Talk:2011 Tucson shooting - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 6 February 2011 (→strategic planning for the article: Tvoz has been doing a great job.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:46, 6 February 2011 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) (→strategic planning for the article: Tvoz has been doing a great job.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 Tucson shooting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Arizona Mid‑importance

	Arizona portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona 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.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject United States Congress

United States courts and judges

	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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 08 January 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.

A news item involving 2011 Tucson shooting was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 January 2011.

Misplaced Pages

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 Tucson shooting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Bold suggestion, let's cut down the article by 33%

Let's go through this and cut 33%. A lot of it is not needed.

For example, is this really needed?

At least one gunshot victim was transported to Northwest Medical Center, while the remaining injured were treated at University Medical Center in Tucson.

So what? Northwest Medical Center is important?

The other possibility is to increase the article size by 100% or double it. This would be by adding useful information, not just more words. Either way, increase or decrease, it will take time and can't be done in 10 minutes. The pros of increasing the size is to bring more little details to the audience.

Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is very broad, what do you suggest should go? Removing 33% of the article wont exactly go un-noticed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion. Do you want a very concise and tightly written article or one packed with details. The current article needs much work. It is neither concise and has missing details. A concisely written article is much easier to do, just cut the unimportant details. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this in the abstract. This article was written on the fly as details were emerging, as this situation was developing rapidly. Now that things have slowed down, we can take a look to see what details aren't needed, and which could be written in a more succinct manner. How we go about these edits is an open question. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I caught you when you were not done editing the other bits here. I think that the article does need cleaning up but to a degree, this article will grow in size as more events unfold there is no stopping it unless forks are created and new articles are born, something nobody is for at the moment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to do this and I can't see any policy to back this move. Is the article long? Yes. Is it too long to comfortably read? No --Guerillero | My Talk 04:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

We should decide because when the trial starts, there will be tons of information. It will range from the exact time that each police car came, where people were standing, who answered the 9-11 call, etc. We should decide now whether we want a tightly written summary or an article packed with so much detail. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is WP:NORUSH, and the 33% figure is arbitrary. Articles change over time, and some of the material may need to be removed or shortened when the trial comes along. If the Reagan shooting is anything to go by, it could be over twelve months before this happens.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but that doesn't mean we can't take some time to examine this article piece by piece to remove items that were hot off the presses when they were added, but now seem dated and/or trivial. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So that this article can eventually stabilize, I'd suggest that when the trial starts there be another article 2011 Tucson mass shooting trial or similar to pack full of details. I understand the trial might be televised, so there is the potential for even greater interest. If/when that happens, this article should simply remain as the summary of the events and not descend into churn each time some new detail is revealed/alleged during the trial. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that --Guerillero | My Talk 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want to point out again, that this article is not that big in terms of text, per Talk:2011 Tucson shooting/Archive 4#Article size. It's the references adding most of the size. I say we cut down on the unneeded extra references first, and see how much size that gives us back. For example, with the lead, do we really need four sources attributed to the fact that Giffords's medical condition was initially described as "critical"? Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point and a good place to start. Of those four refs in that place you mentioned, two are used in other places as well while two were used only there, so I removed those two. If we really want to reduce size in total, we can remove lots of those unneeded spaces in the ways the references are presented. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. If I get enough time and am not too lazy, I'll cut out more unneeded references. I'm just worried about an "edit conflict"; jeez, those things are annoying. But since this article has calmed down so much, it may not be an issue when I get to removing the excess. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, edit conflicts shouldn't be a problem. I just pulled this one from the lead sentence"Bill Clinton: Politics must change after Arizona attack". BBC News. January 11, 2011. Retrieved 2011-01-13.; it would seem to fit better in the reactions somewhere. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Done for now. I pulled some out that didn't seem to add anything. Wherever there is more than one citation provided, we should determine if it's really necessary to keep them both. Some places use up to four or five citations in one place. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL, what was that source doing in the lead? But thank you again for taking initiative. You've gotten it down to 92 kilobytes currently. And it could be under that if it weren't for Madrid 2020's need to mention so many figures in the Political figures section instead of going for the shorter, cleaner-looking version, but I'm not reverting again on that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. It's only a start, and there is more to be done. FWIW, your revisions on all the political figures is better. We don't need to list every single one. Maybe we should seek consensus to trim it for good. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

← This article is not overly long - the relevant size measure is readable prose, not total number of K. This article is presently about 25K of readable prose, well below the suggested length for featured articles, our gold standard. There's no justification for cutting out a random percentage - what is that suggestion based on? Having too many sources is also really not a valid argument - a good edit would preserve the variety of sources, just not reference each and every point with each and every source. But retain the variety of sources, as that makes for a richer article. But I don't see what the grievance is here, and I don't agree that the piece should be cut down in such a drastic manner. As for the eventual trial, we'll deal with that when it happens. There is no rush. And I totally disagree that we need to decide now whether we want an article "packed with details" or not - this is an organic process, and I've never seen decisions made in advance of events as to how they are going to be handled. We evaluate the situation at hand, see how editors write it, see what sources are available and what they say, and go from there. Not a pre-emptive "decision" as to how the article should be written. No policy or precedent for this that I know of, as several editors above have also pointed out. Tvoz/talk 09:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've stated more than once that this article is not that big, even above; it's even been pointed out that there are good and featured articles bigger than this. But as for having too many sources, I do find it a valid argument not to have too many unneeded sources. We don't need four or five sources backing up one line, unless the line is attributed to a number that cannot be backed up with one or two sources alone...such as saying "varying pundits stated this." I didn't say we should use only one source to reference any information included from that one source in this article. For example, sometimes primary sources need backup, per WP:PRIMARY. Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, Flyer, I wasn't addressing my comments about the "too long" or "too big" argument to you - I was supporting what you said about size by making the specific point about "readable prose" which ignores the reference section and is the applicable policy point when considering article size as this section is doing. I also was adding a voice against reducing the article by some arbitrary percentage which I know you didn't support, but which was the starting point of this section. As for varying sources, I also agree, as I said, that there is no reason for mega multiple sources on the same point and in fact it's unwieldy and slows down the reader. I was only saying that although many points in the article might be attributable to one source, it is a richer article if we use a variety of sources throughout the piece - in other words, we might be able to use, say, a New York Times article as a cite for multiple points throughout the piece, but some of them might also be able to be attributed to a Washington Post article. In that case, I'd want to see both sources in here, but not both in the same place, so point A could be cited to NYT and point B to Washpo. I don't want this to be source-heavy either, but nor should it be overly reliant on one source - a long string of places that point to one source is not the best way to go. Tvoz/talk 22:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I knew you weren't addressing me on the "too long" and "too big" arguments. You did partly address the multiple/several references issue, though, and I just wanted to make my thoughts clear on that. I agree with you, of course. And, hey, Muboshgu has gotten the article down to 87 kilobytes by removing unneeded references. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And there's probably a couple more K worth of unneeded refs still in there. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's now back up to 95 kilobytes, due to Madrid (now known as Pacific 1818) adding most of the details about Giffords's recovery here, but oh well. I'm sure we can keep the size under control either way. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And now we're back to where we started. Still don't see why all those names needs to be mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm positive Ryan White Jr. is Madrid/Pacific 1818 and needs reporting, which is one reason why I just reverted him again. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Very uncivil and makes no sense. Flyer22, you just said on 23:22 30 January that the size is back up because that other user keeps adding stuff. I am for a concise article not a long article with needless details. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Content not length is what matters. You are starting to seem like you are beating an dead horse--Guerillero | My Talk 06:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not uncivil at all, Ryan White Jr. I usually only call people out as WP:Socks when I am pretty positive they are. I am pretty positive you were WP:Socking. You haven't even denied it. It took you this long to address it. You went silent for days after I accused you. If I only suspected you were, instead of being positive on the matter, there's a chance I would have kept it to myself...but would have eventually reported you for a check if what I viewed as abuse of editing continued. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This page is still "protected"...

Seriously, why is it still blocked from editing? Any vandals who edited it would have long left, moving on to other news LOOONNNGGG ago. Is the vandalism that divine of an excuse it can be used forever to permanently end the article's Misplaced Pages progress (what makes an article a Misplaced Pages article is how anyone can edit it). 173.183.66.173 (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, could we try unprotection? Most of the media brouhaha has died down.--♦IanMacM♦ 10:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support this being un-protected it can always be re-protected if alot of vandalism occurs - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that a lot of unneeded bloat is going to be added, especially in regards to the blame for this shooting, if we unprotect this article. I'm also sure that a lot of vandalism will occur. But, yeah, we can try it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have requested the admin who protected the article for semi un-protection. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just chiming in for consensus, I support semi-unprotection with regard to editing, and will keep an eye on the article (it's on my watchlist) if it's unprotected. As a quick note to 173.183.66.173: the article was *never* indefinitely protected, the current protection, if left in place, would expire in a couple weeks. That's hardly "permanent." But I do support trying semi-unprotection now in any case. (I *don't* support removing move protection just yet, there was, if I recall correctly, a bunch of edit warring, and see very little harm in asking for a consensus here on the talk page before renaming the article, at least for the next couple weeks.) --j⚛e decker 17:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing the semi protection but not the move protection. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes move protection I saw was removed as well when I only requested that semi protection be removed, does someone want to reask for this page be move protected? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The move protection should stay to avoid the unproductive edit warring over the name that led to the protection.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've re-move-protected it. Airplaneman ✈ 21:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --j⚛e decker 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffords' condition

There are many, many details of this shooting. Giffords' head wound is one of them. It should be here because that's why people read the story. Currently, there is a consensus with one dissenter in the Giffords' article that the bio should not be overwhelmed by head wound details (citing 6 lines in Reagan and Biden's bio about their gunshot wounds or head surgery compared to 46 lines in Giffords, which is a much shorter article than Reagan).

The people who read this shooting article want to know about everything. If it gets too long, a sub-article can be written, if people want it. Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Madrid/Pacific 1818, it seems you keep trying to get a subarticle of some kind written regarding this shooting article. I hope that is not why you keep increasing its size every time it is downsized. In my opinion, it makes more sense to have most of the details about her recovery in her own article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree --Guerillero | My Talk 23:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, as I have said in both places. Tvoz/talk 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The concensus from the Giffords article is that it is undue weight and not to be included there. C.Fred is an administrator and a respected one. He says it should go here. Frankly, the little details of Giffords is not important so if you want to get rid of it here, I do not object. The details of her recovery is only of interest to those interested in the shooting. So have it here or not here, but not in the Giffords' article. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see consensus there. I am familiar with C. Fred, but his being a respected administrator does not make his opinion above other editors. Details of her recovery are only of interest to those interested in the shooting? Says who? People interested in this woman will be interested in her recovery, in my opinion. Also, are you Madrid/Pacific 1818? You make the same exact type of edits, reverts and arguments as him. Some editors are similar in their editing and arguments, but not to the extreme accuracy of you and Madrid. Not to mention, your writing style. Flyer22 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no levels of membership here on wikipedia. Just because you been here a while, doesn't make your opinion any more important. --Guerillero | My Talk 11:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And in fact C. Fred did not dictate anything, he merely expressed an opinion in an ongoing discussion on Talk: Gabrielle Giffords. No consensus was reached there to remove the details of her condition and experience, nor was any consensus reached here to add them. This would be in effect a merge, and requires consensus all around, which does not exist. And to make matters worse it was added here in a ham-handed way, with information about the suspect in the middle of a section called "recovery". This needs to be pulled back together to where we were before this started, (if no one else steps in, I'll try to get to it this evening) and it should stay out until actual consensus, of different people, is reached. Madrid and Pacific are the same person, and other sock questions have been raised. So no consensus to add this here has been reached at this time, and in fact, several editors have stated that we think the details of her condition belong in the article about her. Tvoz/talk 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have cut back the section on Giffords in this article to be a summary of the longer, more appropriately detailed, section of Gabrielle Giffords. We don;t need a "recovery" subsection within this section - we just need a summary of what is in the main article. Tvoz/talk 09:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Krugman again

We are still edit warring over the Paul Krugman quote. Personally, I don't see this op-ed piece as so remarkable that it deserves an entire paragraph on its own. It makes points similar to the ones that are already included, and should be dropped.--♦IanMacM♦ 11:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be mindful of the WP:3RR cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 11:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew has put the full Krugman paragraph back several times although other editors are less than keen about it. The consensus is to drop or shorten it.--♦IanMacM♦ 11:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It should be shortened or dropped. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. I reduced it from a paragraph to a sentence, merging with the Olbermann/Stewart paragraph about the political rhetoric as it seemed the best place to put it. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice job. And again, quick with the initiative. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of injured - contradiction

From the lead paragraph: "Twenty people were injured, nineteen from gunfire"

From the "Victims" section: "Thirteen people were wounded in the attack; a fourteenth person was injured at the scene, but was determined not to have been shot."

Both have references, the first to both The Washington Post (which gives the 13/14 figure) and The New York Times (which gives the 19/20 figure). The second just references The Washington Post. Both sources were published on the same day, 14th January.

Obviously both cannot be right, but I don't know how to reconcile which is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The correct casualty figures are 19 people shot, 6 deaths from gunshots, 13 injured by gunshots, and one person otherwise injured at the scene - there's not much information out there about the last individual, but that incident is responsible for the differences of plus or minus one you see in some reports. There used to be a reference that stated this plainly; I'll see if I can hunt one up. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as followup: in my opinion, the Washington Post blog posting you already linked is the best source we can have for a tick-list of casualties. It does make it clear that the figures were as I gave them, though I can see how a quick read-through might leave you thinking that only 13 people were shot. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem probably stems from using the word "injured" regarding the 20 - including those who died in the count of those injured - I'll see if I can word it better. Tvoz/talk 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

strategic planning for the article

Now that the crime took place a while ago, we should decide how we should be heading.

Should this article be a nicely written summary? This could be called the short summary version.

Or should the article have lots of detail?

There is already disagreement about adding things and deleting things because of different/conflicting goals, two of which are mentioned above.

For example, there will be increasing detail about the shooter (alleged shooter - cmm'on there is no dispute that he did it only dispute to whether it was legally murder or legally some other kind of killing). Anyway, those who want a nicely written summary will undoubtedly take out information citing a number of reasons, like undue weight or needless detail.

Rather than have a battle, we should have a consensus to what kind of article we want. Long or short?

I am flexible. I slightly prefer long but will accept short if there is a suitable justification. However, we shouldn't have "long for the things I want and short for the things I don't want." That would be cherry picking and wikilawyering (using rules to justify bad choices) Ryan White Jr. (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - I've never encountered an article that was pre-determined to be short or long, detailed or not - and I for one wouldn't agree to doing that here. It's an organic process - let it happen. Tvoz/talk 04:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try to write well. Often, wordy passages can be made more concise. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that your recent edits have introduced errors by removing too much in some places, left unclear text without context, started a section with "Many other politicians" which had no referent for the "other", made arbitrary cuts, left illogical placement of material, etc. I've fixed those that I've seen, but this is counterproductive. This article does not need this kind of drastic editing, as has been said to you by several editors, so please stop the slash and burn and look at what you're doing if edits are needed, rather than making work for others. Tvoz/talk 09:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, reducing the article length should not be achieved at the expense of preventing a clean and logical layout.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Tvoz, you have been making good and great edits regarding this article. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories: