Talk:Jared Lee Loughner/Archive 4

Sources: Pima County press release
This is the final Pima County press release WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.pcao.pima.gov/documents/11.8.12%20PRESS%20RELEASE%20-%20Jared%20Loughner.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6ZsKlZ8hh

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jared Lee Loughner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110922201104/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iK2uRKzZF2itfdaFMkAolesKopSA?docId=83bdfd5def024c6f8bb511b99811dc16 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iK2uRKzZF2itfdaFMkAolesKopSA?docId=83bdfd5def024c6f8bb511b99811dc16

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

YouTube
We haven't used YouTube to its full potential as a source for his opinions. We only used it once. Although, browsing through his old channel, the videos just confirm the info we have from friends and whatnot, we could still use this to add to the article. His channel is here. You can tell by watching his videos that his friends' accounts of his behaviour seem true (IE being anti-government, asking a question then asking another one completely unrelated, obsession with certain phrases or topics like "being the treasurer of a new currency," the literacy of the viewer in English, "A.D.E.", probably meaning C.E/A.D. being "...endless in year[no "s", he wrote singular]." and of course, dreaming). YouTube should play a more prominent role in this article's sources for his views. Widgetdog (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Due to the risk of WP:PRIMARY, it is better to look for secondary sources that mention this. News media stories soon picked up on the YouTube channel Jared lee Loughner, which is believed to have been operated by Loughner under the name " Classitup10". However, it is hard to prove this directly although it seems obvious that he was the person involved. The videos show evidence of weird and wonderful thinking in line with his mental problems. There are six videos on the channel and five of them are based on graphics. The only "real" video is America: Your Last Memory In A Terrorist Country! which was widely shown by news outlets after the shooting. It is a seven minute video showing a person burning a United States flag, but since he is wearing a mask and a hood it is unclear if it is Loughner. The music playing in the background is Bodies (Drowning Pool song) with the lyrics "let the bodies hit the floor" and the controversy over the song is mentioned in the article. Some of this could be added here with proper sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity
"A photograph taken by the Pima County Sheriff's Office's forensic unit was released to the media on January 10, 2011[67] and published on front pages nationwide." Maybe if they'd stop doing this every time, people with delusions of grandeur would stop killing people. They figure it's the only way they'll ever get entered into the history books. I thought that the "photo of a handgun sitting on top of "A Book of US History" was interesting; might be saying that he wanted to become part of US history himself. AnnaGoFast (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia does not do damnatio memoriae. Unlike some mass shooters, I don't think that Jared Lee Loughner was doing it for the fame or notoriety. Ironically, one of the reasons why his picture is in the article is because it was taken by a member of the United States Marshals Service and is public domain. If it was copyrighted and required a fair use rationale, it might have been removed by now.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jared Lee Loughner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.therelive.com/2011/01/who-is-jared-lee-loughner-caitie.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/jared_lee_loughner.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125105321/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2011/07/12/11-10339_order.pdf to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2011/07/12/11-10339_order.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/jared-lee-loughner-trial-forced-medication-arizona-shooting_n_1321407.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47788532/ns/us_news/t/accused-tucson-shooters-competency-hearing-rescheduled
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tucsonlocalmedia.com/news/article_f396fab0-29f3-11e2-9ec5-001a4bcf887a.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/courtinfo.nsf/4D0B9DBD4DCBDEC007257814000A667C/%24file/11-0035m-Doc2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jared Lee Loughner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tucsonlocalmedia.com/news/article_f396fab0-29f3-11e2-9ec5-001a4bcf887a.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507040429/http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/judy-clarke-who-defended-the-unabomber-will-represent-jared/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/judy-clarke-who-defended-the-unabomber-will-represent-jared/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111165941/http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/jared-lee-loughners-worldview-a-conspiracy-theory-laundry-list/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/jared-lee-loughners-worldview-a-conspiracy-theory-laundry-list

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A Smiling Assassin? Really encyclopaedic.
I do not think it's a good idea to publish a photo of a smiling assassin. This man killed a 9 year old girl and a number of innocent people, probably just to "become famous" in his insane way. This photo is an encouragement. The photo is not a necessary encyclopaedic requirement for this voice, and it can be taken down.

Reinstatment of a photo against wikipedia guidelines, and decency. Really encyclopaedic. Again.
The photo of this killer is highly questionable, and the results of any previous discussion are still questionable, too. Based on the rules and guidelines of wikipedia (and of any decent person) you cannot act in ways that may offend victims of a crime, especially minor ones.

-read the rule: avoid victimization "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization"

The publication of this photo of a criminal smiling against the victims, is an insult to dead people, victims of a brutal crime, and their relatives, and the survivors. And this is absolutely no ENCYCLOPEDIC, and against any wikipedia policy, and any policy of any decent institution. The presence of a photo is *not* a demand to an encyclopedic voice: absence it does *not* diminish the voice. And when a topic or voice, or parts of it, creates problems to recognized victims of crimes, the policy of wikipedia is to be conservative, and act in the less provocative direction and in the more protective way in favor of the damaged people.

- read the wikipedia rule: avoid victimization "...of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions"

- read the wikipedia rule: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article"

Simply it is not decent to put the photos of this individual, mocking their victims, online: he killed people just for the reason to have his photos on public media, by his own admission, and wikipedia is a public media. This fact "solo" offends the victims, among them a dead girl of 9 years old, a minor, and their parents. The act offends victims. But the act also solicitates other lunatic killers to act similarly. This is against the laws and any reasonable decency: publish the photo is a solicitation to imitation. This just for a photo?

I removed a very questionable photo and it was simply restored, without looking for consensus. The guy that restored the photo does not have the authority to restore it, without the consensus of other pepole, because it was removed for a good reason and to protect wikipedia image and decency, hence - he- have to wait for a discussion before restoring it. Following the rules...

-read the rule: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to [..] undelete the disputed material"

Probably those who loves to restore questionable photos, before asking for consensus, should have taken more time to familiarize themselves with the wikipedia rules, to understand and comprehend the principles behind them.

I did not want to delete the photo again, even if it is evidently unfair towards victimes, vaguely immoral, and against the wikipedia guidelines. But, pal, please do not bother me in written form with your presuntively adherence to never written guidelines, or pretending to having act following good practices. This practice is not good. If you have something reasonable to say, use the talk sections, and follow the best practice... and read the guidelines.

Guardian piece categorization
This Guardian piece was inaccurately described in the article as an "opinion piece"; it is categorized under news, not opinion. Look at the top and you'll see it's under their "news" tab, not their opinion one; likewise, the categorization is "US news" - the Guardian has a separate category for opinion. When I corrected it, someone reverted with the argument that the words "described the tone" makes it an opinion piece, but that isn't the case - a news article (like that one) can absolutely summarize the tone of writings. We have to go by what the sources say; if it specifically describes itself as news and not opinion, an editor can't say "well, I think the word 'tone' is opinion." For comparison, this is what an opinion piece in the Guardian looks like. --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also had the same impression: not in the commentisfree section (nor in the often suboptimal lifestyle one). — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You are understandably conflating opinion and news, which is part of the problem these days with the current state of journalism; and probably one of the reasons why the Guardian is now on the Reliable Sources caution list.  Instead of sticking with just the facts (who, what, when, and why), many journalists today also want you to feel the way they do about a given subject instead of coming to your own conclusions.  Publishers, who unfortunaly overlook or refuse to identify  bias, will continue to categorize their narratives anyway they want to advance their agendas.  "News" which tries to dictate to the reader the tone, the writer's personal feelings, non-experts' evaluations, etc., needs to be identified for what it is: merely an authors' opinion.  Regards,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 22:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not really a valid argument; analysis is always opinionated to some point, but if unfair, the source's reputation suffers. See where the Guardian stands here for instance...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First, the Guardian is green on the Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list, not on the "caution" list as you implied. It's considered a generally-reliable source, even if (as it notes) some people disagree with that consensus when it comes to politics.  Second, you can't use your opinion on the "current state of journalism" or your personal views on how you think news articles ought to be worded to label factual reporting as opinion - using your argument, you could dismiss essentially anything you disagree with as mere opinion; that's your call, but it's not how Wikipedia judges things.  Third, and most importantly, whether you agree with it or not and whether you think it's valid or not, the Guardian has a clear and unambiguous division between opinion and news (part of the reason it's a reliable source to begin with) - presenting it as opinion is therefore flatly misrepresenting the source, since your edit incorrectly implied it was labeled as opinion.  If you really disagree, or if you don't think the Guardian is a reliable source, we can take this to WP:RSN, but I absolutely guarantee you'd be wasting your time. --Aquillion (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)