundations of the condition of the suspect.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Cult allegation is BLP violation
I have searched for the alleged cult affiliation of Loughner and no reliable source has reported on this. In order to claim that a living person is a member of a cult we must have multiple reliable sources for verification because this is a controversial topic. Stating in a BLP that the subject is in a cult without proper sourcing is an egregious WP:BLP violation. Until high quality RSs are cited this accusation will be reverted. Note that WP:3RR does not apply to removal--although if you edit war to restore it you will be blocked. – Lionel (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There never was an allegation that he was in a cult (occult is not the same as cult). The FBI was investigating due to a shrine found. Sources clearly state that the FBI was investigating Loughner's possible involvement in the occult. Please see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8251085/Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-Jared-Loughner-may-have-been-influenced-by-occult.html. AND http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-frightening-twisted-shrine-arizona-killer-jared-lee-loughner-yard-article-1.149211 {DEFINITION: oc·cult/əˈkəlt/ Noun: Supernatural, mystical, or magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena}. --Mathnarg (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Cited sources say others said Loughner was atheist so saying emphatically "Loughner is atheist" is misleading and BLP violation
Suggestion: Omit "Loughner is an atheist" or provide accurate quotes. But why?: Because, it's very possibly inaccurate since we don't know if Loughner currently believes in God or not. Also it's a controversial subject about a living person and subject to lawsuits. He's currently awaiting trial. Additionally, most atheists don't be believe in the supernatural or the occult so it's not likely he is an atheist. Sources clearly state that the FBI was investigating Loughner's possible involvement in the occult. Please see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8251085/Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-Jared-Loughner-may-have-been-influenced-by-occult.html. "Occult" is not the same as "cult". People who edit should know this (hint hint, you know who you are). Try a dictionary. It's a wonderful thing. {DEFINITION: oc·cult/əˈkəlt/ Noun: Supernatural, mystical, or magical beliefs, practices, or phenomena}. The "Loughner is an atheist" comment is likely based on an agenda since the sources only say others said (hearsay). The claim he is certainly an atheist cannot stand because no such claim can be verified that he is currently an atheist. It would be reasonable to provide a quote, however. All sources cited with the "Loughner is an atheist" statement in the article offer hearsay and should be reported as such. The sources state others said he WAS an atheist---because that's all they can say, "WAS" since it was written in the past. At the very least just remove the "Loughner is an atheist" or provide an exact quote of someone saying he was an atheist, and report it accurately as such. This is all about accuracy about a living person. Or if we can't have accurate "expressed views" quotes then section should be deleted as suggested by someone earlier. People should stop putting their agenda/propaganda in WP articles so we can get the facts. I was quite disappointed when I checked the sources for "Loughner is (an) atheist" Only to find it was hearsay and no current sources of him claiming to be atheist. It's a shame people want to make things up or twist things to promote their religious or political agenda --Mathnarg (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is no source cited for Loughner stating that he is an atheist, the article must not assert that he is, this is a fundamental tenet of WP:BLP policy: any statements regarding faith (or lack of faith) must be based on personal statements. I have accordingly removed this from the article, and will remind people that it is a violation of policy to include such statements without the appropriate source - Loughner himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Its certainly notable to include but BLP concerns are warranted. Perhaps it could be included but with something akin to "Friends of Loughner described him as being an atheist"? That should meet WP:BLP as it isn't making a statement of fact but opinion.  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Loughner is an atheist according to multiple high quality RS:
 * "Loughner also stood out as a vigorous atheist in a religious part of the world."Guardian
 * "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."CBS (AP)
 * "They said he was an atheist who also believed that Nasa space shuttle missions, which have been flown by Miss Giffords's astronaut husband, Mark Kelly, were faked."Gazette
 * The WP:BLP policy which requires self-identification is to be used solely for Categories, lists and navigation templates. It does not apply in this case. From WP:BLPCAT:
 * Furthermore we do not have a prohibition on hearsay. WP:hearsay can be added if it is reliably sourced. Unless you can prove that the Guardian, CBS and Gazette are unreliable the fact that he is an atheist passes WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. – Lionel (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I rescind my above statement - the sources above are fine for the article. We should not use the Atheists category, but saying he is an atheist is fine due to RSes.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You know what Jared Loughner was more than possibly an atheist? A huge nutball. Seriously, how can we say with certainty what his religious or philosophical beliefs are, when his thoughts are a muddle of incoherent babbling? You're going to take as gospel the comments of people who are saying the guy also said the space shuttle flights were faked and the government is controlling him via grammar. You call these reliable sources just because they say Guardian, CBS and Montreal Gazette. These sources REPORTED that his acquaintances believed he was an atheist. You cannot legitimately tell whether the source investigated the claims to determine whether he himself believes he is an atheist or has any religious tendencies. Leave it out until you can actually verify it with reliable sources that actually are shown to be reliable on this subject OR simply say that his aquaintances thought he was an atheist, and creepy, and scary... etc. Let's understand that the reliablility of sources is also dependent on context. -- Avanu (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not care about "certainty" in the slightest. There is no WP:CERTAINTY. That is like trying to write articles based on "the truth." All we care about is verifiability WP:V. – Lionel (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is a nutball. But being a nutball doesn't make his views nonexistent. They are confirmed by non-partisan, reliable sources and that's really all we can ask for (read WP:VNT).  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: The Guardian and CBS state that he was an atheist in the voice of their respective papers--without reservation, without attribution, and emphatically. They do not attribute this to any "friend." Both papers did their own research and came to their own conclusions. These papers are independent, high quality and extremly reliable. Exactly the kind of source we look for with BLP. The fact that we have multiple independent sources only bolsters the fact that he is an atheist. If for some reason you think that The Guardian and CBS are not realiable you are more then welcome to post at RSN. – Lionel (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go read WP:RS and then come back. BIG NAME NEWS does not equal reliable source. There are three components to a reliable source, and finally once you have a reliable source, context matters as well. -- Avanu (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is any actual evidence of Loughner being an atheist? You made a claim that "Both papers did their own research", but how do you know that? Where is the proof of that? Newspapers regularly repeat and reguritate other sources instead of doing thorough research. None of the above statements are attributed directly to Loughner or to a source that quotes him. When I said certainty above, I simply meant that you actually give some degree of reasonable effort in getting to the best available information on this and don't simply put the amount of effort many of our sources put into this. -- Avanu (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have uncovered more evidence which go against claims from Loughner's friends he was an atheist. The newspaper said the officer wrote of the incident, "I asked Loughner the meaning of his moniker. He stated that the 'c' meant Christian and the 'x' also meant Christian," adding in parentheses, "As personally written by Loughner on my field interviewing notebook!" What sort of atheist goes around with a Christian moniker? RS UPI: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/10/Loughner-earlier-arrested-for-graffiti/UPI-68681294700079/#ixzz1yUNDt2bp  I'm just trying to illustrate we don't know if he's atheist or not. Just leave it out or be honest at least. Because if you add the atheist claim then we are also obligated to balance it out with the FBI investigation into involvement in the occult and the Christian moniker he was using.--Mathnarg (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't know where to begin with this moniker thing. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH to start, and I'm beginning to think WP:IDONTLIKE and WP:NOTCENSORED.– Lionel (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The only actual quote I've found so far is from Zach Osler via ABC news, who is quoted as saying "They did very few family activities together besides going to car races and one family vacation to the beach, and they never decorated their house for the holidays. Jared's parents were religious but Jared proclaimed himself as an atheist." However, in the same interview, Zach Osler also says he hadn't spoken to Loughner in two years and that he never thought about Loughner anymore and that Loughner's mug shot looked like a monster. So, not a very clear assurance there of Lougher's current beliefs and Loughner had clearly gone through some changes in the intervening time. -- Avanu (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This from the Daily Mail (2011):
 * 4. "Jared Loughner posted a picture of a handgun on his MySpace page before the attack...  On MySpace, Loughner complained that when he joined the military, he was given a 'mini-Bible' despite telling a recruiter that he was an atheist." This obviously is self-identification. We now have at least 4 high quality independent sources confirming that he is an atheist. 2 news reports where the fact is stated unattributed, 1 report featuring interviews with friends, and 1 report where he self-identifies.– Lionel (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we assuming that being an atheist or not being an atheist is somehow related to him being a nutball? Or is this just some random fact that we 'need' for color and filler? -- Avanu (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As editors we do not assume anything. What we do is create encyclopedic content based on what reliable sources report. And multiple RS report that he was a "vigorous" and "ardent" atheist. This is not random. By describing his non-faith as "vigorous" and "ardent", reliable sources have made this an extremely relevant issue. Look, this is basic biographical background stuff, and 99.9% of the time it would be added without any drama. These objections to what is normally a routine edit have become bizarre, and dare I say tendentious. In any event, this content passes all relevant policies, the sources are highly regarded and reputable, and the subject self-identifies. Barring a finding that CBS, the Assoc Press, the Guardian and the Daily Mail are unrelibable, there is no policy-based rationale for exclusion. – Lionel (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also say that unless a direct connection for WHY it matters whether he was an atheist in relation to his shooting spree, if people don't see a reason to include it, it can be easily left out. CBS, Associated Press, and Guardian, etc are publishers, our Reliable Source policy says there are three components of a reliable source, publisher being only one of those three, and in addition, the context matters. I'm done with the debate on this, because it is a little lame, but honestly, why does it matter whether it is left out of the article? The idea that you've got to fight for something that has no sourced connection to the notable event is a bit silly. -- Avanu (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a notable aspect of his personal life and beliefs.  Toa   Nidhiki05  23:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, if it is actually true, and if it influenced his life in any way. -- Avanu (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, nobody knows whether Loughner has a belief in a god or not right now. Furthermore, such information is not relevant unless it's linked to his motives. The only reason anyone would want to include a person's belief system is if they were trying to establish a motive. For example, if Loughner said Santa came down and told him to commit the dastardly deed we would want it included because his motive was to please Santa. We would then have to implicate Santa for sure. Lacking a belief in god would be irrelevant, and again, we don't know what he believed at the time of the crimes. All we do know is that he was an atheist at some time in his life, he used a Christian moniker, and the FBI was investigating whether he was involved in the occult. Certainly, the information we do have creates a bit of confusion as to what his beliefs were, and we absolutely don't know what they are at this moment in time.--Mathnarg (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mathnarg. Unless Loughner specifically stated it himself, I don't believe it meets BLP to assign a (non-)religious identity to him. Some of those interested in adding atheism here seem to want to add it because they themselves are theists. Loughner's apparent fixation with Zeitgeist, a film that puts forth an anti-Christian conspiracy theory, indicates he was certainly suspicious and critical of Christianity. However, his interest in the occult suggests he had some sort of belief or interest in supernatural/spiritual matters. Depending on who was describing it, he had an altar or shrine in his back yard. That's not indicative of atheism. People looking to score points for their side have assigned him as a left-winger, a right-winger, etc. etc., even in reliable sources. Our best bet is to stick with exactly what he said about his beliefs personally, such as the story about rejecting the Bible he was given reported in a reliable source. Jokestress (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I coudlIt doesn't matter what my own beliefs are, Loughner's are notable. They are established by four different, reliable sources. I don't see any reason not to include notable information. His beliefs are notable and sources have defined them as 'atheist'. We don't have a WP:MUSTBETRUE or WP:CERTAINTY policy and we don't have a WP:ITHINKHISBELIEFSAREINCONSISTANTWITHTHEIRLABELSOTHEYSHOULDBEREMOVED policy. All that matters is that four independent RSes have defined them as athiest.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, the enthusiasm to label Loughner an atheist in some quarters is akin to the Wikipedians who sometimes get a little too enthusiastic about labeling some white collar criminals as Jews. We need to be very cautious when labeling people as members of historically persecuted minorities. In these instances, we should adhere strictly to quotations about his self-identity from the subject himself, not hearsay and analysis. Jokestress (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There is totally a policy-based objection to people only wanting to include RSes that they want: NPOV. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." It becomes a little obvious there is an agenda when some editors don't want RS articles that don't support the articles they want cited.--Mathnarg (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for material of this nature. It, and its sister paper the Mail on Sunday, are tabloids which have frequently been shot down at WP:RSN. --John (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Ardent atheist"
I've been reading Tom Zoellner's A Safeway in Arizona: What the Gabrielle Giffords Shooting Tells Us about the Grand Canyon State and Life in America (2011). Zoellner draws a parallel between the atmosphere of violence in Dallas just before the assassination of JFK and violence in Arizona. Imagine my surprise to find that the NYT referred to Oswald as "an ardent leftist". Interesting coincidence. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which brings me to my next point. As far as I can tell, there is zero evidence that Loughner was an "ardent" atheist.  So then, can anyone explain why CBS/AP said that he was? Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One of our most valued precepts is verifiability. The fact that Loughner is an atheist is verifiable in multiple reliable sources. The only way to impeach CBS, AP, Gaurdian, et al is with a published retraction or correction. Lacking this the only alternative is to find a source which says Loughner is not an atheist. Then the formulation would be something along the lines of "Published account report that Loughner is an atheist, however [reliable source] claimed that he was not." As it stands now your position is based on speculation and conjecture. We do not evaluate sources this way. We use WP:V. If you have a link which discredits CBS, AP et al, then post it and we'll be done with this. Let's look at the larger picture... To treat reliable sources otherwise--across the entire project--would undermine the very foundation of Wikipedia itself and surely cause its collapse. – Lionel (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do post something in the debate above that steps toward discrediting the sources. As WP:RS says, context matters, and WP:BLP says that poor sourcing matters. While the sources attribute various strengths of atheistic beliefs to Loughner, they don't go on to explain it. So the reader is left to infer something. "Joe was an ardent dog walker. His best friend said he liked peaches. He killed 12 people on a Sunday." Maybe peaches made him do it? Frustration with ill-trained dogs? Maybe he hated church-goers, or maybe he didn't like facing Mondays? No idea... because in my source there, I don't explain it. This sort of reminds me of the little off-color jokes that people would say in their youth, when they were directed at someone nearby. It wasn't "there's a man over there that just bought a magazine", it was "There's this colored boy who just bought a magazine. Wonder where he got all that money?" The person would never say explicitly anything derogatory, but it is clear from listening that their mindset was that the guy was obviously a thief because he had money. Oh yes, and because all black people are thieves. Great logic. The analogy here is that for a lot of people, the word "atheist" is an insult. It is not perceived in a neutral fashion, and sadly these days, describing someone in an overly religious context is considered bad as well, depending on the circles. So, considering its inherent bias and lack of explanation, leaving it out entirely is probably more NPOV and BLP adhering. -- Avanu (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is replete with various facts about his upbringing, beliefs, relationships. If we exclude being an atheist because we do/do not know if it caused him to murder those people where does it end? What about him being an independent? A drinker? A drug user? A registered independent? An only child? An American? Will a reader think that Americans are more susceptible to maniacal killing rampages than other nationalities? Why give atheism special treatment? Is atheism a "protected class"? Is atheism off-limits? – Lionel (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Will a reader think that Americans are more susceptible to maniacal killing rampages than other nationalities"? The frequency of such acts in the U.S. might possibly seem to suggest so. As for suggestions that we are giving atheism 'special treatment', I think that we are probably doing the opposite - we are saying that there is little conclusive evidence that Loughner was an atheist at the time of the killings, and even less that his religious beliefs (or lack of them) had anything to do with his motivations - and on that basis, giving undue weight to this would be 'special treatment'. So we shouldn't. If people want to claim that he was motivated by a particular aspect of his ideology (in as much as he had one, which is questionable), rather than by another, it is for them to provide the evidence, not to pick on whatever they find objectionable, and then to demonstrate its significance - in published reliable sources elsewhere. The opinions of Wikipedia contributors on whether Loughner was an atheist, or on whether it matters, are entirely irrelevant to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This talk about entirely excluding a statement from a reliable source like the AP or CBS due to "inherent bias" seems clearly contrary to the Wikipedia policies Lionelt is pointing to, even though I agree that the bias is probably there. The thing is, the place for these kind of nuanced arguments about whether Loughner was an atheist is elsewhere. If you want to make these arguments and have them represented in Wikipedia, you need to first write it up carefully and have it published in a reliable source. Then we could cite you here. Otherwise, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what is in the reliable sources currently available. Undoubtedly, there are all kinds of biases in those sources, and those biases will be reflected in Wikipedia - unless/until other reliable sources dispute those biases. Wikipedia is not utopia, but rather "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately." Hugetim (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true. Verifiability is not a guarantee of inclusion due to BLP and other concerns.  Read the policies yourself.  I use AP and CBS sources all the time, and I consistently find errors, with CBS often expressing more bias when it comes to certain issues.  Shoddy reporting is not representative of the best sources at hand, and your insistence that we must publish whatever a reliable source says is disputed by the policies and Jimbo himself.  Perhaps you should find a good reliable source, such as a biography or historical book on the shooting.  I have, and they say nothing about atheism nor indicate its importance.  We appear to have a sensationalistic news source interpreting several videos and taking quotes out of context to push a POV not reflected by the  person.  Therefore, we default to BLP and exclude.  Inclusion is never the default position. Because of BLP concerns, you need a good reason beyond simple verification of a blanket statement misinterpreting a video based on out of context quotes.  Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While it would be wrong to imply a connection between Loughner's religious views and his actions, this is not done in the article and otherwise there is nothing wrong with mentioning them. We should mention too his right-wing political views, although they are already implied in the article by the reference to (right-wing) conspiracy theories.  TFD (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It helps to look at the best sources and find what they have in common and explore in detail those points. We really don't know anything about Loughner's religious views at all, and when you look at the best sources, they say little to nothing on this subject. Many of the points that Pilkington makes in his article have been challenged, so it presents a similar problem.  I think the consensus on this issue is that Loughner was more accurately classified as a libertarian than a "right-winger", but this is also debatable.  Lionel and others will insist that he was a leftist because Marx was on his reading list. Viriditas (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Context matters- "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable "for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context". One source cannot be reliable in all instances. I have not seen one reliable source that tells us what Loughner currently believes or doesn't believe. Only hearsay of what he was, not what he is. So this insistence that he be put in a box and labeled an infidel wreaks of dishonesty. Also, atheism is not a religion as a few on the talk page seem to believe. It's merely a lack of a belief in a deity. If someone doesn't believe in Santa Claus there is no need to mention that. And keep in mind that Atheist is not the same as antitheist. --Mathnarg (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC: To atheist or not to atheist
In service to our readers our biography articles contain general background information to help understand the subject. For example place of birth, family members, education, military service, profession, etc. A topic that is often included is religion. In the particular case, it is the absence of faith which is at issue. This is the question: do you feel that we should  or   the following:

Loughner is an atheist.

– Lionel (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Include
 * ✅ Passes WP:BLP: multiple reliable sources support content, and subject self-identifies on Myspace
 * ✅ Passes WP:DUE: we don't even have to argue if this is relevant because the sources themselves indicate the extreme importance and relevance of his atheism by using "he stood out", "vigorous" and "ardent"
 * – Lionel (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The correct way to include the biographical information would be "Loughner had been described as an atheist by friends, and he has described himself as an atheist in the past." However,the statement "Loughner is an atheist" has not been confirmed by any of the RS articles listed. The articles only described him at an earlier time. Also, even if it's deemed necessary to say he was an atheist it would also be important to include other RS articles that describe him using a Christian moniker and the FBI investigating possible involvement in the occult, which could leave doubt whether he was or is currently an atheist.  The inclusion of possible contradictory RS information falls under Neutral Point of View: NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." --Mathnarg (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not qualify sources that are a year old with "in the past." 99% of WP sources are a year old. By your reasoning practically every sentence in the entire pedia would start or end with "in the past." The sources I provided use the present tense to describe Loughner as an atheist. It is perfectly reasonable for us to also use the present tense until a reliable source says otherwise. Regarding a Christian moniker & the occult that is an OTHERSTUFF argument--it you want it in the article so badly just add it. This RFC is not about a Christian moniker.– Lionel (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Include, but with accurate language. Lionel's proposed text is a violation of BLP. We need to stick with exactly what Loughner has stated in his own words, then any interpretations by others. If he has stated "I am an atheist," I have never seen that in a source. The Mail article is an imprecise interpretation based on Loughner's statement that he did not fill in a faith on a military form. He also had problems with "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, which he considered illegitimate because it was not backed by gold or silver. I propose the following text based on Mathnarg's:
 * After Loughner took military entrance tests in Phoenix, he stated, "I didn't write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter wrote on the application: None." Loughner's statements have been interpreted by acquaintances and journalists as evidence he is an atheist.
 * Source: Loughner, Jared (December 15, 2010). Introduction: Jared Loughner YouTube.
 * Jokestress (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy that requires that we "stick with exactly what Loughner has stated" is BLPCAT, and we are not discussing a category. The Guardian and CBS report--without attribution--that he "stood out...as an atheist" and "an...atheist." By stating this without attribution I conclude the papers are speaking in their own voices. That said, the Mail reported he wrote that "[he told] a recruiter that he was an atheist." – Lionel (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We should accurately describe his expressed views, per the title of that section. BLP, not BLPCAT, makes it crystal clear that we must be absolutely correct in any statements about living people. Since he has not directly expressed that he is an atheist, we need to be absolutely precise about what he has expressed. Not filling in a blank on a form does not make him an atheist. Refusing to trust in God because he doesn't accept our currency system does not make him an atheist. The enthusiasm to label him an atheist is politically-motivated POV-pushing. We must stick with verifiable and accurate descriptions of his expressed views as Loughner himself expressed them. I've seen this kind of point-scoring a million times here, e.g., "Hitler was an atheist." Most of the time it is much more complicated than that, and a BLP needs to be extremely accurate about this. Right-wing commentators have tagged him a "left-wing pothead." Liberals observed that so many people immediately connected Loughner to right-wing rhetoric. Saying he was right-wing or left-wing is as gross of an oversimplification as saying he was/is an atheist. It is a blatant violation of policy. Jokestress (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, stop right there. I haven't mentioned once the fact that the very person who removed the content in the first place identifies as an atheist. Attacking me and Lionelt for what we believe and accusing us of POV-pushing, a very serious allegation, is wrong and a gross violation of AGF. I don't edit to push a political view and neither does Lionelt. Rather than ad homenim attacks lets focus on the substance of the arguments. We have multiple non-partisan reliable sources confirming it. You have an argument that isn't supported by policy. And until you can present some WP:CERTAINTY policy, it has absolutely no basis in policy or guidelines.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a very clear policy. We need to quote/accurately summarize Loughner's directly expressed views as I did. If you have a source where he directly expresses his views about supernatural matters, we can quote him. All these other people labeling him this or that are not acceptable, just as we don't speculate on or label people's sexual orientation or political affiliation based on hearsay or analysis in BLPs. Show us some quotations where Loughner specifically discusses his views and we are fine. Anything else is not acceptable for a declarative sentence like "__ is a __." A statement of fact like that must be backed with a direct quotation in a BLP. This is a bedrock policy and is not negotiable. We can go to BLPN if we're at an impasse. Jokestress (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Jokestress I need your help. I have read BLP 3 times and the only policy regarding "directly expresses his views about supernatural matters" that I could find is at WP:BLPCAT (which only applies to categories). If you could point me to the page where labelling of sexual orientation/political affiliation is located we could clear this up in no time.– Lionel (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in pettifoggery. WP:BLPSTYLE states that BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Your proposed text is a partisan overstatement that includes no quotation of what the subject has published about himself. It's a clear violation of the letter and spirit of BLP policy. I'll let this RFC run its course, but material on this should not be added until there is community consensus. Next stop is BLPN. Jokestress (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why exactly is this relevant to his notability? --John (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is only one thing that is "relevant to his notability": he went on a shooting spree in Tuscon. Is being an only child "relevant to his notability"? Is being in a very private family "relevant to his notability"? Is defacing a street sign "relevant to his notability"? The preceding are not "relevant to his notability" but are the standard background info that appears in the vast majority of our bios. By your "notability" requirement this article would have only 1 sentence: "Jared Lee Loughner in 2011 killed 6 people and injured 14 others." As it happens in this case, the sources, by using "he stood out", "vigorous" and "ardent" actually in and of themselves show that his atheism is extremely relevant. – Lionel (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Include - The information is relevant on most any page and is confirmed by multiple non-partisan sources. There is no reason not to include it.  Toa   Nidhiki05  20:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC
 * Huh? It hasn't been "confirmed" by anyone.  Simply asserting something isn't a confirmation.  News reports publish erroneous claims all the time. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas: we have something better than "confirmation": we have verification in multiple RS.– Lionel (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're completely wrong, Lionel. The process of verifiability on Wikipedia is independent from determining accuracy and reliability.  To repeat from WP:V, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.  Now you know why. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding the statement you quote. Sure, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, but that's because of the other principles of notability and neutrality. But it's misleading to say "verifiability on Wikipedia is independent from determining accuracy and reliability." To the contrary, verifiability is the standard of accuracy and reliability on Wikipedia. Please consider this essay, Verifiability,_not_truth -Hugetim (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not misunderstood anything and the essay you link to is worthless as it represents a POV that is neither a policy not a guideline and is also contested by the community, as one can see over at Verifiability/2012 RfC.   Accuracy and reliability refers to the use of sources in the context of BLP. Verifiability is not the standard of accuracy and reliability on Wikipedia, not do I have any idea why you think it is.  Accuracy does not arise out of verifiability, nor does reliability have anything to do with it.  You need good sources to claim the subject is an atheist and you need good sources demonstrating why it is an important to include.  Lacking good sources, we don't default to "include" merely because one journalist said he was an atheist because he sounds like one.  We default to exclude pending further information and an indication of importance.  Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to disregard the essay - I didn't intend it to be taken as policy, which is why I explicitly identified it as an essay. (Thank you for pointing me to that RFC, though. Discussion of View 9 was especially helpful to me, where User:Wnt is giving voice to my views.) I'm open to being wrong as I am a newbie, but can you be more specific about which part of the BLP policy backs up your statements, e.g. "Verifiability is not the standard of accuracy and reliability on Wikipedia"? I don't see anywhere in the BLP policy that suggests accuracy or reliability can be assessed independently of verifiability. I thought it takes a reliable source (or multiple) to question the accuracy of another reliable source, no? I also don't understand why you say we are lacking good sources. Can you be more specific about why the sources provided by Lionelt are not reliable? Hugetim (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already addressed this. It is disputed whether Loughner can be classified as an atheist.  Books about the subject don't describe him as an atheist.  Some wire stories called him that, but there has been little to no in depth coverage about his religion.  This tells us we have little information and that it's not important to include. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just the desire to say "Loughner is an atheist" alone, without qualification, seems odd to me in an encyclopedia. Atheism is not a religion. In addition to the "living person" we have to think of the reader. A critical reader would want to know why he's being labeled an atheist, particularly for those who are well read on the subject. I think Jokestress offers a very legitimate example of how the information should be presented. As Jokestress writes: ["After Loughner took military entrance tests in Phoenix, he stated, "I didn't write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter wrote on the application: None." Loughner's statements have been interpreted by acquaintances and journalists as evidence he is an atheist.] The way Jokestress writes it here is not disputed, not too wordy, and clearly backed up by RSes. The other way, "Loughner is an atheist" (with only citations and no simple qualification) can leave false impressions. It's actually poor writing to let it stand alone, and at the very least will be challenged for clarity with a brief qualification like in Jokestress' example.--Mathnarg (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree - a simple statement that 'X is a Y' is rarely encyclopaedic. Why are we being told this? If the sources we cite think it is significant, we should let the readers know why it is seen as significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what we're saying here is that stating Loughner is an atheist requires context. Besides Jokestress' formulation, there is the context provided by CBS and the Guardian. Both of these newspapers discuss Loughner's atheism in relation to his evolving "philosophy" of nihilism. In the Guardian we find "life means nothing" and "the world is really nothing – illusion", and in CBS "increasingly introspective" and "nihilistic rut." Also, the Guardian seems to be saying that the Arizona community in which he lived was religious, and because he was an atheist he "stood out." So there we have the context, or "qualification" as Marthnarg puts it, from reliable sources. We should expand the proposed addition using this context. – Lionel (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, there is approximately zero evidence for such a notion. He was mentally ill, which is the only context you need. This is a childish game of chinese whispers.  What evidence do you have that he was an atheist? Secondhand testimony from an acquaintance, much of which has already been dismissed as false.  For example, you can find many sources claiming that Loughner's mother was Jewish and that he attended synagogue—this claim, which started with his high school friend Bryce Tierney—was repeated by Mother Jones, and then spread around the conservative blogosphere by Ann Coulter and finally by white nationalists.  However, researchers have looked into this and have found zero evidence that Loughner or his mother were ever Jewish, but they discovered that Loughner's grandmother (his mother's mother) was raised Catholic.   This goes to show how weak these claims really are, and why we should discard hearsay testimony when we have nothing to back it up.  Is there evidence that Loughner was an atheist, or do we only have secondhand testimony?  And, is there any evidence that his alleged "atheism" had anything to do with his actions?  No, there is not.  If it is true that the same debunked source who alleged Loughner was an atheist is also the same source who said he was Jewish, then we need to recognize that the primary source is no longer considered reliable and consider all subsequent paraphrases, reformulations, and regurgiations of this source as also unreliable.  The bullshit meter goes off the charts on this one.  Does any young adult talk to their high school friends about their personal, intimate religious beliefs?  No, they do not. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have evidence that the reporting of CBS, The Guardian and The Mail is unreliable it would certainly facilitate things here. Btw the Associated Press provided material for the CBS coverage.– Lionel (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's get right down to it. The strongest evidence I've seen (so far) is the recap of the YouTube video by various sources. In the case of the Mother Jones source, they write, "Loughner complains that when he tried to join the military, he was handed a "mini-Bible." That upset him: "I didn't write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None," he wrote on YouTube."  If that's an accurate summary of that video (and anyone can check to determine whether it is or isn't) then we should include it.  Is it reasonable to assume that the sensationalist sources that claim Loughner was an "ardent" or "strict" atheist have only Tierney and the YouTube video to go on?  If so (and this seems to be true at this time) then the solution is obvious.  Use the best secondary sources that summarize Tierney's account ("Tierney also said that Loughner himself was definitely not religious") and the YouTube video. Problem solved, and no need to deal with the other issues. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never heard CBS & the AP called sensationalist. But to the main issue: "Is it reasonable ... [they] have only Tierney and the YouTube video to go on?" To be honest, I don't know. As you keep reminding me I am no expert on sourcing. You make good points but I am not ready to say that CBS & AP fail WP:RS. Time for WP:RSN. But I will say that the Youtube video is not the only source CBS could have used. The Mail e.g. posted screenshots from his Myspace before it went offline. – Lionel (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This should go to BLPN, not RSN. This is a BLP issue, which takes precedent over sourcing matters. Jokestress (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Every United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix is receiving one mini bible before the tests. Jared Loughner is a United States Military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix. Therefore, Jared Loughner is receiving one mini bible before the tests. I didn't write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter wrote on the application: None."
 * Exclude: MSNBC reported on one of Loughner's "rambling" text-based videos. All of this talk about him being an "ardent atheist" seems to come from this transcription of the video:
 * Is this the basis for the "ardent atheist" claim? If so, I would say that the claim is so weak, it doesn't deserve to even be mentioned.  Of course, if there is something more than this (and more than his friend saying he wasn't religious) then we should look at it.  But interpreting this kind of crazy talk as a form of "atheism" seems odd. In the context of this video, Loughner isn't talking about atheism.  Journalists make mistakes all the time, but we aren't transcription monkeys.  Our job is to sift and compare the sources and use the best ones, none of which even discuss atheism. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To simply state that this person "is an atheist," without context, would be explicitly wrong. I don't mean citations, I mean context which will qualify the statement and indicate its relevance. However, I would suggest that it shouldn't be mentioned at all, unless it can be established very clearly and unambiguously both that he really is an atheist, and that this was a motivating factor for his crimes. I suspect that this cannot be established. Let's consider an analogy. If I say "Bill, who is a Communist, shot and killed a police officer," then readers will naturally assume two things: first, he really is a communist, and second, he killed the police officer as an expression of, or a result of his communism. If I call him a communist because a third party said "he was a fanatical commie," and he was once seen wearing a Che Guevara tee-shirt and a red beret, then I'd be going too far. If he had not proclaimed his political beliefs, and no clear connection between his politics and his crime could be established, then it would be misleading to include the statement that he "is a communist." Coming back to the case at hand, I think it's obvious that if we report in this article that Loughner is an athiest, readers will be led to believe that his athiesm motivated him to kill. Can we back that up? If not, exclude. By the way, if you're looking for a neutral voice, I'm it, as I've never heard of Loughner nor the reported killings before this very moment.zadignose (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas: do you have a source that "All of this talk about him being an "ardent atheist" seems to come from this transcription of the video"? Are you sure that it is "all"? Every single report is based on that video? – Lionel (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant that this particular video was given more weight than others. There is another video titled "My Final Thoughts" that is also used to support the claim that Loughner is an atheist. In the video, he says
 * "...reading the second United States Constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not back by gold and silver! No! I won’t trust in God! What’s government if words don’t have meaning?"
 * So, this is another example of a line taken out of context that has nothing to do with atheism and another example of the poor state of journalism in the United States. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Exclude per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. As stated by Zadignose above "To simply state that this person "is an atheist," without context, would be explicitly wrong. I don't mean citations, I mean context which will qualify the statement and indicate its relevance. However, I would suggest that it shouldn't be mentioned at all, unless it can be established very clearly and unambiguously both that he really is an atheist, and that this was a motivating factor for his crimes." —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's great that you hold the same exact position of Zadignose, but keep in mind that this is a discussion, it is not a vote. To address Zadignose's specific concerns (and yours),
 * There is no policy which requires a that basic biographical fact be presented with context. Does the fact that he is "American" require context? Does the fact that he is "registered as an independent" require context? Can you cite a policy for this requirement? But in any event adding contect is easily done. There are numerous reliable sources to draw upon. I purposely kept the RFC simple in order to minimize objections to extraneous phrases.
 * We do not evaluate content in this article based on whether or not it motivated Loughner to commit crime. Did being from a "very private family" motivate him to kill 6 people? The article states that he "began to abuse alcohol". Did this motivate him to kill 6 people? The answer is we have no idea. But to only include content that motivated him to murder would mean stubifying this article. Can you cite a policy for this requirement? Only including content regarding his motovations would only be appropriate at 2011 Tucson shooting. This is a biographical article about the life and background of Loughner: not an analysis of a mass murderer.
 * Attention KMart shoppers: I'm getting tired of this endless parade of IDONTLIKEIT rationales--let's start citing policies to justify suspension of WP:V and WP:RS. Even if 100 editors !vote to Exclude, without a reason to ignore WP:V and WP:RS the closing admin will be obligated to follow policy and Include based on the strength of my policy based arguments. – Lionel (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at Google Books, you'll find quite a bit about Loughner. Most say nothing at all about atheism.  What you should pay attention to is what they do say.  They talk about violence, particularly in his home, they discuss Loughner's alcohol poisoning and drug use, and they talk about symptoms of mental illness.  The majority of sources about Loughner do not talk about his religion or lack of religion. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Exclude, but read on: Mathnarg comments on Lionelt's post above talking about a way to include this information in a more neutral way. I think the key part of the BLP policy that applies here is "We must get the article right". Which immediately requires us to look back at our sources for this. So, it is true our sources use words like "vigorous", "ardent", and "he stood out", but the problem I have is that the sources don't go beyond that. In none of the stories I've read do they go forward from that point to explain how "ardent" atheism was a central part of his decision to become a killer. Are we to assume that the godless are also naturally going to assume human life is of negative value and take up arms to right that equation? My smell test of the articles and thinking back to the reporting at the time (which was doing that, 'who is to blame?' dance that the media love) is that these statements just smell like fishy red herrings. They *might* be true, but how relevant is it? Well, the media never tells me. They mention a "fact" and then move on. Also, you know its Sarah Palin's fault for some gun sights, and the overall vitriol level of politics is to blame. *sarcasm* Obviously the one guy we can't just blame is Jared Lee Loughner. It must be some aspect of society or some character flaw, like the guy didn't believe in god. This leads me back to Lionelt's comment on WP:DUE. As I say, these things are mentioned, but the essential "why?" is never mentioned. The "vigorous" atheist killed a bunch of people. Huh? Are you saying his lack of belief did this? Well, no the articles don't really say that. But it colors the character for people. It changes the way they look at him and now (for many people), he's suddenly easier to hate. Damn dirty atheist commie bastard! There is reason enough to despise him and his actions, if you are inclined, without bringing up a belief for which we can't determine relevance. So all in all, I don't see a reason for it to be here unless it is toned down as Mathnarg suggests. But really given our current sources, being left out entirely is not a problem either. -- Avanu (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! Someone actually noticed RS describe his atheism as "vigorous" and because of it he "stood out." Thank you, Avanu. That said, you have bought in to this "requirement" that in order to include we must show relevance between his atheism and the murder rampage. We are not writing an article to explain Jared Loughner's psychology: we are here to report basic biographical info according to RS. We do not know what motivated Loughner and we cannot restict content to this arbitrary criteria. You imply that adding this would put atheism in a bad light. We are not here to cast any belief or non-belief in a light: positive or negative. We report what reliable sources say. Do you have a source that says BLPs of murderers can only contain content which explains their motivations? – Lionel (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not every fact about a person will be included in their biography, and "facts" which come from hearsay, which are not firmly established, and may be reported by people hostile to the subject, should be viewed more skeptically before inclusion. Remember that anyone who talks to the media about a killer is doing so in the context of their knowledge of the crime, and the media is seeking sensational quotes which might contribute to the dialogue about "why." So we can't claim that this highly disputed topic is as neutral as reporting that he may have liked shopping, or he may have preferred spring weather to summer.


 * Now, if one of Ernest Hemingway's colleagues once commented that he had seen Hemingway eating an orange on more than one occasion, we probably wouldn't write "Hemingway was devoted to oranges" in the Hemingway article, because liking oranges is trivia with no relevance to his career as a writer, whereas we don't have enough evidence to claim his liking of oranges is remarkable, extreme, or notable enough to warrant attention. We're more likely to include the detail that a person is left-handed if that person is a Major League Baseball pitcher than if he/she is an opera soloist, because handedness is not trivial for a pitcher, but it is for a singer.


 * If you want to include the statement that Loughner was an atheist, you must believe that this is not trivia. Which leads naturally to the question of whether it is important or relevant. If it is, then we should establish what the relevance is, because readers WILL naturally draw the conclusion that the fact was included because of atheism being a possible motivating factor for the crime. Note that this article is not just a collection of facts about some dude's life. The man is the subject of a biographical page BECAUSE he killed, that is the very fact which defines his importance and legitimizes the inclusion of this page in Wikipedia, so we can't pretend that the readers or the reporters are looking far beyond the basic question of what made this man a killer. If we read a biography of Kurt Cobain, we have a complex figure who's notable for many things, and his biography will be in parts: biography of a rock star, biography of a role-model, biography of a suicide, biography of Courney Love's husband, etc. But a biography of Jared Lee Loughner is only one thing: biography of a killer. Every reported fact will be viewed through that lens.


 * If you want to include "Loughner is an atheist," please honestly resolve these questions. Do you insist on including trivia, or is this not trivia? If this is not trivia, then why is it not trivia, i.e. why is it relevant? Can we establish both that it is a factual statement and that it is relevant? Finally, keep in mind the challenging question: can anything certain be said about the consistent beliefs of a psychotic?zadignose (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC

"Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid...Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." None of the cited articles say he is an atheist, therefore writing "Loughner is an atheist" is not verifiable. The articles merely tell us how Loughner was described at some period in his life. --Mathnarg (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any primary sources that say that the subject was an atheist. This is an interpretation that was made by a reporter on a wire service that was then picked up by other papers and repeated by other journalists.  As far as I can tell, it isn't true. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really not being sarcastic when I say that you should publish this finding somewhere in a reliable source so that it can then help inform the content of Wikipedia. Hugetim (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not transcription monkeys. Editors have already raised issues with the quality of the sources, NPOV, and BLP concerns.  Further, no indication of importance has been provided.  Faced with that evidence, we can conclude that the statement is weak enough to exclude.  Surely, if it was important to talk about the alleged atheism of he subject, we would find sources discussing it in the context of actual quotes and deep coverage.  That we don't find that is telling us to exclude. Lastly, the burden is on those wishing to include not exclude.  Sounds like you've got some research to do. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its mention in multiple reliable sources indicates importance in itself. It is widely discussed as a potential source of alienation in reference to his motivation. While I abhor the insinuations that the likes of Glenn Beck make in relation to this apparent fact about Loughner, it is a relevant fact that people will look to a reference like Wikipedia to find out about. We include relevant facts unless there is a good reason not to - vaguely asserted "issues" notwithstanding. Hugetim (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The passing mention of the notion that the subject was an atheist appears to be wire story repetition, not independent coverage about atheism. When you have news stories repeating the same thing that doesn't count as multiple sources.  It means that the original wire story was repeated without any fact checking which is bad journalism, and hardly reliable.  Bringing up Glenn Beck is tantamount to Godwin's law.  Either find actual independent sources that discuss his atheism or admit that there aren't any.  Mother Jones is the only source that I know of that looked into this, and while the witness they interviewed said the subject wasn't religious, aspects of this testimony have been thoroughly discredited, indicating that Mother Jones didn't do their homework and the witness is an unreliable source.  So, we have nothing. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I understand correctly that you have looked for reliable sources that dispute the claim that he is an atheist and could not find any? That your own personal judgment is that all the reliable sources who have spoken on this issue are bad journalism, because in your personal judgment, they are all repeating the original wire story, which in your judgment was mistaken? How is all that not original research? (If it's not, just cite the source that says these things.) Hugetim (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot shift the burden of proof. Good sources covering this subject in depth don't say anything about atheism.  Evaluating sources is not original research.  Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, you can't pretend there aren't any sources when there actually are. If you want to challenge them, by all means find reliable sources that dispute the claim established by the sources that have been found. Otherwise, stop pretending like they don't exist.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Either this discussion is too complex for you to follow or you can't comprehend what's been said. Clearly, I've never denied anything.  In fact, I've done the complete opposite of what you've claimed, and I've directly discussed and examined both the primary and secondary sources in their entirety.  That, my young friend, is not denial but an open and honest evaluation of the sources. As a result, I've found that arguments for inclusion do not rise above the bar for quality of sources and in depth coverage required by BLP, RS, NPOV, etc.  In fact, there is no argument for importance at all, as all we have is passing mention by sensationalistic news accounts based on a secondhand, misinterpretation of out of context quotes.  That is so far removed from "I am an atheist" that any argument for inclusion should be laughed out of the room.  Go do some research and find better sources, otherwise I will laugh at you again. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Find some policy to back up your claims - your own opinion on them isn't enough.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that policy says that verifiability isn't good enough for inclusion. We weigh inclusion based on BLP, NPOV, source evaluation, consensus, etc.  There is no policy that demands we include anything.  In fact, the policies are designed to favor exclusion as the default position, which is why the burden rests solely on those wishing to add content.  Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not found a compelling reason that the material violates BLP or NPOV and you haven't given a reason that it isn't important. The material as the religious belief (or lack therof) of the topic is clearly a notable subject for 99% of BLPs.  Toa   Nidhiki05  02:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is once again noted, but I don't have to "prove" any such thing. Violations of BLP and NPOV have already been provided. Repeatedly ignoring those violations and asserting "it is notable" without explanation or without justification from any reliable source demonstrating importance is a wonderful example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  Again, which source talks about his atheism?  Answer none.  They all mention it in passing without coverage because a single journalist misinterpreted a video.  In the case of his friend who claimed he was "not religious" that is not equivalent to a claim of "he is an atheist", and their testimony has already been debunked in other areas so it is unreliable.  So, we are left with nothing of importance whatsoever except for your personal assertion that it is important (but no source indicates this importance) and your assertion that it is notable (but no source indicates this notability).  You've got nothing, so we default to exclusion.  When you find something, do let us know, but please stop wasting the valuable time of editors with personal assertions that amounts to bubkes. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Include as stated. If someone finds a reliable source that directly challenges or corrects the statement that Loughner is an atheist (which is directly or even more strongly stated in the sources Lionelt provides), a qualifying statement can be added for context with due weight. While I am myself sympathetic to some of the arguments made here against including the statement, the Verifiability policy clearly excludes them unless they can be found in a reliable source: "Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." This policy is meant to prevent Talk pages from becoming little history journals where we debate the primary sources and propose rival historiographies, as is the case here. Hugetim (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. As an example, there are tons of reliable sources that have made claims about this or that person's sexuality, but we do not include these statements unless the person has specifically corroborated it. WP:BLP trumps WP:V. Jokestress (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure (for sake of argument, though I would prefer a specific example of the "tons" you refer to - do these reliable sources make statements about sexuality as categorically as the sources here?), but I expect the standard is a bit different for religious affiliation than for sexuality. By your standard, Stephen Hawking should not be categorized as an atheist either, as he has apparently never been recorded as saying, "I am an atheist" in a reliable source. I don't say this to bring up other stuff, but merely to ask whether it really makes sense to apply the standard you are suggesting (given that it is not explicitly spelled out at WP:BLP except for literal categories). I also don't think anyone is objecting out of concern for Loughner's privacy, but correct me if I'm wrong. Hugetim (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad you used Stephen Hawking as an example. In the Hawking article it doesn't say "Hawking is an atheist". Maybe you should go over there and give them a piece of your mind.--Mathnarg (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Check the categories. But I am removing the "English atheists" category on your suggestion (because of the difference between WP:BLPCAT and putting the text "X is an atheist" in the body of the article - I know it doesn't make sense but that's the policy as I read it), so we'll see what happens. (Let's discuss it over at Stephen Hawking if you want.) Hugetim (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Include: This is more evidence than what ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that Loughner is an atheist. Even in featured articles most claims on Wikipedia do not require as many as four solid and reliable sources from mainstream media outlets in order to justify themselves. Lionel's points are well argued. Whether Loughner's beliefs on this matter had any impact on the crime in question can be left to the reader to decide, but in order to complete our biographical portrait of him we should include all the information which has been verified and reported by mainstream sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We are here to educate our readers according to the reliable sources, not mislead them to spurious conclusions. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

--Protostan (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Assertions are not evidence. In fact, there is no evidence that the perp is an atheist. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do Not Archive  Safiel (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Include: if we must simply quote the friend and the earliest source that declares him an atheist. Even the AFL says Loughner was an atheist. http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/jared_lee_loughner.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_4
 * Exclude: unless his atheism, can be a) credibly sourced, and b) shown to be relevant to his reason for being notable. If it's just there as a descriptor, and has no demonstrable bearing  on what drove him to act, leave it out.--Vistawhite (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exclude: No sign of any relevance, and it's hardly prevalent as a point of interest in reliable sources (it's rather a dubious assertion as well per viridatas). The only reason that it is being added to the argue is to make people wonder if "Loughner's beliefs on this matter had any impact on the crime". This isn't consistent with what an encyclopedia is for. If you want to imply specific religious beliefs or lack thereof cause schizophrenia, take that to conservapedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Numerous reliable sources have been presented stating it as an unequivocal fact. Religious beliefs of an individual are inherently notable, regardless of any other action they have made. If you want to impeach the sources, go to the Reliable Sources noticeboard and present an argument. If not, stop pretending like there aren't any sources - because there are plenty of them.  Toa   Nidhiki05  14:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is the criteria for article creation. If you think his religious beliefs are notable go make an article on it then. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The aspect is notable in relation to this BLP, that argument is not deniable. It is also not deniable that numerous reliable sources have unequivocally stated Loughner as being an atheist. Wikipedia is not censored and the fact that some people might associate his belief with his action is their problem, not Wikipedia's.  Toa   Nidhiki05  14:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
This person has zero notability. When the sentencing was mentioned, it was not "Loughner sentenced", but "Arizona: Giffords' shooter sentenced to life". For the rest of his life (and forever) do we want him (and others) to be able to point to this article on Wikipedia, or do we want him (them) to point to 2011 Tucson shooting? This person has had their 15 minutes of fame, we do not need to make it longer. WP:BLP1E clearly applies. Apteva (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * BLP1E clearly doesn't apply. Note that BLP1E says that it only applies if "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented".  It specifically points to John Hinckley, Jr.  While this wasn't a presidential assassination, this was clearly a significant event (it was still in the news regularly well over a month later) and Loughner had a significant, well-documented role in it. Ryan Vesey 13:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hinkley is well known by name. No one knows this shooter by name, and never will. If someone put Hinkley in a headline, everyone would immediately know who they were talking about. Put Loughner in the headline, and no one would know who they were talking about. This is simply not a notable person. The event was notable, not the person committing the act. Apteva (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I fear your viewpoint is skewed by wherever you happen to live. I have no connections to Arizona, but Jared Lee Loughner would instantly be recognized.  The New York Times alone has written 128 articles about him or that mention him.  Some articles are neither about him nor the shooting, but instead use him as an analysis of similar things (gun laws for instance).  Unfortunately, the google book link of The Insanity Offense by E. Fuller Torrey does not allow anyone to read it; however, you can see that a new epilogue was added to the book specifically related to Loughner.  Being a College Counselor on Today's Campus uses Loughner as a case study.  All of these things prove that his significance extends beyond the one event. Ryan Vesey 17:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail
This article uses the Daily Mail as a source. Is the Daily Mail a reliable source at all? Ryan Vesey 00:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For its own opinions, probably. For anything else, probably not. What are we citing it for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "During Loughner's time at Pima, a classmate said she worried that he might commit a school shooting. One of his teachers has claimed a similar suspicion after the Tucson shooting". Ryan Vesey 00:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)