Jump to content

Talk:2011 Tucson shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2011 Tucson shooting has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 15, 2012Good article nomineeListed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 8, 2011.
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 8, 2013, January 8, 2021, January 8, 2024, and January 8, 2025.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 Tucson shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2011 Tucson shooting. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2011 Tucson shooting. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


New video, audio, photographs from the shooting released by FBI April 2018

[edit]

The FBI just released a whole load of evidence from the shooting which can be found here:[ https://vault.fbi.gov/2011-tucson-shooting/2011-tucson-shooting-media?b_start:int=0 ]. It's a lot to go through and i've just started looking through the documents myself. I'm still pretty dang new to contributing to Wikipedia, so with as much information as this is and with such an important page I don't really feel comfortable adding all the new information myself... I hope that sharing this helps! 2601:647:4500:EE3E:AC6A:17E8:F6D0:776F (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, It would take the average person a month of Sundays to look at everything in this archive, and there is no summary or thumbnails to help with sifting through it. I'm not sure if this is suitable as a cite or an external link for this reason.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly skimmed the list. Here are some potentially usable photos, but someone would need to upload them to commons:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for using the images in the article, the weapon is the one that could be added. The others aren't all that useful for adding to the article. The images are public domain.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Citation overkill

[edit]

ChaseK7, regarding your edits to this article, there is no need for citation overkill. See WP:Citation overkill. Regarding your tag, I'm not sure what is meant by "outdated sources," unless the article is actually reporting on outdated matters that newer sources have shown to be in error, but as for broken links, it's easy enough to replace them or change them. Also see WP:Dead links. And keep in mind that this is a WP:Good article. Your contribution history shows that despite your account being new, you are not a new editor. So you perhaps do not need to be told any of this (except for the citation overkill part). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that ChaseK7 was, unsurpsingly, blocked as a sock. Springee has reduced the material ChaseK7 added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loughner's political views

[edit]

Re this edit: A single source does not "prove the claims misplaced", it is simply a contrary viewpoint. I'm concerned about the style and tone of this edit, and also that it relies on a source that clearly dislikes other media sources and is largely based on Paul Bond's personal opinion.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was in clear violation of MOS:WEASEL and WP:NPOV, hence my modification to it. Incidentally I didn't realise it was a new addition. I hadn't heard of this shooting before yesterday and when I read this article for the first time that wording just clearly stuck out as extremely biased and problematic. How do you feel about the current wording ianmacm? I was almost going to move the sentence out of the lead and into the body myself, and probably would have done so if I had realised it was a recent addition. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a much better source discussing this here. What often happens after mass shootings is that the media comes up with theories about the motive that are subsequently disproved. This is why Template:Current exists. Sarah Palin faced criticism for the crosshairs map which was regarded as tasteless political debate, but it is not seen as a motive for the shooting; Loughner may never even have seen it, as the Washington Post source says. I wasn't very keen on the Hollywood Reporter source because most of it is taken up by Paul Bond launching into criticism of other media outlets. The article should make clear that the theory that the crosshairs map was somehow a motive for the shooting is now disproven, but it doesn't need to be in the WP:LEAD and is probably best to have it in the main body instead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good neutral solution; however, if we include the allegations against Palin, should we also not include that they (at least appear to be) misplaced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktory02 (talk • contribs) 21:28, November 18, 2021 (UTC)
I think that has been included. "No link was proven between the crosshairs map and the shooting, and it is unclear whether Loughner ever saw the map." Damien Linnane (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Jared Lee Loughner into 2011 Tucson shooting

[edit]

Subject's notoriety comes from a single incident, the 2011 Tucson shooting and has no notability outside that incident. dashiellx (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This goes into more detail, he was a major player in a major historical event and therefore passed WPCRIMINAL and BIO1E. Why does one shooter have one and another doesn’t - because we can write a detailed and non duplicative article about them. Why does Lee Harvey Oswald have an article, he’s only notable for one event - ridiculous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For further context, we have no prohibition on articles on people who are notable for one event. The thing is, we cover the event first, and if the individual plays a major role in a major and it is a justified SIZESPLIT in accordance with how the topic is covered in secondary sources, they can have their own article. The Tucson shooting was exceptionally covered and a large portion of the coverage is devoted to Loughner because the driving motive was his mental illness. It will vary by case and there is of course no one size fits all rule for this kind of thing. But the event article benefits from having the biographical information split off, it is all well sourced, and there are no other major issues at play. I would recommend actually reading the relevant policies, WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BIO1E, that an individual whose notability sources from one event does not mean we cannot have an article. Loughner passes NCRIMINAL (the relevant notability guideline) and both articles clearly benefit from the split. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous? Wow....how Wikipedia:Polite Oswald also has notability outside JFK assassination with his defection to the Soviet Union and other political activities. dashiellx (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He does not, as he did not receive GNG level coverage for it. There were several defectors from that time - we do not have articles on the rest of them, nor should we. Had he not killed the president, he would have been in obscure figure mentioned in a handful of newspaper articles. That is not notability. He is solely notable for the one event of killing the president. Same with say, John Hinckley Jr or Mark David Chapman or one of many other examples. The relevant guidelines here are WP:BIO1E and WP:CRIMINAL, which states: "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, apologies for any rudeness. My bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose because, while the information in this article could be added to the perpetrator section of the 2sun shooting, this article on loughner has been up for over a decade, do gettingbrid of it now would be just as ridiculous as the deletion of jeff Weises wikipedia page a year ago. BadMombo1660 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huge Discrepancy.

[edit]

All sources agree that loughner emptied a magazine, got tacked while reloading, and that was one the attack ended.

However, there is a discrepancy between sources about how the exact capacity of the magazine, and by extension, how many shots were fired.

Some sources say the number was 31, others claim 33.

This very wikipedia article says the capacity was 33, but the number of spent casings was 31.

Sorry, but dat math just ain't mathing, both numbers can not be true at th' same time.

Can we solve this 14 year old discrepancy? BadMombo1660 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "huge discrepancy", it's a minor number issue that differs in news sources. Quite frankly the capacity doesn't really matter, and we can just remove it. I do not know why you add this to pages. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
when a wikipedia page contradicts itself, it makes the website look bad. BadMombo1660 (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then the numbers can be removed? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers are relevant because Loughner carried a magazine with a capacity of 33 rounds, which is a lot of bullets for a handgun. This led to calls for restrictions on the sale of high capacity magazines. The exact number may differ in the sourcing because reliable sources are not infallible. However, it is important to note that Loughner used a Glock with a number of bullets far in excess of what would be normal for a handgun.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting&oldid=1270390302"