Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Is everyone okay with by ]? I don't mind either way these days, but I feel that this is something that should be discussed, since, ], it was argued in ] that the title should not be bolded because of the ] guideline. As that edit by The Devil's Advocate shows, there was even a hidden note about it in the lead. I was originally against the non-bolding, but GA reviewer/editor ] and editor ] argued against me on that and the non-bolding format remained. The Devil's Advocate's change of this article appears to be in response to about this type of style going on at the ] article; David Levy is also a part of that discussion.
Is everyone okay with by ]? I don't mind either way these days, but I feel that this is something that should be discussed, since, ], it was argued in ] that the title should not be used/bolded because of the ] guideline. As that edit by The Devil's Advocate shows, there was even a hidden note about it in the lead. I was originally against the non-bolding, but GA reviewer/editor ] and editor ] argued against me on that and the non-bolding format remained. The Devil's Advocate's change of this article appears to be in response to about this type of style going on at the ] article; David Levy is also a part of that discussion.
I will inform SilkTork, David Levy and The Devil's Advocate of this discussion so that ] may be formed about this at this article. I ask that others who watch this article and therefore its talk page also weigh in. My opinion on the matter is what I've already stated above in this section (I no longer care either way). ] (]) 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I will inform SilkTork, David Levy and The Devil's Advocate of this discussion so that ] may be formed about this at this article. I ask that others who watch this article and therefore its talk page also weigh in. My opinion on the matter is what I've already stated above in this section (I no longer care either way). ] (]) 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Daniel Hernandez, Jr. was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 March 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2011 Tucson shooting. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
The third paragraph (which is probably the furthest that most people will ever read) should be altered so as to give a more accurate account of the political fallout from Tucson. It should be something more like this:
Following the shooting, there was an outpouring of grief and condemnations from American and international politicians. Attention focused on the harsh political rhetoric in the United States. Some left-leaning commentators such as Paul Krugmanblamed members of the political right wing for the shooting; in particular, they attempted to implicate Sarah Palin because of gun-related metaphors in her speeches and because of the website of her political action committee which "targeted" the districts of Giffords and others with pictures of crosshairs on an electoral map. Later it was learned that Loughner was an anarchist who hated all politicians regardless of their affiliation, which quieted the stir on the political left against Palin. Gun control advocates used the incident to renew their push for increased restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition, specifically high-capacity ammunition magazines. PresidentBarack Obama led a nationally televised memorial service on January 12, and other memorials took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.212.249 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The article goes on ad nauseum about all of the allegations that the shooting was the result of right-wing hate rhetoric, but only passes over the fact that there was no evidence for this conclusion, and offers none of the evidence to the contrary. Writes Paul Bond, "the narrative that the killer was egged on by violent political rhetoric, particularly from Palin... even after it was learned that the shooter was an atheist, flag-burning, Bush-hating, 9/11 Truther who enjoyed joking about abortion (not exactly the portrait of a Palin supporter)" The article mentions nothing about the youtube videos and social media posts in which Loughner expressed his bizzare beleifs and hatred of America and religion.
Discussions about mental health aside, I might remind that Ayn Rand was an atheist. Flag-burning has been employed by both the right (especially libertarian) and the left. (Look it up.)
Another correction is that the shooter did not joke about abortion. In the link which documented his reaction to abortion, he called the woman who had had the abortion a terrorist. (Not a video, this happened in person, and is in a linked reference.) Several different government conspiracies were mentioned by the shooter, of which 9/11 was only one. While the 9/11 Truther issue happens not to have traction among the right, other conspiracies mentioned by the shooter do.
Overall, based on his writings and videos, the shooter's opinions might more accurately be defined as government-hating than Bush-hating. While there is a specific focus on Gifford, this may well have been at least partly because he actually met her earlier, unlike most other people in government. - Tenebris 20:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.252 (talk)
Memoir
"In Kelly's memoir, Gabby: A Story of Courage and Hope, released in November 2011, he reports that Giffords vows to return to Congress, although she continues to struggle with language and has lost 50 percent of her vision in both eyes."
This Kelly person is not mentioned prior, shouldn't he at least be introduced first? It would be nice to know why his memoir is deemed credible. Was it authorised by Giffords, did she commission it? If it's mentioned solely as a source of her vow to return and state of health, I'm left to wonder if there's not a more direct source like her congressional website. (That and *Kelly's memoir* leads to be believe it's a memoir about Kelly because memoirs tend to be autobiographical or at the very least ghost written.) Nom du Clavier (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Is everyone okay with this edit by The Devil's Advocate? I don't mind either way these days, but I feel that this is something that should be discussed, since, during the GA review, it was argued in this discussion that the title should not be used/bolded because of the WP:BOLDTITLE guideline. As that edit by The Devil's Advocate shows, there was even a hidden note about it in the lead. I was originally against the non-bolding, but GA reviewer/editor SilkTork and editor David Levy argued against me on that and the non-bolding format remained. The Devil's Advocate's change of this article appears to be in response to a debate about this type of style going on at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article; David Levy is also a part of that discussion.
I will inform SilkTork, David Levy and The Devil's Advocate of this discussion so that WP:CONSENSUS may be formed about this at this article. I ask that others who watch this article and therefore its talk page also weigh in. My opinion on the matter is what I've already stated above in this section (I no longer care either way). Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
