Talk:Gabby Giffords/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Libel

I have a question for the editors. I am not sure I understand a lot of the arguments made with regard to the policy about Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) and how people seem to say that because so-and-so news organization said it, it is OK to repeat it. If a gossip repeats a lie or a inflammatory statement or a damaging statement, and they are a supposedly reliable source, how does it make it less damaging when another person repeats it? In looking at the definition of 'libel' on Merriam-Webster online, it seems that in many ways, we may be libeling, despite saying "Well, the New York Times said it!"

I guess I would just like to know if we feel that we are really adhering to a higher standard and making sure we are following Wikipedia's guideline on this, or if we are simply following the lead of the media.... -- Avanu (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Our policy on biographies of living persons states that controversial material, whether it is unsourced or poorly sourced, must be removed immediately. This especially applies to libelous or harmful statements about a BLP, so any such material must be cited with a reliable source. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources addresses this. It says that the reliability can be judged by a combination of things: not simply the publisher or news outlet, but the author and the content of the work itself that was cited. See the section WP:NEWSORG in that guideline also, which mentions that specific news items should be assessed individually in regards to specific claims; simply being in The New York Times, for example, is not necessarily a free pass. There is also a Wikipedia essay about this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. If the claim is only made by one source or very few related sources, then an editor should consider what would cause it to only came from that group when determining whether it is reliable, or even important enough to think about further; Wikipedia is not the news in the first place, and not a forum for fans, haters, or anyone else to air un-notable gossip or other trivia, regardless of "reliability". Also, however, if someone's claim about a subject actually affected the subject of the article in a notable way (for example, causing a person's reputation to change), whether it was true or not, then the making of the claim itself maybe be worthy of coverage, but in that case, editors should make sure that their tone does not imply that the external claim is presumed to be true. --Closeapple (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Good points, all of them. But one of the key points, and the reason for maintaining strict adherence to WP:BLP, is that (Ceiling Cat forbid!) if Wikipedia was ever sued for libel, truth is considered an absolute defense. Put another way, if what's in the article can be shown to be accurate, a claim of libel automatically fails. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I think people need to bear in mind that it may not be Wikipedia that gets sued for libel, but whoever posts the libellous statement. Wikipedia (or more accurately,the Wikimedia Foundation) may well have a responsibility to remove libelous content it is informed of, but responsibility ultimately lies with the initial contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, there is a difference between "X is evil" and "The New York Times reported that X is evil". Prodego talk 20:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.24.111.148, 15 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please, please remove the "death date" on Gaby Giffords page. The rest of the article is fine - but since she lived - thank God - I wish the page would reflect that. Thanks!


98.24.111.148 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Toa Nidhiki[[User:Toa Nidhiki05/Userboxes|0Unknowntbeast (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)5]] 01:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The 'date' seems to have been removed already. Whether this was an honest error, or otherwise, is unclear. Fortunately it was corrected within four minutes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Glad it was fixed relatively quickly, but four minutes is entirely too long. This is another example of why we need flagged revisions, or something like that, implemented already, as has been the consensus of editors many times over. This article has had over 1.6 million views since January 8, 25,000 of them on January 15 - how many of those views took place in the 4 minute window and saw embarrassingly incorrect information/vandalism (a week after the shooting, so not in the chaos of the very early sourced but incorrect reports)? This is unacceptable, and has to change. Tvoz/talk 20:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Current Events Template

Seeing as the same template on 2011 Tucson shooting is now down, perhaps it should be similar on this article? --ForgottenHistory (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Other press releases

The Flowing Wells school district made a press release about Giffords WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Campaigns, 2010

The entry is incomplete and misleading regarding the emotionally-charged language surrounding political opposition to her 2010 re-election. Your Wiki entry documents Conservative efforts to unseat the moderate, at-risk Democrat (like many Blue Dog Dems, she was opposed by Repub and not supported by Dem base due to being too Centerist).

To make this a balanced and accurate discussion, either eliminate the slanted and snarky comment about Palin OR list the real opposition (Dem left) as churned up by the Daily KOS. KOS mirrored Palin's "cross-hairs" with his "bullseye" and made comments such as "she is DEAD to me" for voting against Pelosi. Text may be found archived here (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Daily-Kos-Bullseyed-Giffords/2011/01/10/id/382350) since the Daily KOS removed their vitriolic comments after the shooting.

Really the comment about "targeted by Tea Party and Palin" cheapens this entry and makes Wiki into a political tool. Present balanced facts so you see the struggles a Blue Dog Democrat has (opposed from left and right) or delete it and focus on her career, attack, and recovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.195.5 (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Section title "Assassination attempt"

What should the recent event in Tuscon with Congresswoman Giffords be titled in this article (and potentially related articles)? Requesting comments and input from Politics, Society, Style, and Policy groups. (closed Jan 16, 2011 at 10:56pm CST, looks like discussion has pretty much died off) -- Avanu (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Since I began this section yesterday (before the RfC started), this was before sources indicated official charges of attempted "assassination" were brought by the US Government - Examples of subsequent coverage: Arizona shooting suspect charged with trying to assassinate Rep. Giffords, Jared Loughner Charged by Prosecutors, Document points to assassination plan: U.S. court filing (and many others indicating the charge of attempted assassination). The chronological start of this section is below the line --Oakshade (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The title of the shooting section should be "Assassination attempt". While the shooting and killing of bystanders was not an assassination attempt, as it wasn't the case with James Brady during the Reagan assassination attempt, the specific shooting of Giffords was. Consider the following points:

1. The shooting of Giffords is by definition an assassination attempt. See all definitions of "assassination" at Assasination#cite_note-0.
2. Multiple reliable sources are calling this an "assassination attempt" including ABC News, Associated Press, The Atlantic, Politico and the Jerusalem Post .[1][2][3][4][5]
3. Even the shooter reportedly considered this an "assassination" as reported by Reuters, Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal .[6][7]
4. Whenever a politician is attacked with the intent to murder, every Wikipedia article about that respective politician refers to the incident as an assassination attempt and titles the section as so.
Arthur_Calwell#Attempted_assassination
George_Wallace#Democratic_presidential_primaries_of_1972_and_assassination_attempt
William_H._Seward#Assassination_attempt
Motoshima_Hitoshi#Controversy_and_assassination_attempt
Ronald_Reagan#Assassination_attempt:Gerald_Ford#Assassination_attempts
Many others at List of people who survived assassination attempts

There is no reason for this article to be singled out as an exception. --Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually disagree with this point, but I would say that when the event itself is just over 24 hours old we might wait until we, and reliable sources, have a little perspective. The articles you point to have some historic distance, and we've only found out a few hours ago that Giffords was apparently the target. There need be no rush to change this until this characterization is more widely accepted (which could mean tonight or tomorrow, or could be later than that). Tvoz/talk 21:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It has not been confirmed that this was an assassination attempt. It should be listed as a shooting unless further information confirms it as an assassination attempt. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources are reporting this as an "assassination attempt". All definitions of "assassination" define this as an attempted assassination. "Confirmed" is ambiguous and we have no definition as to what "confirmed" is, but we have reliable sources and and official definitions of the word "assassination" that "confirms" this was an assassination attempt. --Oakshade (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I also support waiting for an official announcement from the authorities , for the time being, shooting is plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

← OK I am reconsidering this - I think this section has to mesh with the sub article 2011 Tucson shooting, but if it is correct that the shooter is being charged with attempted assassination, as I just heard a report, then that may change things for me. Thoughts? Tvoz/talk 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

While I know there are specific laws regarding the attempted assassination of a United States President, I don't think there's an official crime of attempting to assassinate a sitting congressperson or any other type of political official in the United States. I could be wrong.--Oakshade (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually there is, and he has been charged with it.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Through the maze of news reports, I'm having trouble finding that confirmation. Can you please provide a link to that? --Oakshade (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's confirmed. From Reuters:

"The United States on Sunday charged Jared Lee Loughner, the man suspected of killing six people and wounding a congresswoman in Arizona, with five criminal counts, including attempted assassination."
--Oakshade (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
[EC] Looks that way - NYT using the word see here and this here, if this document is verified. Title 18 of US Code 351 (c), but I think we have to wait a bit until this language is confirmed, and reported as such. The apparent criminal complaint was found on Slate linked here Tvoz/talk 23:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
From Politico - "Prosecutors charged Jared Lee Loughner, 22, with five counts — killing federal government employees, attempting to assassinate a member of Congress and attempting to kill federal employees..."[8]--Oakshade (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
In spite of editors disputing the term "assassination" being used in the article, it should be noted that Loughner himself used this terminology.--The lorax (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
We didn't know that yesterday. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And that is precisely why we need to take a breath and not rush to edit articles this way when they reflect breaking news. We are not a news agency - we have to stop posting everything that comes across the wire, then is contradicted or disputed, then changed further - even from reliable sources. It is a developing story and Wikipedia is NOT the place to get up to date news. In fact we do more damage than good by doing this, as we give the impression that we know what we're talking about, when we actually do not. "Medically induced coma" being the most recent example - one source says so, her doctors say otherwise - we should just leave it off until things are clarified and then we can give a narrative of what happened if we feel that is needed. And so on, all over this story. Tvoz/talk 00:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the suspect has taken the 5th Amendment and is not saying anything, and since the suspect has only been charged and not convicted, is there any reason that the merely factual title of '2011 Tucson shooting' is insufficient? We will have years to determine the final state of this article, and rather than being so quick to rush in emotional or subjective wording, how about we start with a firm foundation and move at a reasonable pace? -- Avanu (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about the conviction of the suspect, it's about the event that occurred, which by all sources and definitions is an assassination attempt. We go by reliable sources, not a single user's opinion of them.--Oakshade (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You seem to REALLY want to call this an assassination. In reviewing the arguments above, the definition of assassination given says it is typically done with a political goal or by hire from someone with a political goal. We have no evidence what this person's goals are except a few 'notes' that were reported. The substance of these notes was not released. The suspect is in custody and is not speaking about his motives. There is absolutely nothing untrue about calling this a 'shooting'. This has been established beyond doubt. There is no pressing reason to continue to press for and to change it to the more loaded word of 'assassination'. Several editors have urged caution and restraint; please heed that advice. -- Avanu (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
And incidentally, with regard to the appeal to reliable sources, Wikipedia should be trying to stay above the fray. These so-called reliable sources often tend to get caught up in the moment and in the hype of a story. If we have a choice, we should try to err on the side of accurate rather than emotional (See Neutral point of view - Impartial tone and Words to watch -Contentious labels). -- Avanu (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You may also want to review the discussions occuring on the pages that relate to this one as to the title. 2011 Tucson shooting John Roll etc. -- Avanu (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The question over whether to use the word "assassination" is moot: several reliable third-party sources are describing this as an assassination. According to the BBC, Loughner is being charged with "one count of attempted assassination of a member of Congress" (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12145117) and the Seattle Times has reported that "Feds claim evidence of assassination plot" (see: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013893450_giffords10.html). I think it is properly referenced to use that term. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. However, the article on the event should remain titled "shootings" until the reliable sources tell us more. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is hardly consensus here on a name change, so please leave it at a less inflammatory title. Just because news reports are liking to use the word 'assasination', as others have pointed out, the charges themselves do not include the word assassination (see section below), and additionally the suspect is not talking so we don't have a clear motive. There is no harm at all in simply leaving it as 2011 Tuscon shooting. Please note: Wikipedia:NOTSCANDAL#SCANDAL

I'm sure there are other applicable guidelines. Our goal here should be to strive for NPOV and accuracy, not following the lead of the news media's hype. -- Avanu (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "assassination attempt" is clearly and unambiguously valid here. This has long been established, see Robert_F._Kennedy. I'm not sure how low this convention remains true (governors? state reps? mayors? maybe not) but Members of Congress are not merely "killed" or "shot", they are "assassinated" or "survived an assassination attempt". That doesn't mean you can't also mix it up by using the words killed or shot to avoid repetition in the prose, but assassinated and assassination attempt are both the most formal and most correct terms here when referring to a president or member of congress. Regarding the section title, since the congresswoman was just one of many victims I am neutral about changing the section title, BUT within the article we should say somewhere in both the section and the lead that Giffords survived an assassination attempt. (unless she ultimately doesn't, and there's no hurry to update with breaking news now, but eventually those words should be included.) Aaron north (T/C) 16:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is every shooting of a federal official automatically an assassination attempt? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly not. If it was accidental, then no. If we are talking about a mere federal employee, federal law enforcement official, or a district judge, probably not. I don't know where the line is drawn precisely, but I am comfortable with saying that within the USA, when someone puts forth a credible attempt to murder a President or a Member of Congress (perhaps top cabinet-level officials too?), that is an assassination attempt. Aaron north (T/C) 16:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
How do we know it was a deliberate assassination attempt, as opposed to some guy randomly opening fire in a crowd? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, you are right, I am presupposing malice and intent vs some guy randomly shooting a crowd he came across and the congresswoman, even though she was the first one shot at point-blank range, was just some random unremarkable lady to him, at the wrong place at the wrong time. If that were actually the case, it is not an assassination attempt, but that seems incredibly unlikely to me. I have no problem with putting the article on ice for a few days or a week to let the story calm down and let the facts sort themselves out, but if the facts of his obsession with Giffords that were leaked are formally introduced in court, then I doubt we would need to wait for a conviction. Aaron north (T/C) 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The facts presented at the trial could be reported as they are presented. And by the way, my first reaction on hearing some reports on this was that it was obviously an assassination attempt. However, wikipedia requires valid sourcing, as opposed to TV figures speculating and theorizing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in a BLP article with a sourced comment saying there are allegations of an assassination attempt. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, I wonder if there is any such thing as an inadvertent assassination, as John Roll was killed in the shooting spree. Should that count as an assassination? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
He was only charged with the attempted assassination of Rep. Giffords under 18 USC 351(c). Re-reading the charges as published by NYT, he's charged with first-degree murder for the death of Judge Roll (18 USC 1111). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If the charges say "assassination", then it's fair game. The implication regarding the judge might be that his target was the Congresswoman, and that everyone else there was essentially "collateral damage", as McVeigh would have said. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As this individual has been charged with attempted assassination, a section title of "Alleged assassination attempt" is fully appropriate and doesn't violate WP:BLP or any other standards. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The "alleged" word is important. It was allegedly or reportedly an assassination attempt, or the shooter was charged with attempted assassination. It should not be called an assassination attempt (or attempted assassination) without qualifier until the legal case has been adjudicated (assuming a guilty verdict or plea). Otherwise, we're essentially predicting the future and possibly flouting the spirit of BLP in the process. Rivertorch (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Alleged is used in terms of suspects not in terms of victims, especially when the victim is still in the hospital fighting for her life. She wasn't allegedly shot.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Alleged is used in terms of both suspects and incidents. In this instance I was applying it to the incident (an assassination attempt being an incident, not a person). That she was shot wasn't in question; the appropriateness of calling the shooting an assassination attempt was. Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Newspapers including the New York Times are using "assassination attempt" without "alleged" (yesterday's front page). I think it's fine to follow their lead. NW (Talk) 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I oppose using the word assassination per talk here Talk:2011 Tucson shooting#Giffords assassination attempt There are also many sources that do not use the wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NW, Jojhutton, and others above - most reliable sources refer to this as an assassination attempt on her, and this article is from her perspective, so I think it is completely correct to refer to this as such here. Save the "alleged" for an article about his legal status. (And by the way, reliable sources report that he wrote "die bitch" on a letter he received from her in 2007, adding to the reasons police conclude she was the target of an assassination attempt.) Tvoz/talk 04:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I also would prefer a less contentious word until we have a more definite picture of the facts. HOWEVER, considering that this article is focused on Gabrielle Giffords (unlike the 2011 Tucson Shooting article), it seems as if there is enough within the strict definition of the word 'assassination' for it to be able to apply here. So, at this point, I would mildly support using *either* word but ONLY on this article. The general event article (which describes the injury of 12 others and death of 6) is perfectly fine being labeled as 2011 Tucson shooting. -- Avanu (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Gifford's seat

Here is a question someone else may be able to answer and add in to the article, who takes control of her seat in congress while she is recovering? Unknowntbeast (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the answer is "nobody." She will simply be absent until she can return. I don't think this needs to be mentioned in the article, and in any event I have not seen it mentioned in any sources. Neutron (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Neutron is correct. There is no provision for appointing a substitute Member while an elected Member of Congress is ill or injured. Even while Rep. Giffords is unable to serve, her office will remain open to perform constituent services functions and the like. (There is one precedent for the House of Representatives calling for a special election when a Member was permanently incapacitated and unable to participate, but that Member was diagnosed as being in a permanently comatose condition after a significant amount of time had elapsed.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This was addressed in the article at one point, but an editor thought it was "bullshit" (according to the edit summary) and removed it. See the edit here. I for one, think it is worth mentioning but I'm not going to add it back myself.—Diiscool (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It may be better to leave this issue alone for awhile longer, until there is a better sense of the Congresswoman's prognosis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree on leving the issue alone until her long-term prognosis is understood more. She remains the congresswoman, but her staff will be limited in the kinds of services they can perform. I would suggest looking at the Tim Johnson for a recent precedent on this matter. Though in the Johnson case, he was in a medically-induced coma for months, whereas Giffords is apparently gradually becoming more alert.DCmacnut<> 03:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I also agree, this can wait. I have a feeling that after another week or so, the "mainstream media" will start talking about it (with the content depending on what her doctors are saying at that point) and there will be an abundance of sources to say something in our article. Neutron (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't Arizona law state that the governor appoints a replacement, if a representative dies or is permanently unable to fulfill their function? Just today, she made some remarkable progress, but with all due respect, her days of being able to represent her district are over - at least for her current term. She'll need to concentrate on herself and it will be a long process of healing to get to whatever level she'll be able to recover. This injury was pretty horrific, and unfortunately I don't think she'll have the faculty to ever be in politics again (sad.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
And you know this... how? She needs rehabilitation, but what makes you so sure "her days of being able to represent her district are over"? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I saw the article HammerFilmFan refers to; I don't have a reference handy now. The news service's analysis was that the law only applied to state and local officeholders who were unable to discharge their duties. (I think 90 days was the timeframe in the article.) The interpretation was that the state law didn't apply to Giffords, because she's a federal officeholder. —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It's definitely not in the power of a Governor to appoint a new Representative. They can appoint Senators in the case of a vacancy, but House seats remain vacant until a special election fills them. This, of course, could well be moot if Giffords is able to recover and return to work. Nobody will push her to resign, and her husband seems to think she could make a "full recovery".[9] Granted he's not a doctor, but I assume that comment comes informed from discussions with her doctors. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There were two run-on sentences incorrectly joined with a semi-colon at the end of this section. While copy-editing, I noticed that of the 2 cites footnoting the last 'graf, the Slate.com cite mentioned neither spokesperson, and therefore was superfluous. Also, a cautionary note to other editors: the whole article uses quite a few "cite names" as ref's, so ignore redline "cite errors" when editing just a section when you preview your results. — DennisDallas (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

what does Dr. Wikipedia say?

I took out the part that the coma was to let her brain rest. I looked it up and, though I'm not a doctor, this is just Wikipedia misinformation. The internet says you sedate people to lower their brain pressure. Without a source, we can't say this was done for Giffords, even though it is true...seems like standard treatment according to the internet. Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that we do have a source, and is cited a sentence or two later. We don't go with our own independent original research, we go with sources, and the sources clearly say that she was placed in a medically-induced coma (which is a form of deep sedation, by the way) to let her brain rest, which is another way of saying to reduce brain pressure. Tvoz/talk 09:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Recovery section longer than her congressional career

Should we carve out the recovery and shooting section since it is longer than her congressional section?

Then this article could simply say...

On January 8, 2011, Giffords was shot in the head during a meeting with constituents outside a Safeway near Tucson, AZ. She underwent multiple surgeries, including brain, throat, stomach, and eye surgeries. She was eventually transferred to a Houston hospital for rehabilitation. [Later we can add....The hospitalization and recovery kept Giffords from his duties in the U.S. House of Represenatitives for fourteen months or whatever it is]

Biden comparison

Look at Joe Biden's article when he had a life threatening brain problem. It doesn't go into so much detail. It just says...

In February 1988, after suffering from several episodes of increasingly severe neck pain, Biden was taken by long-distance ambulance to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and given lifesaving surgery to correct an intracranial berry aneurysm that had begun leaking;[48][49] the situation was serious enough that a priest had administered last rites at the hospital.[50] While recuperating, he suffered a pulmonary embolism, which represented a major complication.[49] Another operation to repair a second aneurysm, which had caused no symptoms but was also at risk from bursting, was performed in May 1988.[49][51] The hospitalization and recovery kept Biden from his duties in the U.S. Senate for seven months.[35]

Reagan comparison

On March 30, 1981, only 69 days into the new administration, Reagan, his press secretary James Brady, Washington police officer Thomas Delahanty, and Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy were struck by gunfire from would-be assassin John Hinckley, Jr. outside the Washington Hilton Hotel. Although "close to death" during surgery,[95] Reagan recovered and was released from the hospital on April 11, becoming the first serving U.S. President to survive being shot in an assassination attempt.[96] The attempt had great influence on Reagan's popularity; polls indicated his approval rating to be around 73%.[97] Reagan believed that God had spared his life so that he might go on to fulfill a greater purpose.[98]

So the proposal is to cut Giffords' section to about 4 sentences and, if you wish, have a sub-article on the details of her injury and recovery. Bottom line:

Giffords' article: 42 lines of text on my screen.
Biden: 6 lines
Reagan: 6 lines

We should not cut out the hard work of editors who gathered so much good information so a sub-article makes sense.

Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


No, this is not the time to cut this down or fork it off. This article has had over 1.9 million views this month, and although the numbers have significantly dropped over the last weeks, it is reasonable to assume that the reason we're getting traffic is because of the shooting, not because of her congressional career, and there's really no reason to have this forked off into a sub-article, as this article is not at all long or unwieldy. There's no reason to make it harder for people to find the information they're looking for - we're not the news, but we have to be realistic that people are coming here to understand these events and learn about her. We have already trimmed some of the details from immediately after the shooting, and as time goes on, I;m sure we'll trim some more. but I don't at all agree that this should be cut down now in the way you're suggesting. Tvoz/talk 08:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, while the Biden and Reagan examples are interesting, they really don't relate well to this situation. (And please don't forget WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE.) Biden's health problem was extremely serious at the time, but is now placed in our article in proper perspective in terms of his whole life and career, with no sub-article. The assassination attempt on Reagan merits its own article which talks about the event, the shooter, Reagan's medical treatment and recovery, etc., and the main article Ronald Reagan is quite long and could not absorb all of the material specific to him. We do have a separate article 2011 Tucson shootings, but it is about more than Giffords, and the specifics about how that event has affected Giffords properly belongs here in the Gifffords bio.Tvoz/talk 08:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Since Giffords shooting, though tragic and serious, doesn't compare historically as Reagan's. So instead of 6 lines, 4-5 is enough. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
You do not have consensus for this - I am reverting. Let there be some discussion first and see what other editors think, before making such a dramatic change, when there is disagreement stated. Tvoz/talk 08:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I believe consistency in coverage is a good thing, I don't see how one can decide the number of sentences to cover a historic event simply based on how many sentences some other event has in its coverage. This seems completely unrelated to the specific circumstances and based solely on a premise that may be flawed itself.
It seems to me that a better standard would simply be to provide adaquate coverage for whatever the event is, in whatever length is needed. Does the coverage need to be exhaustive? Well depending on how you view an encyclopedia, maybe it does. But then again, it seems as if many people treat Wikipedia as a trivia guide and a starting point for knowledge, rather than as an exhaustive reservoir of knowledge.
I would really like you to review the premise that consistency is based on a number of words or lines in an article, and perhaps change that to a premise that consistency means that we properly cover a subject whatever it happens to be. -- Avanu (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Tvoz, do not go against consensus. Right now, you are the only person making a fuss and opposed. Ryan want to cut out quite a bit. I agree but not quite as much. Avanu wants to discuss if there should be a rule based on number of words or lines. Tvoz is the odd man out.

I side with Avanu is that there should not be a predefined number of words. However, if this article sticks out from the others in having a whole lot of words, we must question whether we are having undue weight. I believe we are. If people really want gorey details about her head wound, they can go to the shooting article, which there is a "see" link.

Another problem is that there is prediction here, saying how many months it would take for recovery. None of those doctors treated her. It would be like saying "Micheal Douglas has throat cancer. 'People with his kind of cancer usually live 3-18 months so we expect Douglas to be like that, said a bystander, who happens to be a doctor.' " So if you just mass revert and put that it, you are editing badly, particularly if you don't say while such crystal ball predictions are good.

Madrid 2020 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

While some specific items might warrant being carved out, I don't agree with the mass deletion of the section that Madrid 2020 just did. The description of the injury and how she was treated is relevant and is likely to be useful to the average reader. However, I'm not sure that it warrants an article of its own. Given that the article on the shooting points back to this recovery section, it makes sense to leave the detail here—unless clear consensus emerges that Giffords' recovery warrants a separate article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
There's plenty of space in the tucson shooting article. That's where people can read the many gorey details of the injuries. Perhaps, an intermediate length is a solution, which I'll try. Madrid 2020 (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Then let's move the text there and leave a pointer to that article from this one, instead of the other way around. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Great! Agreed. Ok, we have consensus except for Ryan who want a more severe cut and Tvoz who doesn't want any cut. Pacific 1818 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what consensus you're speaking of, Madrid/Pacific 1818. I'm not seeing how it makes more sense to have most of the details about her recovery in the shooting article, especially when we are already trying to keep the size of that article down. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
See what C.Fred said. All that stuff should go in to the shooting article because it is undue weight in this article. It is not undue weight in the shooting article becuase that article has all kinds of facts, from the names and backgrounds of those killed to what Palin says to Giffords' recovery. If you, Flyer22, are unhappy about the length of the shooting article, then ask those editors in that article about what to spin off as a sub-article. The recovery section, and all that detail, does not belong here. Ask Pacific 1818 or C.Fred or Madrid 2020 or me. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
See what I stated at the shooting article. C. Fred being a respected administrator does not make his opinion above other editors. It is not undue weight here at all, in my opinion. Details of her recovery are only of interest to those interested in the shooting, you said. I say, "Says who?" People interested in this woman will be interested in her recovery, in my opinion. I am not unhappy about the length of the shooting article; others are, and you already know that. I will not be asking Madrid or Pacific 1818 anything, seeing as they are the same person (changed account name). A person who seems to make the same type of edits, reverts and arguments as you. In fact, I am pretty certain you are Madrid as well. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I only found out about this congresswoman and the shooting because of the preëmption of Detroit 1-8-7 two weeks ago for an interview with her husband. Probably outside of the area she represents she was not that well known. Now she is known for surviving an assassination attempt. I have this article in my watchlist to check on her recovery because i hope it goes well and in the long term i am most curious to know if her position on guns changes. Her article reflecting how well she is known for various things is proportional. Before reading this article i saw her picture and though Chris Martin's wife would be perfect if a movie were made of this. In reading the article i learnt she is the second cousin of Mrs Martin. Ok, something else that has proportional mention in the article. If she recovers and drafts some famous legislation and writes a book and runs for president then her article will change but for now she is by far most widely known for surviving an assassination attempt so having her political career being a smaller section is appropriate. Not that things about her work can't be included but that her political career section does not define the size of other sections in the article. This version seems of appropriate balance to me. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 08:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And, looking at that version, I'm not seeing how the assassination and recovery information is bigger than the information on her political career anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And my part 2, which got an edit conflict by the time i was done writing it:
In direct response to the proposal, Wikipedia did not exist at the time of either the Joe Biden or Ronald Reagan incidents, and so when their articles were eventually created there was a much larger pool of events to pick from in making a comprehensive article that properly and proportionally represented the totality of their public lives to that point. Once Mrs Giffords is recovered and back at work then the section recounting her daily status could be significantly reduced and left to article history but for now people like myself are coming to her article just for such things. If Wikipedia had been around would you have though that Ronald Reagan's article in those days and months following would have contained so little information on the event and his status? Some 30 years on a mere 6 lines of text might be enough but in-the-moment it would be a dis-service to those reading the article to excise so much. Reagan attempted assassination article is presently 35,127 bytes. Giffords attempted assassination article is 95,934 bytes. While it is true that more information is more readily available to compile the Giffords article it is fair to say that over time it will be trimmed down as things like speculation about hoping she can still talk and breathe and walk and return to work is confirmed and made too redundant to keep in the article in great detail. Then there is also the matter of the Giffords assassination attempt article not being just about her but about those bystanders who were killed and wounded and for that reason is entitled 2011 Tucson shooting. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln is presently 49,190 bytes so on pure size i don't see any being out of place. Abraham Lincoln's main article is 132,009 bytes and the section on the assassination is 26 lines long including wrapping around the two pictures in the section at a resolution of 1024x768 with a 10pt Georgia font. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that with the 2011 Tucson shooting article, it's not truly that big. It's the references adding most of the size. In terms of text, it's more than fine. Some editors, when seeing it at 95 or higher kilobytes, though, continue to see it as too big when not taking into account all the WP:SIZE aspects. This has been mentioned/discussed on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

← Excuse me, but there most certainly is not consensus to remove this material from here and move it to the shooting article. The details of her recovery are most relevant to her life, and they would bog down the shooting article which has to cover the broader topic including the shooter, the legal proceedings, etc. Giffords' recovery belongs here, as it is specific to her. But in any case, we don't take stuff out of one article and dump it into another without consensus both here and there - it would be a merge - and as far as I can see, there is no consensus in either place. I also think Flyer22 is quite right in her observation that there may be some socking going on here, and if that's the case, appropriate action will be taken. Meanwhile, this is an ongoing discussion, and these mass removals should not continue. Tvoz/talk 09:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I also didn't see a consensus. It might helpful for people to review what constitutes a consensus. I also do not agree with the approach of labeling people as "odd man out". We're all here (hopefully) for the same purpose, and that is to produce the best article we can. The definition of that is what leads to these discussions, and Madrid-2020, it really feels like you are wanting to rush that process, but please don't let your passion and eagerness prevent you from carefully considering other opinions. I have no strong feelings about the length of the article. Honestly if it stays the length it is now, or even gets longer, and it is good writing and useful information, then I would say leave it there. My point earlier was that you should judge the content in an article by its merit, not by comparing its length to some other article of a possibly similar type. Please give people time to consider and discuss and come to a true consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Campaigns and electoral section

Shouldn't these two sections be combined?--Utahredrock (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have moved that section. There is a worrying tendency, imo, for the articles of sitting government officials to be trivialized by focusing on their campaigns rather than their actual jobs. Her Committee assignments and work on various Bills are obviously more important than what went on in her campaigns, for which there are separate election articles. It's important to keep in mind Undue Weight. Flatterworld (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
True, but the way you rearranged it doesn't quite make sense - the text about her tenure as representative should not be under a header of "committee assignments" , and other material, like electoral history, political campaigns, even political positions, refer to her congressional career. I'll take a stab at rearranging it again with the above comments in mind. Tvoz/talk 17:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Try it this way, with the Congressional campaigns/electoral history a part of the Congressional section, which makes some sense, and political positions its own section. Another option would be to move "political positions" into the Congressional section, but that didn't work too well either. Honestly, I am not convinced that a rearrangement was really what we needed compared to what we had before. Tvoz/talk 18:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Two firsts?

The following post/article claims that Giffords was the first American female politician that was the target of an assassination attempt, and that she is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-bennett/rep-giffords-and-christin_b_815150.html

It's basically a blog post so I am not sure that it could be used as a source. Could someone help investigate this?--Utahredrock (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

First woman target not trivial

The following sentence was removed from the article:

"Giffords is the first woman in American history to be the target of an assassination attempt."

This was sourced from the NY Times. It's also been mentioned by Giffords' chief of staff in an op-ed piece (and the Huffington Post--see above). I am not sure how solid those leads are, but the is not trivial. Are these sources acceptable (I though the NY Times was, however, if it's an op-ed piece I am not sure)?--Utahredrock (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a particularly meaningful statement. What actually constitutes an 'assassination attempt'? Also, unless and until there is a legal ruling, saying it was an 'attempted assassination' is prejudging the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The "record" was sourced to an article in the NYT Magazine — not op-ed exactly, but not hard news either. And it was, to my reading, a casual throwaway line — the author did nothing to suggest she had done research on the matter. As ATG says, we can't call it an 'attempted assassination' yet. I repeat my opinion that it's a trivium to insignificant for a short biography, and absolutely does not belong in the lede. PhGustaf (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


Therapy and current status (Late April)

The following article is impressive by its details on Giffords' therapy, progress, motor and thinking status, and hopes.

  • Rose, Jaimee (04/24). "Gabrielle Giffords' doctors, husband share details on her progress". The Arizona Republic. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

I putted some content Gabrielle_Giffords#Current_status_and_long_term_prognoses. but more can be extracted ! Yug (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good source, but I don't think we need to expand this section with more. Tvoz/talk 07:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gabrielle Giffords recovery.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gabrielle Giffords recovery.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources on first post-shooting photos

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Still a member of congress?

I was wondering, how are her constituents being represented in Congress now that she's recovering? Is she casting votes? Is someone casting votes on her behalf? It all seems kind of weird.

216.40.128.12 (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she is definitely a member of Congress. She is not personally casting votes, no one is casting votes on her behalf. -- Avanu (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

New Pictures

Anyone going to add the new picture of Gabrielle Giffords to the page????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Provide a non-copyrighted picture and sure we can. The ones going all over the media have been explicitly denied for use on Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to Congress

Ok, the article is protected so I can't update it. But Gabby is back in congress and cast a vote yesterday. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/01/congress.giffords/index.html I don't know if she intends to stay or if she was just there for that one vote. Either way, the wiki needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the "Recovery" section and lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Her appearance on the House floor, her vote and the reaction to it are in the article, and that's sufficient. I don't know whether we can say she is "back" or "staying," one way or the other. It would probably just be speculation. When she appears in Congress again, the media will probably start publishing articles about whether she is "back" or not, and then we can cite them as sources. Neutron (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Fulbright Scholar - correct date

The wiki says that Giffords was a Fulbright in 1996, but the article linked as a source actually contradicts that year, as it states that she studied in Mexico between her undergraduate studies (completed in 1993) and graduate studies (completed in 1996). Scripps College has a fact sheet about Giffords that lists her as a Fulbright in 1993-1994, which seems more accurate. Unfortunately, I can't make the edit myself, as this is a protected page (no doubt for very good reason). If someone would be kind enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.2.82 (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Public appearance photo

Is there any way that the image in this article [10] (from Reuters) can be used, or a similar one showing her current appearance? Also, though this is more of a ref desk question. Where was the damage again (meant as a semi-serious question as the injuries to her face are not visible)? Jesus Christ, that is an amazing physical recovery. O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the video of her appearance at the house of representative yesterday is not in the public domain. Weird. Comte0 (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
sup idiots. can you change her picture?64.125.223.146 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

Additional info under Recovery

Her mother, Gloria Giffords, remained by her side in a Tucson hospital and Houston rehabilitation center, cheering on her daughter's recovery. They sang familiar songs, including their favorite, "Tomorrow," from the show "Annie", which they sang whenever Gabby felt frustrated and disappointed.[11] Newsboyron (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Newsboyron

Remembering the assassination attack/attempt one year later.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/08/the-tucson-massacre-one-year-later/ This Wikipedia article links over to the WP page on the Tucson Massacre of six citizens. Both the attack and her brave and miraculous recovery keep Rep Gabrielle Giffords in our memory, "lest we forget". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor grammar mistake in the recovery section

The third sentence in the second to last paragraph under "Recovery" is currently "Surgeons replaced the bone, using tiny screws, with piece of molded hard plastic..." Unless I am mistaken, it should read "Surgeons replaced the bone, using tiny screws, with a piece of molded hard plastic..." I would edit myself, but I am unable to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jallenscott (talk • contribs)

Why are you unable to fix it? --Crunch (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Crunch, the page is 'simi-protected' so that only editors with enough non-grafitti edits can edit the Article. I have made the important minor-edit. And THANKS, JallenScott. Keep up the good work .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Semi-Protection

On January 22, 2012, Giffords announced that she would be resigning from Congress in the following week to focus on her recovery. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/205647-giffords-to-step-down — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.69.117 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Newsroom

Her attempted assassination was a major plot point for episode 4 of the Newsroom. I'm not sure on rules etc of Wikipedia, but should this be included on her page? I mean, t is what brought me here? 2.120.132.227 (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Americans for Responsible Solutions merger completed

Feel free to improve the section if needed! Thanks. GladiusHellfire (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed

"Expanding health care access was an issue of interest for Giffords when she served in the legislature. She also pushed for bills related to mental health..."

This just seems incredibly vague, and could be interpreted any number of ways. Pl3b3z (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Image size?

@Spongebob1944: has been editing the image size to be 243 or 244 px (and appears to be having a tough time making up his or her mind...). Should the image be standard-sized, (like that of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush), or should it be 243/244 px? Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What I'm saying here is, if you were listening I said the photo had been that size for a long time. I really don't appreciate you repomanding me for something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongebob1944 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It was meant as more of a heads-up, rather than a reprimand. You kept switching it back and forth between 244 and 243 px...still not sure why. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The image has not "been that size for a long time". It was autosized up until late November or early December, when you started making changes to the article, including bouncing the size around between 243 and 244 pixels. So, arguably, your bold changes to the image size have been reverted.
The real question to me is, what does the article gain by forcing the image size to 243 or 244 pixels? Why not let the software size it automatically? —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Giffords initially was placed in a medical coma to allow her brain to rest"

What does "rest" mean in this context, exactly? Could someone with permissions and medical knowledge make this sentence less vague?--InterPersonalAutomaton (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear what it means. It's better than having some medical jargon there. Neutron (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gabrielle Giffords. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 10:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gabrielle Giffords. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 13:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gabrielle Giffords. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Naming honors controversy

The controversy over Giffords having the ship named after her should be mentioned. It's a big violation of military tradition. There are generally two kinds of people who get ships named after them: Medal of Honor recipients and presidents. http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/14/former-military-brass-shocked-angered-over-uss-gabrielle-giffords/ --208.38.59.162 (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

1) That's generally true, but there are a number of ships that have been named for politicians. 2) If you're going to mention the controversy, make sure it's balanced and unbiased. Commentators actually responded to point out the above statement; cites to such commentators have been added. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: I removed a paragraph which stated the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act was amended in response to the USS Gabrielle Giffords naming. This is factually incorrect; it's so factually incorrect that the source cited states the opposite, that the USS Gabrielle Giffords was named after the 2012 NDAA was amended. Please do not undo this edit. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Stars and Stripes Quote It is absurd to say the Navy considered naming the ship after a city while they already had one with that name. That is a very simplistic ruse. The quote states:"The name “Tucson” could have been a way to recognize both Giffords and others harmed at the shooting. Unfortunately, that city’s name was already in use on a submarine." The sentence in the article reads:"A subsequent Navy report on the naming noted that Secretary Mabus considered honoring Giffords and other victims of the Tucson shooting by naming LCS-10 after the city of Tucson, consistent with current practice of naming littoral combat ships for U.S. cities, but this was not possible because the USS Tucson (SSN-770), an active Los Angeles-class submarine, currently bears the name." This in no way reflects the source listed. Can't anyone think just a little? 172.56.13.245 (talk)
    • The article doesn't say the Navy considered using a name that was already in use. In fact, it says the opposite. It clearly says that Secretary Mabus (who was considering the naming of the ship, not the Navy as a whole) considered naming honors "consistent with current practice of naming littoral combat ships for U.S. cities", and that this stopped with the fact that the Navy already had a vessel with the name Tucson . This is supported by the source (the entire source, not just the lines you cherry-picked). I'm familiar with the fact that the Navy doesn't keep multiple ships active with the same name, you're aware of it, but not everyone reading a story about a former U.S. Representative is necessarily going to be familiar with it. This is why the article actually explains, as it should, that consideration of the name Tucson stopped because it was already in use. It's plain from reading the entire source, if you read more than just the two sentences you cherry-picked out, that (quoting from the source) the "choice" made by Secretary Mabus, to make "a deviation of the naming convention" for LCS, was the "result" of the name Tucson being "already in use on a submarine." The source doesn't say it quite as concisely, but that's the whole reason it's worded differently in the article. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • USS Henry M. Jackson Including Henry M. Jackson in the list of ships "named for prominent politicians who were still alive at the time of the naming" is factually incorrect as the planned USS Rhode Island was not renamed the USS Henry M. Jackson until shortly after his death per the boat's official history. http://www.csp.navy.mil/henrymjackson/About/ 124.40.47.115 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Gabrielle Giffords. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017

71.182.141.147 (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gabrielle Giffords. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Gabby Giffords was originally pronounced dead by NPR. Please include in article, as it was a key event.

https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2011/01/11/132812196/nprs-giffords-mistake-re-learning-the-lesson-of-checking-sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflynn93 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords → Gabby Giffords – I am of the opinion, after scanning the reliable sources, that "Gabby", not "Gabrielle", is her WP:COMMONNAME. She is referred to by both, but I see "Gabby" far more often than "Gabrielle". I'm presenting a few examples: [12][13][14] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per seemingly overwhelming use of 'Gabrielle' in the page's References and External links, per USS Gabrielle Giffords, and per the images on the page (signature, campaign sign, etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Randy Kryn, many of those sources are older (2013 and earlier). I believe newer sources, many of which are not in this article, use "Gabby" much more frequently. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, similar to the Joe Biden article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, as above. bd2412 T 02:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

make it gabrielle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1014:C4D0:E9D7:16CD:CF66:F2E4 (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New image

Usually i do not advocate for image changes when the image is just a few years old, but Giffords' infobox image was taken 10 years ago, maybe it is time for a new one. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the most recent, but it's not the best image. This one is from 2019 and seems decent enough for an infobox. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I support the second one, File:Gabrielle Giffords by Gage Skidmore 4.jpg. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I also support the second Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Is she Jewish?

Is she Jewish? ---Dagme (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, read the "Early life, education, and business career" section of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gabby_Giffords/Archive_4&oldid=1095821299"