This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 17 January 2013 (→Including/Bolding the title). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:15, 17 January 2013 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) (→Including/Bolding the title)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Template:Findnotice
Third Paragraph
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. President Barack 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)
A Safeway in Arizona
Is there any objection to adding A Safeway in Arizona by Tom Zoellner to a further reading section? Viriditas (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Balanced and Unbiased, my Foot
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.
What does it mean when the media almost universially accepts a premise that is patently false, and "unbiased" wikipedia does nothing to challenge it? Good job wikipedia - way to keep it "objective."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDiq06K5ZA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aQpE5aBn98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.13.212 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- Mark Kelly is her husband... Awkward... --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Including/Bolding the title
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)
- LA Times, ""
- NY Times, ""
- Cite error: The named reference
rhetoric was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- Cite error: The named reference
gun_control was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Categories:
