Talk:Jared Lee Loughner/Archive 2

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

New York Times says of Loughner: "His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush"

The third page of this January 15 New York Times aritcle says of Loughner: "His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush."

I suggest that this be added to the article.

Like a harp needs a string (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I get a "Please Log In" message on trying to access this, so have not been able to read it yet.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Needs a more accessible source that does not require logging in to verify.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
We allow sources that you need to log in to see--Guerillero | My Talk 19:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, see WP:PAYWALL. I'm not sure how the NYT works these days.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I said it needs a source that can be verified. If no one can verify it, then why even suggest it. Just add it.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If you go to the times home page and search for "Loughner Bush", you should be able to click through to a readable version of the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this may be it:[1] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.28.115.193, 17 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Er it says he wounded 14 people i believe he only wounded 13...

173.28.115.193 (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The most recent reports say that six people were killed by gunfire, thirteen were wounded by gunfire, and one was wounded leaving the scene. I made this change to the article to reflect that. I'm open to suggestions about better phrasing, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic article, but a suggestion

This article is fabulous. It has no bias whatsoever, and it is a powerful article. However, I think it is appropriate to refer to him as a terrorist. What does everyone think about that?

75.73.193.118 (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

To do that we'd need (a) for him to be convicted first, and (b) for mainstream sources to do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, IMHO the terrorist tag does not fit very well anyway, but it would be up to a court.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. There's a difference between threatening violence to incur political change for a certain ideology, and outright psychosis. This would be the latter. 82.95.25.120 (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Terrorist is a word on Wikipedia's words to watch list under the Contentious labels-section, which means that one should be very cautious with using that word about anyone. Not even the article on Osama bin Laden says that he is a terrorist, it only says that he has been described as a "terrorist" (in quotation marks). So until there are at least a fair amount of reliable sources describing Loughner as a terrorist, I don't think anything of that sort should be mentioned in this article.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Community College Dates

From when to when was Jared Lee Loughner enrolled in Community College, the article doesn't explicitly say so, it appears it wasn't until a few years after Dropping Out of High School that he enrolled in Community College- before eventually dropping out (or getting kicked out of) there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mug shot coverage

I've expanded the article with a brief description of the booking photograph and its coverage by media, in part also to continue to allow us to publish the image under fair use rules (the argument for its inclusion is stronger if the photo is also subject to critical commentary in the article).

This was reverted with the summary "Tabloid, unencyclopaedic: discuss on talk?"; a second attempt that did not cite the tabloids was likewise reverted with the summary "Still seems tabloid journalism to me, and has POV issues. Discuss on talk". So that's what I'm doing here. I'm not sure that I understand the objection. Yes, I'm citing tabloids (and leading papers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times) to describe how US media are covering Loughner. Yes, arguably these publications are engaging in "POV" and tabloid journalism by assuming Loughner's guilt and by essentially calling him a killer and a madman. But we are only describing these practices, not engaging in them ourselves. I believe that a neutral description of this highly emotionally charged media atmosphere is encyclopedically relevant as part of a biography of Loughner, in part also becauses it raises the question whether he can have a genuinely fair trial after the media have already decided that he is a crazed killer.  Sandstein  18:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that re-iterating the headlines of tabloids is particularly significant. Although it might be possible to include a couple of sentences given decent sources. The NYTmes citation doesn't seem to discuss the mug-shot? Unless I am missing it? The Washington post... yeh seems a reasonable source - but as I mentioned, I wouldn't use it to rehash the headlines used, but use it to mention use of the photo and doctoring of it etc. --Errant (chat!) 18:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The NYT does discuss the photo: "Now to another building for the mug shot. Look into the camera, the suspect was told. He smiled. Click. Mr. Loughner’s spellbinding mug shot — that bald head, that bright-eyed gaze, that smile — yields no answer to why, why, why, why, the aching question cried out in a subdued Tucson synagogue last week. Does the absence of hair suggest a girding for battle? Does the grin convey a sense of accomplishment, or complete disengagement from the consequence of his actions? And is his slightly blackened left eye all but winking at the wholesale violence that preceded the camera’s click?".  Sandstein  18:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah great thanks! Although that simply discusses the image, not media reaction to it --Errant (chat!) 18:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
A few more such articles: from The Washington Post, Newser, Yahoo and Global Post, of which the first has already been incorporated into the article. KimChee (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Given that it was me that reverted, I will explain my position further. The mugshot itself is included in the article, so we don't need to be told he was smiling when it was taken, and nor do we need to be given opinions by journalists about what the picture tells us about his state of mind. This isn't reporting events, nor reporting public reaction to events, it is merely unqualified commentary by journalists. It also gives a clear implication of guilt, violating WP:BLP principles.
Regarding mugshots in relation to issues of a fair trial, I'm of the opinion that they have frequently been used in highly-dubious manners in the past, and would probably be better not released at all. While they are, however, we should at least try to avoid exacerbating the situation by quoting pseudo-psychological analyses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Under some interpretations of WP:NFCC (with which I disagree), we cannot have the image in the article unless we also discuss it. I agree that we do not need the unqualified pseudo-psychological analyses in order to learn something about Loughner, because we can't. They are illustrative, however, to illustrate the context for the eventual trial. It is not we who imply his guilt but the American media; that we can (and ought to) report as a fact without violating WP:BLP.  Sandstein  18:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree, there isn't much need to discuss the image itself (or media interpretation/speculation of it). However, I do think it might be possible to have a sentence about media treatment of the image, the Washington Post source might have some reasonable content. I don't know... still divided over it --Errant (chat!) 18:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just something to think about: I have noticed that the American authorities often try to make mugshots look as "evil" as possible. Examples include the 9-11 terrorists, Saddam Hussein, gunmen involved in previous shootings, etc. So perhaps the mugshot tells at least as much about its takers than about the person in the photograph. This is one reason why I think it would be better the leave the photo analysis out like AndyTheGrump suggests. Nanobear (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not just the US. In the UK, Winston Silcott was the victim of this sort of trial-by-tabloid, after the Broadwater Farm riot, which may well have been a factor in his conviction - later ruled wrongful. Sadly, this is all too common. The media like pictures of the 'guilty' looking 'guilty' or even better 'insane'. I doubt many of us would look calm and composed after police interrogation, guilty or innocent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked and cut some of the re-inserted text for neutrality, BLP speculation, weasel wording and so forth (I don't mean to imply this was deliberate) I tried to do it in several edits so we could discuss anything that is disagreed with more minutely :) Hope that is ok --Errant (chat!) 00:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a mug shot as is stated on the article; it is an intake photo. He has not been arraigned yet on charges related to the shooting in Arizona. Late today (19 Jan 2011) Laughner was indicted by a federal grand jury. A mug shot will come shortly when he is arraigned. Jasonanaggie (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Salvia and LSD

What happened to the sources talking about how people noticed changes in his behavior after becoming a psychedelic drug user?Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that in the article; how was it sourced? That may have something to do with why it was removed. Elsewhere I have seen those allegations attributed to an unnamed "friend", which is not really good enough to put it on Wikipedia given WP:BLP. Neutron (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I went back and retrieved it. It has the name of the friend which is better. I don't know why it was removed before, there have been some articles about Salvia particularly in relation to Loughner. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor syntax/grammar error

This phrase is slightly inaccurate, and perhaps slightly ungrammatical:

The federal judiciary of the entire state of Arizona recused themselves from hearing the case...

Would read better, and more accurately, as:

The entire federal judiciary of the state of Arizona recused itself from hearing the case...

1. The point is not that these people are the judiciary of the entire state, it's that they're the entire judiciary of the state.

2. 'Judiciary' is normally a collective singular noun and should take 'itself' as the pronoun. Analagous to, e.g., 'executive'.

Beades (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite right - it needs fixing. The file is currently protected, but when it can be done, it will be - thanks for pointing this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The article was only semi-protected so I went ahead and fixed it. --Banana (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Beades (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Wasn't sure if I was being too pedantic or not. Cheers.

Atheist infobox & Cats

I meant to raise this after the image issue, but seeing as it has already been edited back and forth. The Atheism note in the infobox and categories need to go; our relevant policy is WP:BLPCAT, this requires two things for us to use an infobox and category:

  • For the subject to self-identify
  • For the label (i.e. atheist) to be relevant to their notable activities or public life

I think this fails on both counts, no source has identified the relevance of his atheism to the activity that makes him notable. We try to avoid sticking people in classifications where it is not relevant. --Errant (chat!) 08:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed this after it was added again (by the same editor, who seems to have taken no notice of my edit summary). As ErrantX says, WP:BLP is absolutely explicit on this, and inclusion in the infobox is contrary to policy. This was discussed early in the article's history, and we don't need to go through the whole saga again just because people can't be bothered to look in the archive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool, I just cut the category as well for the same reason. (BTW I just noticed I reverted it back in last night.... WTF? how did that happen :( ) --Errant (chat!) 13:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the points made by Andy and ErrantX. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I further agree. This individual's religious beliefs are not relevant to his notability, and hence putting him in the Atheist category would likely violate WP:BLP. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
BLPCAT is clearly explicit in this matter and it seems to have been correctly removed, per the guideline. Yet it appears that some may be looking at being an Athiest as something negative, when many people are very proud of that fact. Lets not cast this label as a negative label.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

American Renaissance

This one's a good un... Alleged links to American Renaissance, which are then retracted as containing errors. So there is no link. Why are we reporting this again? Support its removal under BLP; we are not here to report minutiae or random allegations --Errant (chat!) 08:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That never had anything to do with Loughner or his biography, as I pointed out before. I've removed it, and hopefully it will stay gone this time. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Sort of. The media initially reported that Giffords was dead, but this was retracted. During the first 24 hours after the shooting, there was a good deal of speculation about the American Renaissance link, since it came from a government leak. However, it soon turned out to be wrong. This is why it may be worth mentioning if it is shortened from the current version.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I support removal in agreement with Errant's points about BLP and random allegations. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mugshot Redux

I have received confirmation that the image is non-free - as such it should appear next to the critical commentary in the article per our policy on non-free images. To that end I moved it from the infobox down into the article. --Errant (chat!) 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What evidence can you present to back up the "non-free" claim?--Jojhutton (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, should have linked. As part of the deletion discussion going on around the image some of us emailed the sherrifs department; and I heard back last night r.e. the licence status. BTW we dy default assumed it was non-free until proven otherwise, this was just confirmation. --Errant (chat!) 16:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand; where is the evidence? Please provide it before changing the BLP without consensus. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Umm... well please understand our NFCC policy. The image is presumed to be non-free unless proven otherwise; in this case it was generally accepted that the image was non-free anyway but I have emailed the sherrif department to clarify this and it has confirmed our suspicions. The burden is on proving it is a free image BTW, if you can do that please do so. There was a small amount of discussion on the file deletion page and as a result Sandstein added some critical commentary that provides us a fair use basis to include the image but our policy says that the image should be next to said commentary. A little good faith would go a long way people.... ffs --Errant (chat!) 16:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Well if the owner of the image wants to make a claim, it can be removed.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that is not how it works :) (sadly). Non free images can be used under our NFCC criteria alongside critical commentary - that is why the commentary was added! --Errant (chat!) 17:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Errant - It's a little aggressive to just say, "this isn't free" I'm removing it. Without linking to any evidence to support the claim. It seems like this image is the subject of active debate here. Can't we let that conclude?
Additionally, why doesn't this meet the "produced by the US federal government, among others, is public domain," clause of Wikipedia:Non-free_content? NickCT (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not removing it :) I am placing it next to the critical commentary in the article.. sorry if that is not clear. In terms of your other question - this was established elsehwere, the image is not a product of the federal government. It is not public domain. Bear in mind that regardless of that debate the image will either be deleted or allowed as non free with a FUR - the FUR requires the image next to the critical commentary *shrug* I figured that is not very controversial and, in fact, obvious. --Errant (chat!) 17:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) As the image uploader, I can confirm that ErrantX is correct and that the image is not free; it is correspondingly tagged as nonfree. It was made by the Pima Sheriff's Department, which is not part of the federal government. But I disagree that it must be moved out of the infobox. The policy, WP:NFCC, says nothing to the effect that the image must be located next to the commentary. In addition, the image is fair use not only on account of the commentary, but also to illustrate the person himself. I am not reverting the move so as not to edit-war, but strongly support that it be moved back.  Sandstein  17:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to images and their use on wikipedia, I'm a bit naive. But I looked over the policy, and no where did it say anything about not being used in the infobox.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

re "The policy, WP:NFCC, says nothing to the effect that the image must be located next to the commentary" - After reviewing, I must agree with Sandstein. @Errant - I think you have either misread WP:NFCC, or are misrepresenting it. Suggest you self-revert. NickCT (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Before we go round in circles on this again, a suggestion: Let's say that this image is non-free. I have always agreed with Sandstein's fair use rationale, given that this is a major image that has been used by the world's media. The mugshot template exists exactly for this sort of situation. As long as the image is in the article, it does not have to be in the infobox. The main thing is not getting the image deleted to please the NFCC purists.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflicts)Well, but criteria 1 and 8 in WP:NFCC together say that a non-free image needs to provide a context which cannot be provided with a free image. For here to decide if the image should be used for the infobox really depends on whether it is decided that it is practically impossible to obtain any free image of Jared Loughner, as he is currently imprisoned, or that it is possible to get a free image of him, and therefore the mugshot only should be used as context for comments in the media about that image. I am not sure that this has been decided yet in the deletion discussion, so it might have been a little prematurely that this image was moved.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In fairness I might have been a bit quick doing this but... the idea of FUR is that you have to meet the FUR - so in this case the image is used "to allow readers to understand the media commentary about the photograph that is being cited in the article." So the image should appear next to the commentary. I admit that in retrospect the deletion discussion is not closed; but it seemed clear to me that the rationale for using the image to visually identify the subject in the infobox had been rejected as reasonable rationale (it isn't; our policy is explicit on that). Given that Sandstein (the image uploader) added the new rationale I assumed it would be non-controversial... --Errant (chat!) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
@Ianmacm - that IMO is supporting rationale for use in the article, not in the infobox. @TheFreeUploader; actually there is no need for it to be taken after this date. There is ample opportunity to do so - or we could be provided with another recent photo. I feel it is clear that the valid FUR for this image is in relation to the critical commentary and media coverage and not to visually identify the subject. --Errant (chat!) 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(more edit conflicts)I tend to agree with you on that. I think another image should be found for the infobox, also when taking WP:MUG into account. But still, I don't think is good etiquette to take unilateral action on a topic currently being discussed.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok fair enough. Well given that it is controversial, do you think that you might self-revert and await consensus before making the change? NickCT (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Given the licensing issue, FUR problems and the BLP issues (which I do feel are still a problem for infobox use) I personally am not comfortable in replacing it in the infobox - I realise that is awkward, but I don't intend to revert or bug anyone restoring it to the original place. --Errant (chat!) 17:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • - Please try to remember - the projects focus is on commons compatible images and licensing, especially in regards to living people. This picture doesn't meet any of those requirements. It isn't free at all, there are pictures out there of him just that we don't have one - users insistence on including a non free image is imo a net negative to the chances of a commons license pic being obtained, I don't support or see a value in the position, we need a pic any pic. Off2riorob (talk)

- ::::This discussion is also ignoring WP:BLP which also gives the guidance that mugshots are completely inappropriate for infobox primary identification of a living person who is at this time still alleged and not convicted criminal. Active Banana (bananaphone 17:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

@Active - I'd agree that there are legitimate WP:MUG concerns here. But using WP:NFCC to get rid of an image that might violate WP:MUG isn't cool. NickCT (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • - As I see there are clear issues, with the non free rational specifically to identify the person in relation to the crimes and as such as per ErrantX, the pic really has no place in the info box of his BLP this issue is compounded as Active Banana says by the fact that he is yet to be convicted, so non free usage is questionable and has WP:BLP issues and WP:MUG at this time for the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus here, at least not as yet, for moving the picture. Most input here is for not moving it and that it be put back where it was,in the info box, until, asNickCT said, the active debate here is concluded. Banana and Errant have been leading the argument against the picture at the deletion discussion, so it seems a bit like forum shopping to now be repackaging and shifting their vehement objections back over here. I'll put the photo back in the info-box as consensus here is clearly not in favour of moving it out. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably the right move, but we should edit war this. Could I suggest a quick straw poll to how many people think the grounds for removing the pic are valid? NickCT (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I, for one, believe the picture ought to be removed for now. Kansan (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
As I can see , we have a pretty clear fair use rationale in regards to the charges out of the infobox and I wouldn't support removal from that Arrest and legal proceedings section at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that no clear consensus has been formed yet, removal is not a good idea as the picture is going to have to be moved back if kept anyways. If deleted the image will just go so if you want to remove the image from the article fully do that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
removal is not a good idea as the picture is going to have to be moved back if kept anyways; umm, no because it fails NFCC on that rationale. --Errant (chat!) 21:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Does wikipedia delete something before the discussion is closed and a final say is made? I would wait for the results before moving anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the page for three days following a request on RfPP, but it's unfortunate to have to protect it over such a minor issue, when lots of people want to edit it. Can I have an assurance that the reverting over this issue will not continue if I remove protection? Someone could set up an RfC here instead to gain consensus. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I second SV's call for an RfC. Are there any volunteers who want to start one? I commit to not editing the location of the image until some firm consensus is reached. NickCT (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
I agree this really is a minor issue but there has been alot of tension in this article over the last few days. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Writing an RFC now --Errant (chat!) 21:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Errant. I'll remove protection once that's up and running, but please no one remove the image or change its position before the RfC has concluded. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, I tried to keep it neutral; but people please say if anything is incorrect. SV; I'm not going to touch the image again till we get consensus. --Errant (chat!) 21:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have also listed the image at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg as it was listed twice (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Length

Is it only me who finds it curious that this article is only minimally shorter than that Gabrielle Giffords? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.19.193.168 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The diffrence is that alot of sections in Gabrielle Giffords's article have their own articles if all the information reguarding Giffords was placed in her article then it wpould be huge and impossible to manage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The article here is currently 41k, compared to the 93k of 2011 Tucson shooting. There is some overlap between the two articles that needs to be addressed, but there is WP:NORUSH as it is still early days.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Placement of Image

This RFC relates to the placement of the Mugshot photo (File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg) in the article. The photograph was nominated for deletion a few days ago on the basis that our non-free content criteria says that non-free images should not be used to visually identify the subject of a BLP because it is almost always assumed another image can be gotten. The counter argument has been that as Loughner is currently in custody it might be difficult or impossible to take a freely licensed photograph of him.

Mid way through the deletion discussion critical commentary about the photograph and it's reception in the media. The FUR for the image was updated to include this as rationale for image placement. Today the image was moved from the infobox down to the critical commentary in the article on the rationale that the deletion discussion did not support the first section of the FUR (to visually identify the subject). This action has been subject to a mini-edit war with the counter argument being that there is currently no established consensus over the FUR.

The placement of the image is under dispute, the following questions need to be answered:

  • Is there a valid non-free use which allows us to use the image within the infobox
  • Are there any other concerns which preclude using the image in the infobox
  • If there is such a FUR, where is the best place to have the image (in the infobox or with the critical commentary)

As the article is protected hopefully we can come to a consensus before it is opened up Errant (chat!) 21:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already expressed my general concerns over the use of police mugshots, as indeed does Wikipedia BLP policy - see WP:MUG. Regardless of copyright issues, the photo is of an individual as yet unconvicted, and very possibly mentally disturbed, taken under stressful conditions. The sections of the media have chosen to 'psychoanalyse' the image, I see no reason why we should encourage the practice. On that basis, I say it shold go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Frankly, I think this image should go as a violation of WP:MUG, but the policy in dispute here seems to be WP:NFCC. I'm not an really an expert regarding WP:NFCC or FUR, but after reviewing briefly, I cannot seem to find anything that seems to explicitly forbids the use of the image. On another note, I think WP:NFCC is a bad justification for moving/delete b/c I find it hard to believe that the good people at the Pima County Sheriff’s Forensic Unit would care that this picture was posted on WP or pursue WP for that matter. Aren't mug shots typically considered public domain? Finally, I think we can all agree that this image will go as soon as a free image becomes available. NickCT (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I want to add my thanks to SlimV for jumping in to mediate. NickCT (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait for the deletion discussion to be closed reguarding the image. Once that discussion is closed there will be more of a clear consensus on what to do (Hey if the image is deleted then there will be no reason for a move). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a fair use case for the infobox: the mugshot is the most recent image of the subject and no other free photo can be taken of him as he is in prison (where he must realistically be expected to remain for the foreseeable future). It is therefore necessary to illustrate the subject, and the conventional place to do so is in the infobox. WP:MUG only says that mugshots "should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light", but the mugshot is very much in context for Loughner, as he is only known for his alleged crime; and the mugshot does not disparage him any more than his own (reliably sourced) actions already do. I have added the critical commentary about the image only as an additional reason to retain the image for those who (wrongly, in my opinion) believe that it should otherwise be deleted. In my opinion, the image should be retained for identification and illustration purposes independent from the commentary.  Sandstein  22:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually sorta like that reasoning. He is known for being an evil mass murderer, so an image that makes him look like an evil mass murderer isn't putting him in a "false and disparaging" light. Hmmmmm.... Seems like it might be a WP:NPOV question though. NickCT (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose featuring this image at all before Loughner is convicted of any crime. Separately, I oppose using it for primary identification if it is retained. Also, for clarity, I have supported deletion of the image in the related deletion discussion. The issue here is very clear: the image makes Loughner look like a crazy criminal, and per WP:BLP (and WP:MUG specifically), we shouldn't use such an image for primary identification - and we shouldn't use it at all if it amounts to portraying Loughner as a criminal before he's been convicted. The NFCC issue is quite secondary; it is in fact likely that Loughner will be convicted (though expectations don't override BLP), and if that happens it will be effectively impossible to obtain a free image. That has not happened yet, however, so the image does not belong here. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This comment should belong at the deletion discussion and not here, what the edit war was about was where the image should be placed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it was. My opinion is that the image should be placed nowhere, but in case we can't manage to do that, the image should at least not be used for primary identification in the infobox. That is a valid opinion here. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose use of copyright image of living person. The commentary that theoretically lets us use this copyright picture, even from the normally reliable Washtington post is someone claiming that from a photograph a living person is "possible derangement". That just cannot stand in our article, that is bad bad bad bad practice. If for some reason mob mentality overrules BLP and allows such commentary to stay because it is "reliabley sourced", oppose use in info box because the use of a mugshot as primary identification of a living person who has not been convicted of any crime is still overwhelmingly problematic. Active Banana (bananaphone 00:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • comment - I have said already, I support fair use for portrayal of importance in the section related to the arrest. I don't see a fair use required situation for non free use to represent him as a living person in the infobox when we can get a commons compatible picture. This issue of a non free mugshot use for portrayal in the infobox is compounded by the situation that the article is a WP:BLP and that the subject has not yet been convicted. Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I don not think we have legitimate reason to claim no free image of this person can be found - our policy actually stresses we should assume a free image is possible for all BLP's. As there is no absolute requirement for an image to be take near to or after the shootings I don't feel that is a good argument for keeping the pic in the infobox. Even then; why is the mugshot particularly of note? It is separate from the incident for which he is notable and taken under an abnormal situation. --Errant (chat!) 15:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • note - we really need to move it out of the infobox - its non free and can not be used to represent the person and has no right in being in there, keeping it there is against policy and detrimental to encouraging anyone to provide something that is commons compatible - will a commons comparable one turn up - you can not answer no to that question so it should not be in the infobox at all - I strongly support User:ErrantX's edit that moved the pic to the section about the arrest. There is a strong fair use claim to use the pic for that reason and that reason alone in the section about the arrest. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. You say that having it in the info box is against policy. Can you please quote and link the policy in which are referring too, because the the only guideline, that I can tell, used to keep it from the infobox has been WP:NFCC, and I can't seem to find that language in that guideline. Perhaps you are thinking of a different policy or guideline.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the picture now there is an additional fair use rational that is correct at the bottom of the other one. We are clear that the pic is not free. Also clear that it is undeniable that a commons comparable licensed pic of him could become available just that we have not got one - so - there is absolutely no excuse within fair use to use this pic to represent him in an overall manner in the infobox - the fair use is specifically in relation to his arrest and as such can only be used in the section about the arrest. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
So is that your opinion, or is there a guideline or policy?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
That is pretty indisputable standard fair use guidelines and copyright policy. I realize this is an emotive issue and users want to use the picture in whatever way they desire but wikipedia should be better than that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to stir up any emotional issues, I'm just trying to determine if there is a clear cut policy that says that non-free images cannot be used in the info box. I haven't seen one yet, so when you mentioned that the current use of the image violated policy, I naturally assumed that you were referring to a specific one. I just wanted to know if there really was one. If there is a policy that forbids the use in info boxes, then I would be 100% on board with its removal. As yet, I have not seen this policy, only interpretation of WP:NFCC, which doesn't appear to forbid use in info boxes.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It completely accepted that we basically don't do that, unless there is a good excuse - there is not one here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Rob, Jojhutton's question and your answer leaves me with the view that your position is more of an opinion than policy, since you apparently can not reference a specific policy wording. I too have many opinions, but it's very awkward for constructive discussion when opinions are stated as if they are carved in stone and universally accepted Wikipedia policy. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
If the image is against policy and non free then Why should it be included in the article at all? what is the diffrence on where it is placed? Also on a side note User talk:Jimbo Wales#Loughner question Jim Wales gave his opinion on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
We have imo a decent fair use claim to use it to represent the arrest, in the arrest section only, there is a degree of support for that claim also as I have assessed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Despite a debate over the status of this image that would probably qualify for an entry in The Guinness Book of Records, the move for deletion closed with "no consensus". It did not recommend deleting the image, or say that it could not be used in an article. The FUR seems OK here, let's not make the debate longer still by visiting it all again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • note - Loose interpretation of the fair use policy, goes against the mission of the foundation in regard to non free usage - to - "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license," foundation licencing policy and is the resolution on which our non free use policy rests. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I support the inclusion of this image, here, and in 2011 Tucson shooting per the FU rationales on-offer. If a free image becomes available, we should reconsider the choice of image then. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    Clarification; I support the use of this image in the infobox until such time as a suitable non-free image becomes available. Jack Merridew 21:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Attention-- The edit warring over the pic needs to stop and I have begun a section at WP:ANI to help out. Please lets not get users blocked over this.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been no substantial edit warring, only some disagreement. This does not really need teh dramah at ANI, it needs some proper discussion here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
So far there has been alot of debate over this image there is an ongoing one on it's fair use Wikipedia:Non-free content review as pointed out above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the deletion debate solved nothing. I can only restate the position that the mugshot image is OK for the Arrest section, but not as a general illustration of what Loughner looks like. However, I fear that forum shopping by opponents of the image on NFCC grounds will continue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What is the guideline that supports your claim please?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Jeez, it has been linked numerous time. Please before anyone else continues to comment go read our various policy pages on the use of non-free media. Read it three times and then double check. For reference the policy point of relevance to the use in the infobox is this: WP:NFC#UUI Under "Unnaceptable uses" - Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. (emphasis mine). A free picture is possible to obtain, so there is no legit FUR for infobox use. --Errant (chat!) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
...Almost always considered possible....? Well it looks like this is the exception to to that rule. Thus the Almost.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
No, that's a get out for situations where uptight editors will argue this policy is law when common sense shows no image is possible. Examples might include someone who has lived like a hermit for many years, hates photographs, and so a recent image is likely impossible to get (yes, I know of at least two such cases here on the Wiki). Almost always means "unless you have very good reason to say otherwise". There is ample opportunity to obtain a recent free image of this man. --Errant (chat!) 20:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If you got one great, lets be done with this, but until one is actually located and uplaoded, this pic is all we got and acceptable under fair use.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
As I have explained numerous times; that is not our policy. --Errant (chat!) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Errant for the specific wording. I think though you may be underestimating the difficulty of obtaining a new free image and also overestimating the prohibitions for using the mug shot until something else comes along. You might be crystal balling a bit with your optimism about future replacement. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep the mugshot not sure on the placement. I don't know if it should be in the infobox, but the mugshot has been widely discussed in the press exactly because it is so very creepy, so I think a solid WP:FUR exists for its use. I saw a shrink on CNN hypothesizing that the grin is an indicator of schizophrenia, as inappropriate emotional responses are often a sign of the disease. Even Ted Bundy didn't grin when he got caught. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think any such content is acceptable, those are not reliable sources for psych-analysis. And we avoid reporting unreliable and insubstantial speculation on BLPs. It is acceptable to mention that there has been coverage, we have sources for that --Errant (chat!) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree per Duck test. If he had a kkk tattoo on his neck and an FBI agent on tv said that was indicative of him being a racist, I think we could include that. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Use in the arrest section and unlock. As Beeblebrox says the issue is where shall we use this image that isn't free? It clearly could be technically replaceable now or at some point in the future, although we haven't got one. I imagine if you open a RFC/straw poll there will probably again be no consensus, at least if the assessor ignores the, use, no ones gonna sue, or use, everyone else is .. type comments, so as in BLP articles we are encouraged to err on the side of caution and its doubtful a policy based consensus support to include in the infobox then why not err with caution and leave the pic in the article in the section related to the arrest where it currently is and unlock the article, I don't see a weight of support for policy driven inclusion in the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Place in arrest section. This image only passes WP:NFCC as context for commentary about the picture itself. As has been argued by Jimbo the infobox should be kept without an image to encourage people to try to find a free image.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait for the deletion discussion to close and keep it in the info box in the meantime. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep in the info box; the BLP is a lot more reflective of Reliable Sources that way (Most RSs chose to give prominent placement near their ledes). This whole effort to relocate it is OR and Anal retentive, as many Editors remarked in more aggressive terminology at the deletion discussion. It seems and looks too manipulated with it further down the article. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • note - This keep comment from MrGrantevens2 is without explanation in policy, his whole comment is nothing to do with policy or guidelines at all. Anal retentiveness is perhaps his own issue but it is not a fair use rationale, I suggest this keep comment is ignored completely as without basis in policy or guidelines but a simple personal opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the fundamental bedrock of all Wikipedia policies and guidelines is to accurately reflect the content of Reliable Sources. That's what sets it apart from the pov pushing rags. Next most important thing is operating by consensus. Those are the main problems with removing or marginalizing the photo on the basis of a minority opinion that there might be some problem. There was a deletion discussion wherein many Editors voiced the opinion that the photo is simply not a problem, yet Off2riorob's last 3 edits on this article have been to move the image without any consensus whatsoever to be doing it. That brings up the NPOV policy. So, I think most Editors can see the policies that are in play with respect to my comment without me specifying them, but for Rob's benefit they are: Reliable Sources, OR , NPOV, and editing by consensus (not sure which policies that relates to). Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove - while the subject is still alive then any NFC is possibly replaceable. As there is no time limit for completing this article, wait until a free image is available or until the subject is deceased, when a non-free image could be justified. In the mean time, this mug shot is already available to readers via the references and external links. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment As a point of reference, history shows that a free image is not likely to become available. John Hinckley, Jr.'s BLP, even after 30 years, does not have one. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Although a good point, I'm still not convinced it is even relevant in this case. This photo has become a cultural icon in the two short weeks since it was taken. It has become a story unto itself because it so unsettled so many people to see what appears to be a smiling lunatic whith a shaved head who killed a bunch of people. Before this was released there was a lot of conjecture about Laughner's motivations. For many people (myself included) just seeing this image was enough to convince them that he is a crazy person. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Need for Mental Health Section

There is a lot of available "mental health aspect" content available in RS articles which I think warrants a section, but there seems to be opposition to that content based upon a pov application of BLP policy. I think the pov application I am referring to is based on old-fashioned stigma related to mental illness,i.e. it should not go in because it is seen as demeaning of the Subject. This stigma is very much an American centric stigma in 2011, I think, whereas in most of the West mental illness is now seen as simply a branch of physical illness with no more stigma attached than would be to a cancer victim. I have little doubt if there was as much available content addressing a non-mental physical aspect; e.g. speculation that the Subject is blind, there would be much less hesitation to include such content or speculation and there would be no silly references to COATRACK as a rationale for exclusion. As it currently sits, in my opinion, the mental health content of RS articles is about 3-4 times the current weight the BLP gives it and so I think the BLP has a WT problem by omission of an amount of mental health content relative to that available in RS sources. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The main problems here have been discussed before: WP:BLP, the upcoming trial, and the fact that many of the "experts" who offered opinions have not actually met Loughner, who has refused to discuss why he carried out the shooting as yet. The article does mention that he was suspended from school pending a mental health examination, but specific details are in short supply because of the need to follow WP:RS.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
exactly. Since almost all the 'mental health aspect' references in RS are either comments made by unqualified people who knew Loughner, or speculation by outsiders who have never met him, I see no need at all for a sepateate section at all. If anything, there is probably too much about this issue in the article already - it may well violate WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP policy as it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
For example, this Newsweek article simply reports observed behaviour, and President Obama referred to Subject as a "madman". We include opinionated quotes and RS categorizations of Subjects all the time, I'm sure you can think of many examples, so why not in this situation? I still think its some kind of hangover from the stigma days, and I'm not saying its specific to this BLP; even with Hinkley who was diagnosed and found legally insane there is little in his BLP about his mental illness. I am pretty sure if Loughner was allegedly a member of a terrorist or militant group of some kind and that association was being reported as perhaps precipitating the shootings, we would have that linkage, even if only alleged, taking up a section of the BLP. Don't you think so? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this can wait until more definitive information comes out. For one thing, I think that if the contents of the Newsweek article had instead been placed in the Wikipedia article (even assuming the facts were sourced, which much of the Newsweek article is not), the material would have quickly been deleted as original synthesis. He wears sweatshirts in the summer? Is that evidence of mental illness, or just unusual behavior? It could be either one. He walks his dog while listening to music through earphones, ignoring the people around him? Unfortunately, that isn't even very unusual behavior these days, much less explainable only by referring to mental illness. (And don't me wrong, it seems pretty clear to me that (assuming he did what he is accused of) he is mentally ill, but that is just an amateur diagnosis; and since it appears that no professional who has examined him has said anything publicly as of yet (as may happen during his trial(s)), nobody else's opinion really carries much more weight than mine at this point.) Neutron (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
@Neutron, I made a similar argument once about a source containing original synthesis and I was enlightened by a senior Editor, maybe it was Andy,not sure, to the nuance that original synthesis by us is against policy, put when its done by someone within a Reliably Sourced article its just fine for inclusion as long as the source for the synthesis is shown. Your other point about waiting for more definitive info is reasonable, however, looking at the Hinkley BLP, that did not happen there even after his insanity was universally accepted. I think we are looking at some type of subliminal taboo related to an uncomfortable feeling many/most lay people(like us here) have when it comes to talking,writing or even reading about mental illness. The major media people encounter mental illness so often, they have no problem bringing it out front and centre, but for average folks I think it is difficult to deal with. It complicates things. Its much easier to think in terms of good guys and bad guys; guys gone crazy don't fit into the dialectic so well so its easier to ignore or delay talking about that aspect, even when its so widely talked about in Reliable Sources. Maybe I'm wrong about this but it is interesting to see the BLP on Nero says nothing about his generally recognised insanity and even with Caligula the section that does talk about his insanity is strewn with theories throwing doubt that a true mental illness was involved. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
If you added the observed behaviour reported in Newsweek to a section called "Mental health" that would be synthesis. The newsweek article reports facts, then adds in speculation. Combining the two ourselves would be synthesis - the problem that exists is that Newsweek is the primary source for the speculated detail and, so, you'd need a secondary source that explained what Newsweek reported. --Errant (chat!) 14:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Duck test

I think that the Wikipedia description of the Duck test has exceptional applicability in this BLP regarding mental illness. It says: "The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse arguments that something is not what it appears to be." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, haven't we discussed this before? The Duck test is talking about editor behaviour and is basically saying "if it looks like a sock/troll/advocate then it probably is". We never apply the duck test to articles :) It is not our place --Errant (chat!) 14:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
And you are suggesting we apply this in a BLP, Grantevans?
WP:BLP is stricter than the standards that apply in many parts of the mainstream media. Apart from the undisputed fact that Loughner was suspended from school pending a mental health examination, most of the material about his mental health is media speculation that would fail WP:BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I see. ok I need to think about,maybe re-evaluate, all this some more. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting edit

As of January 24, Loughner has pled not guilty to some of the charges against him. I currently don't have an account, so if someone could add this to the article, I'd appreciate it.66.250.191.192 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Source is here.

I added a simple comment and the citation, thanks for the update, feel free to add , expand on my addition. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it needs to be a bit more specific, and note that further charges are expected: I'll add this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Andy. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mug shot"

The shiteating grin picture is not a booking photograph. [2] Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 01:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This link is an unofficial youtube upload. Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you like me to find the Rachel Maddow podcast instead? Does that change Ms. Maddow's reporting? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 01:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about that, just saying, imo your external is a likely copyright violation. Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat speechless by your reply. I'm not going to use the YouTube link as a ref in this or any article, so I don't quite understand the point of your comments. (and further, wouldn't the Maddow broadcast itself be citable, and not the YouTube link?) I just wanted to point out that the photo is not a mug shot (I thought our article was at booking photograph by the way). Loughner's mug shot may yet be publicly released, but the photo of him with a psychotic grin on his face is not it. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 02:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
See, you have totally lost me, I didn't click on your unreliable copy vio external link and I have no idea what you are on about. Off2riorob (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Then why on earth did you engage me about it? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 03:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Because I disagreed with you, for all intent and purposes the picture is a picture released by the arresting officers at his arrest, close enough to be a booking photo, mug shot imo. Off2riorob (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Youtube references are iffy, while some make the cut for wikipedia others do not, I would love to get this mug shot debate resolved but if you are to use Rachel Maddow as a reference here I would check here first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Television news is not reliable? Mmm, k. I notice the photo's caption again says mug shot, so I guess I'm spitting in the wind on this one. Don't actually care that much. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 03:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I...I have no idea what the two people above are talking about, Green. Their responses seem to be as if they aren't even talking with you, but carrying on some mysterious conversation. Rob especially. Anyhow, yes, that does seem to say that it isn't a mug shot. The caption should probably be changed to say that it is a "forensic photograph", since that is a more proper definition of what it is. By the way, if you could, can you give me a link to that video on a more reliable site, like her podcast that you mentioned? SilverserenC 04:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Can't find a direct link (even the official website only has the most recent broadcast), but again, is it really important? You could use {{cite episode}} (January 14) if you really needed to. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 08:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that would work. Go ahead and do that. SilverserenC 15:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
        • note - the users did not edit the picture description. Off2riorob (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

{{editprotected;}}

I've fully protected the article for a bit while it's settled where, if anywhere, that picture should be used.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever consensus emerges; if you or another admin unprotect this, I'd not edit re the image, just other aspects of the article. I invite others to make the same sort of agreement. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with the current version. The FUR covers the period of his arrest only, so it should not be used in the infobox. The real test would come if NFCC purists remove the image altogether. This is where consensus is needed, as there seems to be a slim consensus in favour of having the image as long as it is illustrating only his arrest.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any legitimate argument through which and NFCC "purist" could argue the critical commentary FUR is invalid. Sure, the content could be questioned, but that is a somewhat separate matter --Errant (chat!) 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I am okay with leaving it as it is after reading over the comments, I just want this battle to end already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
@ IanMacM && Knowledgekid87; you seem to be fixed on this version; will you accept any other version, such as the image being in the infobox, as I believe appropriate, or being omitted altogether (which I would oppose, too)? nb: m:The Wrong Version. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • A free image of Loughner might reasonably be found, so per WP:BLP and WP:NFCC the image is unsuitable for the infobox. The fair use rationale is clear that it is illustrating Loughner at the time of his arrest, an image with a wild grin that has been extensively discussed in the world's media. The arrest section is the best place for the image, since the "critical commentary" argument is applicable. This is why Sandstein uploaded the image. It should not be used as a general illustration of what Loughner looks like.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that I am not seeing alot of support right now to keep the image in the infobox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
*that* problem is being discussed, above, and all over the toxic-wiki; *this* problem is the wp:edit warring, which you and IanMacM seem to be declaring your own little victory in. Jack Merridew 22:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hold on a minnute I am not holding any victory party here, there is also a discussion going on here Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg with more editors weighing in on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
We are all working towards the improvement of the wikipedia in our own way and in relation to our individual interpretation of policy and guidelines. The picture was under discussion and possible deletion, it was closed as no consensus today and editors again began discussing and editing, there was a little reverting but it was limited, but at least has pushed us along a bit - this was the last comment from the old discussion - "Wait for the deletion discussion to close and keep it in the info box in the meantime." - this comment was completely complied with even though there were multiple editors that felt it was the wrong version and 40 hours later the discussion was closed as no consensus, it was not closed as , yes, use in the infobox its clearly OK usage there, and so a little tit for tat discussion and good faith editing occurred - but as a user just mentioned, I also don't see a consensus of policy driven support for infobox usage appearing here, so lets accept the new outcome and unlock the article for editing. Off2riorob (talk)

Since I think all the reverting parties have chimed in here, restored semi-protection. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it needs to be made clear here that anyone moving or removing the image again before the RfC or deletion debate are closed risks being blocked. We can't keep adding full protection to an article lots of people want to edit, just because of one minor issue. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not major but also not minor - we have one fair use picture of the subject and its exact usage is disputed. This RFC is not going anywhere imo apart from no consensus - the deletion debate is closed as no consensus - what do you suggest? Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Should I just close the RFC as no consensus then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No let it be - for a day or two for more opines. Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Please let the RfC run its course, which is 30 days unless comments dry up before then, at which point it should be closed by an uninvolved editor. That allows time for consensus to develop and has the added benefit of letting the heat out of the situation. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Its ridiculous that a fair use discussion has to last thirty days, its stale already. The original rationale is clearly false and continued discussion about it will result in nothing of benefit at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. This article has been through alot as it is though it has survived both a deletion and merge attempt and now the image has just survived a deletion attempt in two locations, this is more than a minor issue reguarding this article based on it's history. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The image has survived because its so obviously Anal retentive to bury it with paranoid fears about copyrights, as many Editors, including me, noted at the deletion discussion. It should be back in the infobox because that is representative of where it sits with most Reliable Sources. These attempts to delete it and push it down is classic OR, in my view. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't revert it today because I got a warning for doing it once or twice a few days ago, and I guess I can't do it now either because of what SlimVirgin said about waiting for the RFC to end. The BLP doesn't look anywhere near as cool and professional now as it did before, and, most importantly, this relocation reflects the views of only a few Editors and insultingly rejects the prominent placement choices (of this photo) made by most Reliable Sources. This is OR on steroids. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I owe Errant an abject apology[3] about your work to investigate the status of the image. I feel real foolish right now, and I apologise profusely. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Your block-threat is unwarranted; this article was protected on the proverbial Wrong Version that was the result of an edit war (I restored the image to the infobox once). This article has had the image in the infoxbox for most of the time since its creation, and you are effectively rewarding the edit warring by declaring this state of things as a new status quo by threat of block. Now, I've already said I'll stay off this image, and have except for the 'upright' edit. I'll wait until a consensus is reached. Jack Merridew 21:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Right, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle seems to say the photo should be back in the infobox. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not a purist on WP:NFCC, but the image in a BLP infobox should usually be copyright free. Many Wikipedia BLP articles lack an infobox image for this reason. It would be a misuse of Template:Non-free mugshot to place the image of Loughner in the infobox, because this template covers an individual's brush with the law, not simply illustrating what he looks like. The fair use rationale is OK for the Arrest section of the article, but would keep on setting off long debates if it was used in the infobox. Since half a loaf is better than no bread. the Arrest section is the best place to have the image.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
To ianmacm; Thanks for the friendly explanation. I absolutely defer to yourself,Errant and others regarding the technical(maybe legalistiic) applications of the policy; but, hypothetically, what if there is an obvious consensus for placement in the info box?
  • I have 2 questions maybe you could answer to help me understand this process:
  • 1: Does a technically correct interpretation of policy trump consensus?
  • 2: If so, what's the point of having a RFC on it?Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
@Mr.grantevans2: The opponents of this image are using forum shopping to get the image deleted completely. The image should not be used as a general illustration of what Loughner looks like. It does fall within WP:NFCC for the time of his arrest.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Well that's not ok. Forum shopping is an underhanded process. In general, and not Editor specific, do you think their motivation is only related to the copyright issue or is there an "i don't like it" component in play? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no need for images in infoboxes to be free, so it can be restored there if there's consensus, but please allow the RfC to run its course. The world isn't going to end if the issue takes another couple of weeks to be decided. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
There are cases where non free images are acceptable in infoboxes, but in this case imo there is not a correct non free rationale that supports it, at least not a strong claim - do you think a free picture of the subject will become available - if you can't answer, no, no chance at all then it doesn't have a rationale for the infobox.Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
note - This hypothetical from Rob has nothing to do with policy or guidelines and is simply a personal opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually its not, its simply all to do with our non free usage and guideline for creating rationales, its the question you need to ask and answer as specifically as possible - replaceable? In what actual way and in what regard is this non free picture not replaceable - Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline - Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Louchner is locked up and very,very likely to stay locked up. That's the difference between him and most Subjects. I don't see any photo at all of John Hinckley, Jr. on his BLP and his crime was committed 30 years ago, so when you ask "do you think a free picture of the subject(Loughner) will become available" I can absolutely answer "No." thus,by your criteria, it belongs in the infobox.:) Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thats your claim. IMO he is 22/23 and has lived a completely public life and to claim there are no pictures of him that could be released under a commons license imo a bit of a stretch, also Its quite normal in the United States for government officials to release commons compatible pictures of such people and I also feel a free pic could well in the near future be released for that possibility. I am not suggesting to hold this position for the long term, if no commons compatible picture turns up and he is convicted and receives the standard punishment for these crimes then there clearly will be a case for fair usage of this picture to simply represent this person and not just a single event in his life. Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
You have not changed my mind, I think it belongs in the info-box right now, however your "postpone for awhile" argument is a reasonable one. Notwithstanding that degree of reasonableness, I just don't think any of us can possibly crystal ball this so, imo, our Editorial decisions need to be made exclusively on the right here and right now. Additionally, no criticism meant, it might be OR of a lesser degree to construct a BLP based upon what Editors think/assume/guess is going to be happening in the future. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Move to Jared Loughner

I am boldly closing this discussion because the most recent discussion of this (Below) was closed. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{rfctag|bio}}

This RFC relates to moving the BLP to Jared Loughner for 5 reasons;

  • A non-responsive [4]SPA[5] decided way back when to use all 3 names, which is unusual for our BLPs; it makes no sense to perpetuate that unilateral decision into infinity unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
  • Google's "exact phrase" search shows "Jared Loughner" has about 4 million results and "Jared Lee Loughner" about 3 million.
  • Consistency in title style:Timothy McVeigh and Charles Manson do not include middle names.
  • By having it 3 names it reinforces one of Governor Ventura's conspiracy theories([6]at the 9:30 mark), which I prefer we avoid,even by happenstance, if we reasonably can.
  • I see no reason to give this Subject special treatment in Wikipedia(by middle name inclusion in the Title).

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose There is no compelling reason to engage in endless pointless debates about article titles, when simple and necessary redirects solve all potential problems. I consider the endless raising of this topic by the same few editors, while there is no evidence for significant support, nor any evidence that the existing title is in any way problematic, to be bordering on disruption. (sorry, realised I hadn't signed this earlier) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Please, the reason assassin's middle names are given is to avoid stigmatizing people with similar names. Look at the disamabig page for John Booth. There are nine of them. Abductive (reasoning) 15:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Respectfully I don't think that passes the straight face test, not by a long shot. Jared Loughner is a lot rarer name that John Booth. I seriously doubt there would be a disambig problem for Jared Loughner. It would likely be none(Timothy McVeigh only has 1 and that's a more common name than Jared Loughner). Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure exactly what point is being made here about John Wilkes Booth. Our article about the assassin of Lincoln is called "John Wilkes Booth" not due to Wikipedia's concern about stigmatizing someone, it is due to the fact that "John Wilkes Booth" is what he is and always has been called by the vast majority of people (if not universally), long before Wikipedia came along. I have probably heard and read his name thousands of times, and every single time it was "John Wilkes Booth," never "John Booth." (As opposed to say, Lee Oswald, which I have heard, though Lee Harvey Oswald is much more common.) Without the "Wilkes" I think a lot of Americans would not really know who you were talking about. That is not the case for Jared Loughner, which has been used at least half the time since his name became known. Neutron (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
        • No, I was referring to society's tendency to use the middle name for (alleged) assassins. My agrument is a generalization of WP:COMMONNAME. Abductive (reasoning) 20:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's enough source material for this title. Redirects take care of the rest.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I am pretty sure that per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names test that Jared Loughner is the far more common usage in the reliable sources. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems to me WP:COMMONNAME supports the move. NickCT (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The usage actually seems to be about even -- on Google I get 3.45M for "Jared Loughner" vs. 3.31M for "Jared Lee Loughner", although the latter includes both the Wikipedia article itself and other sites that copy or mirror WP, so it might be a little inflated. Interestingly, the very first Google hit for "Jared Lee Loughner" (after the video links) is a NY Daily News article that copies (and credits) the Wikipedia article, which I have never seen a "mainstream" newspaper do before. So it may be that Wikipedia itself has contributed to the fact that the middle-name version is almost as common as "Jared Loughner." Since the shorter version is slightly more common, I would go with that, and of course the longer version will remain as a redirect in case anyone searches on it. Neutron (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; as the account responsible for the current naming is non-responsive and Wikipedia precedent/policy strongly supports the two naming, I see no reason not to omit Lee. Kansan (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support There are no mass articles on wikipedia with the name Jared Loughner. John Wilkes Booth is an example of middle name but the name John Booth has a few articles on wikipedia to compare. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, and I do so as one who would also support a move of Lee Harvey Oswald to Lee Oswald and for the same reason: the reliable sources indicate consistently that the subject did not normally use his middle name. The reason for using middle names appears to be that these people came first to public knowledge when their names were released by police departments, and police departments almost always give full names instead of common names. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yawn. The naming conventions say to use the name most commonly used. If that turns out to be without the "Lee" then move it. The above remark about Lee Harvey Oswald is ridiculous. Whether he used it ot not the overwhelming majority of sources include the "Harvey." We don't go by what we think or what the subject thinks, we go by what the sources use. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Forgive me for taking offence at that response, especially in the non-informative context it was placed. You've annoyed me and I'm going to annoy you back by explaining in much greater detail. First, take the example of the murdered Archbishop. There was a time when almost all sources called him 'Thomas à Becket' despite this being an erroneous affectation in imitation of Thomas à Kempis - see Thomas Becket#Name for a detailed explanation. Despite the mistake having been corrected by John Strype as early as 1694 (the wheel rolls on) some reliable sources continue to use the invented name. Our article is at Thomas Becket which is as it should be. That was his name. Likewise if someone chooses not to use their middle name in ordinary speech, then their common name - from which our naming guidelines depart - is without middle name. That remains the case even if others force the use of a middle name on them. Lee Oswald seems normally to have signed himself 'Lee H. Oswald' - see entry about half way down this page. I nearly added, and now regret not doing so for it might have deprived you of the force of your point (such as it was) that I know I would be in a minority if I did suggest moving Lee Oswald to his preferred common name, and would not bother actually suggesting it for that reason. But in this case, does Jared Loughner use his middle name in ordinary day to day life? Looking at his online presence the answer is clearly that he does not. It would be wrong to deprive someone of the ability to choose their own name merely because of notoriety. Many people call an Taoiseach by the insulting nickname Biffo but we certainly wouldn't move his article there, would we? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The commoness of "Jared Loughner" not all there is to the story. Yes, according to Google Trends there are more raw uses of of "Jared Loughner" compared to "Jared Lee Loughner", but if one looks at a few news articles, they generally give his full name once early in the article, then just "Loughner" or "Jared Loughner" afterwards. Google counts them all. Abductive (reasoning) 20:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Also, I want to emphasize Neutron's observation that the mere fact that this BLP is using all 3 names is exagerating and perpetuating the usage of all 3 names by having a ripple effect amoung all the sites that copy or mirror WP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Make the main article the name he was referred to by friends and relations and redirect any popular or media names to the base, as someone else suggested above. Why do we have to make this complex and stupid? 24.13.209.23 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Part of the purpose of the BLP policy is to ensure we avoid slander, either intentionally or unintentionally. When we use all three names of a person, we restrict the number of people who might confuse the subject of the article with another subject. Especially in a case like this article, we need to remember that other Jared Loughners in the world might be fine, well-balanced people who didn't go on a shooting rampage. This is the reason that newspapers often use the most distinct name they can, and it is why people like Jesse Ventura consider it a 'conspiracy'. That is because it IS. News outlets 'conspire' on having a journalistic standard or 'style guide'. -- Avanu (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - for the same reasons as Avanu (aside from quoting Jesse Ventura). There must be quite a few other Jared Loughners out there who would appreciate the use of this particular one's middle name.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

closed

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

He was reading Men=in Kempf to upset his mother but he was also reading the Communist manifesto. Also http://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/jared-loughners-mother-and-giffords-attended-same-synagogue-or-did-they/ But then Again Israel are god's people and the apple in gods eye, so clearly saying anything about JEws is just antisemitic --AntiMarxist (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The article says nothing about Loughner being Jewish, as far as I can see. Nor can I see any reason to say he was, even if it were true. AndyTheGrump (talk)
And it would take a highly imaginative (or something) mind to see that article as a reliable source. PhGustaf (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The link is to a blog post that says at the top that the contents "may or may not be true." That is not a reliable source. It doesn't even claim to be reliable. Neutron (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it makes a change from the "He's an atheist! Put it in the infobox, add it to the categories, burn him at the stake!" nonsense we've been getting. Actually, a bloke I know down the pub told me his sister-in-law knew someone who knew for a fact that Loughner is a Freemason... AndyTheGrump (talk)
He's not Jewish. There's a bit of info on his family history here and here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Note. User:AntiMarxist has been blocked for trolling, and for a username that violates policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I motion to collapse this talk page section. NickCT (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Placement of Image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This issue seems to have settled down with the image being placed in the arrest section. Consensus wasn't entirely clear because people addressed different issues:

  • Remove: 2
  • Neutral: 1
  • Wait for deletion discussion to close: 1
  • Use in infobox: 3
  • Remove, but if kept, don't use in infobox: 3
  • Keep with no preference as to placement: 1
  • Keep and use in arrest section: 2

But overall slightly more people seemed to want it elsewhere than in the infobox. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


This RFC relates to the placement of the Mugshot photo (File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg) in the article. The photograph was nominated for deletion a few days ago on the basis that our non-free content criteria says that non-free images should not be used to visually identify the subject of a BLP because it is almost always assumed another image can be gotten. The counter argument has been that as Loughner is currently in custody it might be difficult or impossible to take a freely licensed photograph of him.

Mid way through the deletion discussion critical commentary about the photograph and it's reception in the media. The FUR for the image was updated to include this as rationale for image placement. Today the image was moved from the infobox down to the critical commentary in the article on the rationale that the deletion discussion did not support the first section of the FUR (to visually identify the subject). This action has been subject to a mini-edit war with the counter argument being that there is currently no established consensus over the FUR.

The placement of the image is under dispute, the following questions need to be answered:

  • Is there a valid non-free use which allows us to use the image within the infobox
  • Are there any other concerns which preclude using the image in the infobox
  • If there is such a FUR, where is the best place to have the image (in the infobox or with the critical commentary)

As the article is protected hopefully we can come to a consensus before it is opened up Errant (chat!) 21:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already expressed my general concerns over the use of police mugshots, as indeed does Wikipedia BLP policy - see WP:MUG. Regardless of copyright issues, the photo is of an individual as yet unconvicted, and very possibly mentally disturbed, taken under stressful conditions. The sections of the media have chosen to 'psychoanalyse' the image, I see no reason why we should encourage the practice. On that basis, I say it shold go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Frankly, I think this image should go as a violation of WP:MUG, but the policy in dispute here seems to be WP:NFCC. I'm not an really an expert regarding WP:NFCC or FUR, but after reviewing briefly, I cannot seem to find anything that seems to explicitly forbids the use of the image. On another note, I think WP:NFCC is a bad justification for moving/delete b/c I find it hard to believe that the good people at the Pima County Sheriff’s Forensic Unit would care that this picture was posted on WP or pursue WP for that matter. Aren't mug shots typically considered public domain? Finally, I think we can all agree that this image will go as soon as a free image becomes available. NickCT (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I want to add my thanks to SlimV for jumping in to mediate. NickCT (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait for the deletion discussion to be closed reguarding the image. Once that discussion is closed there will be more of a clear consensus on what to do (Hey if the image is deleted then there will be no reason for a move). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a fair use case for the infobox: the mugshot is the most recent image of the subject and no other free photo can be taken of him as he is in prison (where he must realistically be expected to remain for the foreseeable future). It is therefore necessary to illustrate the subject, and the conventional place to do so is in the infobox. WP:MUG only says that mugshots "should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light", but the mugshot is very much in context for Loughner, as he is only known for his alleged crime; and the mugshot does not disparage him any more than his own (reliably sourced) actions already do. I have added the critical commentary about the image only as an additional reason to retain the image for those who (wrongly, in my opinion) believe that it should otherwise be deleted. In my opinion, the image should be retained for identification and illustration purposes independent from the commentary.  Sandstein  22:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually sorta like that reasoning. He is known for being an evil mass murderer, so an image that makes him look like an evil mass murderer isn't putting him in a "false and disparaging" light. Hmmmmm.... Seems like it might be a WP:NPOV question though. NickCT (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose featuring this image at all before Loughner is convicted of any crime. Separately, I oppose using it for primary identification if it is retained. Also, for clarity, I have supported deletion of the image in the related deletion discussion. The issue here is very clear: the image makes Loughner look like a crazy criminal, and per WP:BLP (and WP:MUG specifically), we shouldn't use such an image for primary identification - and we shouldn't use it at all if it amounts to portraying Loughner as a criminal before he's been convicted. The NFCC issue is quite secondary; it is in fact likely that Loughner will be convicted (though expectations don't override BLP), and if that happens it will be effectively impossible to obtain a free image. That has not happened yet, however, so the image does not belong here. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
This comment should belong at the deletion discussion and not here, what the edit war was about was where the image should be placed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it was. My opinion is that the image should be placed nowhere, but in case we can't manage to do that, the image should at least not be used for primary identification in the infobox. That is a valid opinion here. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose use of copyright image of living person. The commentary that theoretically lets us use this copyright picture, even from the normally reliable Washtington post is someone claiming that from a photograph a living person is "possible derangement". That just cannot stand in our article, that is bad bad bad bad practice. If for some reason mob mentality overrules BLP and allows such commentary to stay because it is "reliabley sourced", oppose use in info box because the use of a mugshot as primary identification of a living person who has not been convicted of any crime is still overwhelmingly problematic. Active Banana (bananaphone 00:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • comment - I have said already, I support fair use for portrayal of importance in the section related to the arrest. I don't see a fair use required situation for non free use to represent him as a living person in the infobox when we can get a commons compatible picture. This issue of a non free mugshot use for portrayal in the infobox is compounded by the situation that the article is a WP:BLP and that the subject has not yet been convicted. Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I don not think we have legitimate reason to claim no free image of this person can be found - our policy actually stresses we should assume a free image is possible for all BLP's. As there is no absolute requirement for an image to be take near to or after the shootings I don't feel that is a good argument for keeping the pic in the infobox. Even then; why is the mugshot particularly of note? It is separate from the incident for which he is notable and taken under an abnormal situation. --Errant (chat!) 15:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • note - we really need to move it out of the infobox - its non free and can not be used to represent the person and has no right in being in there, keeping it there is against policy and detrimental to encouraging anyone to provide something that is commons compatible - will a commons comparable one turn up - you can not answer no to that question so it should not be in the infobox at all - I strongly support User:ErrantX's edit that moved the pic to the section about the arrest. There is a strong fair use claim to use the pic for that reason and that reason alone in the section about the arrest. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. You say that having it in the info box is against policy. Can you please quote and link the policy in which are referring too, because the the only guideline, that I can tell, used to keep it from the infobox has been WP:NFCC, and I can't seem to find that language in that guideline. Perhaps you are thinking of a different policy or guideline.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the picture now there is an additional fair use rational that is correct at the bottom of the other one. We are clear that the pic is not free. Also clear that it is undeniable that a commons comparable licensed pic of him could become available just that we have not got one - so - there is absolutely no excuse within fair use to use this pic to represent him in an overall manner in the infobox - the fair use is specifically in relation to his arrest and as such can only be used in the section about the arrest. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
So is that your opinion, or is there a guideline or policy?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
That is pretty indisputable standard fair use guidelines and copyright policy. I realize this is an emotive issue and users want to use the picture in whatever way they desire but wikipedia should be better than that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to stir up any emotional issues, I'm just trying to determine if there is a clear cut policy that says that non-free images cannot be used in the info box. I haven't seen one yet, so when you mentioned that the current use of the image violated policy, I naturally assumed that you were referring to a specific one. I just wanted to know if there really was one. If there is a policy that forbids the use in info boxes, then I would be 100% on board with its removal. As yet, I have not seen this policy, only interpretation of WP:NFCC, which doesn't appear to forbid use in info boxes.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It completely accepted that we basically don't do that, unless there is a good excuse - there is not one here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Rob, Jojhutton's question and your answer leaves me with the view that your position is more of an opinion than policy, since you apparently can not reference a specific policy wording. I too have many opinions, but it's very awkward for constructive discussion when opinions are stated as if they are carved in stone and universally accepted Wikipedia policy. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
If the image is against policy and non free then Why should it be included in the article at all? what is the diffrence on where it is placed? Also on a side note User talk:Jimbo Wales#Loughner question Jim Wales gave his opinion on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
We have imo a decent fair use claim to use it to represent the arrest, in the arrest section only, there is a degree of support for that claim also as I have assessed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Despite a debate over the status of this image that would probably qualify for an entry in The Guinness Book of Records, the move for deletion closed with "no consensus". It did not recommend deleting the image, or say that it could not be used in an article. The FUR seems OK here, let's not make the debate longer still by visiting it all again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • note - Loose interpretation of the fair use policy, goes against the mission of the foundation in regard to non free usage - to - "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license," foundation licencing policy and is the resolution on which our non free use policy rests. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I support the inclusion of this image, here, and in 2011 Tucson shooting per the FU rationales on-offer. If a free image becomes available, we should reconsider the choice of image then. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    Clarification; I support the use of this image in the infobox until such time as a suitable non-free image becomes available. Jack Merridew 21:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Attention-- The edit warring over the pic needs to stop and I have begun a section at WP:ANI to help out. Please lets not get users blocked over this.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been no substantial edit warring, only some disagreement. This does not really need teh dramah at ANI, it needs some proper discussion here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
So far there has been alot of debate over this image there is an ongoing one on it's fair use Wikipedia:Non-free content review as pointed out above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the deletion debate solved nothing. I can only restate the position that the mugshot image is OK for the Arrest section, but not as a general illustration of what Loughner looks like. However, I fear that forum shopping by opponents of the image on NFCC grounds will continue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What is the guideline that supports your claim please?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Jeez, it has been linked numerous time. Please before anyone else continues to comment go read our various policy pages on the use of non-free media. Read it three times and then double check. For reference the policy point of relevance to the use in the infobox is this: WP:NFC#UUI Under "Unnaceptable uses" - Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images. (emphasis mine). A free picture is possible to obtain, so there is no legit FUR for infobox use. --Errant (chat!) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
...Almost always considered possible....? Well it looks like this is the exception to to that rule. Thus the Almost.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
No, that's a get out for situations where uptight editors will argue this policy is law when common sense shows no image is possible. Examples might include someone who has lived like a hermit for many years, hates photographs, and so a recent image is likely impossible to get (yes, I know of at least two such cases here on the Wiki). Almost always means "unless you have very good reason to say otherwise". There is ample opportunity to obtain a recent free image of this man. --Errant (chat!) 20:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
If you got one great, lets be done with this, but until one is actually located and uplaoded, this pic is all we got and acceptable under fair use.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
As I have explained numerous times; that is not our policy. --Errant (chat!) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Errant for the specific wording. I think though you may be underestimating the difficulty of obtaining a new free image and also overestimating the prohibitions for using the mug shot until something else comes along. You might be crystal balling a bit with your optimism about future replacement. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep the mugshot not sure on the placement. I don't know if it should be in the infobox, but the mugshot has been widely discussed in the press exactly because it is so very creepy, so I think a solid WP:FUR exists for its use. I saw a shrink on CNN hypothesizing that the grin is an indicator of schizophrenia, as inappropriate emotional responses are often a sign of the disease. Even Ted Bundy didn't grin when he got caught. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think any such content is acceptable, those are not reliable sources for psych-analysis. And we avoid reporting unreliable and insubstantial speculation on BLPs. It is acceptable to mention that there has been coverage, we have sources for that --Errant (chat!) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree per Duck test. If he had a kkk tattoo on his neck and an FBI agent on tv said that was indicative of him being a racist, I think we could include that. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Use in the arrest section and unlock. As Beeblebrox says the issue is where shall we use this image that isn't free? It clearly could be technically replaceable now or at some point in the future, although we haven't got one. I imagine if you open a RFC/straw poll there will probably again be no consensus, at least if the assessor ignores the, use, no ones gonna sue, or use, everyone else is .. type comments, so as in BLP articles we are encouraged to err on the side of caution and its doubtful a policy based consensus support to include in the infobox then why not err with caution and leave the pic in the article in the section related to the arrest where it currently is and unlock the article, I don't see a weight of support for policy driven inclusion in the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Place in arrest section. This image only passes WP:NFCC as context for commentary about the picture itself. As has been argued by Jimbo the infobox should be kept without an image to encourage people to try to find a free image.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait for the deletion discussion to close and keep it in the info box in the meantime. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep in the info box; the BLP is a lot more reflective of Reliable Sources that way (Most RSs chose to give prominent placement near their ledes). This whole effort to relocate it is OR and Anal retentive, as many Editors remarked in more aggressive terminology at the deletion discussion. It seems and looks too manipulated with it further down the article. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • note - This keep comment from MrGrantevens2 is without explanation in policy, his whole comment is nothing to do with policy or guidelines at all. Anal retentiveness is perhaps his own issue but it is not a fair use rationale, I suggest this keep comment is ignored completely as without basis in policy or guidelines but a simple personal opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the fundamental bedrock of all Wikipedia policies and guidelines is to accurately reflect the content of Reliable Sources. That's what sets it apart from the pov pushing rags. Next most important thing is operating by consensus. Those are the main problems with removing or marginalizing the photo on the basis of a minority opinion that there might be some problem. There was a deletion discussion wherein many Editors voiced the opinion that the photo is simply not a problem, yet Off2riorob's last 3 edits on this article have been to move the image without any consensus whatsoever to be doing it. That brings up the NPOV policy. So, I think most Editors can see the policies that are in play with respect to my comment without me specifying them, but for Rob's benefit they are: Reliable Sources, OR , NPOV, and editing by consensus (not sure which policies that relates to). Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove - while the subject is still alive then any NFC is possibly replaceable. As there is no time limit for completing this article, wait until a free image is available or until the subject is deceased, when a non-free image could be justified. In the mean time, this mug shot is already available to readers via the references and external links. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment As a point of reference, history shows that a free image is not likely to become available. John Hinckley, Jr.'s BLP, even after 30 years, does not have one. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Although a good point, I'm still not convinced it is even relevant in this case. This photo has become a cultural icon in the two short weeks since it was taken. It has become a story unto itself because it so unsettled so many people to see what appears to be a smiling lunatic whith a shaved head who killed a bunch of people. Before this was released there was a lot of conjecture about Laughner's motivations. For many people (myself included) just seeing this image was enough to convince them that he is a crazy person. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

note - open for 24 days, no comments for the last 17 days, I left a note at WP:AN , requesting closure some time tomorrow if there are no objections here. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Closing?

This has been open (and inactive) for some time. The image seems to be in a state of status quo; which is reflected in what seems to be the consensus here (for the image to be placed in the arrest section but not the infobox). No one uninvolved seems to be around to close this off with such a conclusion; but it seems non-controversial at this point. Does anyone have an issue with me closing this? If no one disputes doing so I will close it some time next week (unless an uninvolved admin can be located) --Errant (chat!) 17:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Close the discussion, another admin suggested that this be kept open for "non involved editors" to weigh in, this has you stated has not been the case and I see no problems in the way things are now, the discussion can always be nenewed as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think discussion is finished, and also that consensus is clear above. I'd say go ahead and close it, and we'll see if anyone objects. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: At this point there remains no clear consensus nor valid policy violation (i.e. WP:BLP) reason to move the article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Jared Lee Loughner → Jared Loughner — Please move the BLP to Jared Loughner for 5 reasons;

  • A non-responsive [7]SPA[8] decided way back when to use all 3 names, which is unusual for our BLPs; it makes no sense to perpetuate that unilateral decision into infinity unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
  • Google's "exact phrase" search shows "Jared Loughner" has about 4 million results and "Jared Lee Loughner" about 3 million.
  • Consistency in title style:Timothy McVeigh and Charles Manson do not include middle names.
  • By having it 3 names it reinforces one of Governor Ventura's conspiracy theories([9]at the 9:30 mark), which I prefer we avoid,even by happenstance, if we reasonably can.
  • I see no reason to give this Subject special treatment in Wikipedia(by middle name inclusion in the Title).
    • Note: there is a RFC discussion at the top of this page (regarding the move) which has gone dormant.--Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
A response to each of your five points: (redacted - I shouldn't have said what I did, and I apologise) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
(redacted). Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
(redacted) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
If it is so irrelevant what it is called because of redirects, why do you care so much which one it is that you are stooping to call people trolls over it? Active Banana (bananaphone 01:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I still support the move per WP:COMMONNAME - I have not heard any audio source use the three version name and the google news hits now come back at JLL 6,233 to JL 10,155. Overwhelmingly the reliable sources are using simply "Jared Loughner" and we follow the sources.Active Banana (bananaphone 19:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
There has been plenty of media coverage with the full name of Jared Lee Loughner. Regardless of the rights and wrongs involved, redirects are better than move/rename debates at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
No one has said that "Jared Lee Loughner" has not been used. However, our naming policy is clear that we use the name that is most commonly used by reliable sources, which is according to evidence available "Jared Loughner". Active Banana (bananaphone 20:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, as there's no other Jared Loughner of note. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, it makes sense in terms of the most common name and following the style put forth in other article. SilverserenC 01:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, see the unclosed move discusion above for many more opinions. I request that this move request be closed as improper. Abductive (reasoning) 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I will copy/paste my comment from the discussion above: There are no mass articles on wikipedia with the name Jared Loughner. John Wilkes Booth is an example of middle name but the name John Booth has a few articles on wikipedia to compare. Also goes along with WP:COMMONNAME as pointed out. Jared Lee Loughner I feel would do fine as a redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no compelling reason to move the article. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

*support - common name. Off2riorob (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - Don't see any significant reason not to follow WP:COMMONNAME here. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I think either form of his name is acceptable, and the use of "Jared Lee Loughner" as the article title ultimately traces back to the subject's own use of that form in his YouTube videos. However, general media do seem to have moved toward using just "Jared Loughner", there's no other Jared Loughner to confuse this article's subject with, and we have a general stylistic preference for just first name + last name in biographical articles. A move would be acceptable; I just don't see it as a pressing issue. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure if I should post here or in the above section, but I support the move because most media sources don't include his middle name. Capt. Colonel (edits) 16:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose (REPEATING AGAIN FROM SECTION ABOVE) Part of the purpose of the BLP policy is to ensure we avoid slander, either intentionally or unintentionally. When we use all three names of a person, we restrict the number of people who might confuse the subject of the article with another subject. Especially in a case like this article, we need to remember that other Jared Loughners in the world might be fine, well-balanced people who didn't go on a shooting rampage. This is the reason that newspapers often use the most distinct name they can, and it is why people like Jesse Ventura consider it a 'conspiracy'. That is because it IS. News outlets 'conspire' on having a journalistic standard or 'style guide'. Just because not all news outlets say all three names, doesn't mean that has to be Wikipedia's standard. Just leave it be, and add a redirect, simple, and done. -- Avanu (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment. Given my somewhat over-hasty initial reaction to the move request, I thought it best to leave this debate to others, but having seen Avanu's post, I have to agree with him, and also oppose the move: not because the longer name is better, or because it was what we started with, but simply because it is less ambiguous. It makes little practical difference to those seeking the article what we call it (because of redirects), and we may as well be as specific as we can be, just to avoid distress to the innocent. (A COI declaration here: I share a surname with a fairly notorious murderer, and though the occasional joke doesn't bother me, it can get irritating if repeated incessantly...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Comment Although I respect the 2 opinions concerning possible Readers' confusion, I don't think that particular reasoning stands up on closer inspection. We have Timothy McVeigh minus his middle name,James, and Charles Manson, minus his middle name, Milles. Both names are more common than Jared Loughner and if there has not been sufficient confusion to justify moving those BLPs, there is no reason to crystal ball that there will be much confusion regarding Jared Loughner, in my opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move. [switched to "oppose," as explained below] Our standard practice is to reflect common usage whenever feasible, not to impose our own determinations of what people and things ought to be called. We have no policy (BLP-related or otherwise) of including a person's middle name in the article title for the purpose of discouraging associations between notorious persons and hypothetical others with the same first and last names, nor do I believe that such a policy would be beneficial.
    It's true that the current title isn't bad and that redirects enable readers to find the article, but this is not a valid argument against the move. (If it were, we'd never be able to move an article from a good title to a better title.) —David Levy 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No particular reason in favour of the move. I also have not seen any clear-cut evidence in favor of the shorter one being more common (around 3 to 4, with many of the hits using both versions), and would like to avoid stress or injury to those who share his first and last names. I think the choice of whether or not to include his middle name was done by media, as in the cases if Lee Harvey Oswald (usually with the middle name) and Charles Manson (I didn't even know he had a middle name until Grant mentioned it above). As a sidenote, it is interesting to realize just how much Wikipedia is accidentally developing a prescriptive role. How we deal with that may be determined by conversations such as this one.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no other with that name here, hence no need for using middle name. The next one can use their middle name in their title. Besides, the public knows him as Jared Loughner. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support based on previous comments.Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous comments. Not overwhelmingly known as Jared Loughner, better known as Jared Lee Loughner from the beginning, supported by more than enough reliable sources. --John KB (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    To clarify, are you arguing that we shouldn't rename an article unless the new title is "overwhelmingly" predominant (i.e. if we'd happened to use the title Jared Loughner from the beginning, that would be fine, but moving the article from a reasonable name to a more common one isn't justified unless the difference is "overwhelming")? —David Levy 12:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    Comment (and still Oppose) To me the issue isn't what he is overwhelmingly known as. That is simply a matter of opinion or speculation, unless we actually went out and asked everyone, or unless it is really someone who is a household name. Jared is a household name. He is a guy who sells sandwiches. Jared Loughner isn't. The reason I support the convention of full name is that it is clear and unambiguous. Especially when you are dealing with someone whose fame is based on negative actions, it protects Wikipedia better to be as clear as possible. Maybe some of the editors here don't mind if the other innocent Jared Loughner's of the world get associated with this one, but what is the harm in being more careful? Not a whit. But you actually might save someone from being hassled or experiencing other negative reactions by being cautious. -- Avanu (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    That rationale relies upon the assumption that Wikipedia is in a position to influence society to the extent that the name most commonly associated with a person is replaced by one of our choosing. Conversely, the available evidence shows that despite our consistent use of "Jared Lee Loughner" as the article's title, "Jared Loughner" has come to predominate. So no matter what title we use, the theoretical protection of other Jared Loughners (assuming that such confusion is even plausible, and that it's our responsibility to actively counter it) will not occur.
    If you disagree, feel free to propose that Wikipedia change its naming conventions accordingly. Until such time, your position reflects no policy or guideline. —David Levy 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    You're absolutely right that it doesn't reflect a specific policy on Wikipedia, but what we're been suggesting does honor the intent of the BLP policies.

    "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy .... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
    – Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

    In the defense you just gave you mentioned Loughner and Laughner. This might have been just an error, but it also demonstrates how people can mix things up and having greater clarity only helps us to have a better Wikipedia. On the issue of whether it is our responsibility to remedy people's confusion, I would say that if we are willing to put information out there for the public to view, and it takes almost no additional effort prevent confusion, then why not do it? -- Avanu (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    Your rationale is unrelated to the BLP policy, which pertains to articles' living subjects, not to hypothetical others with the same or similar names. This, of course, has no bearing on whether it's good or bad idea, but WP:BLP simply isn't pertinent.
    Having said that, just as WP:BLP isn't a license to write irresponsibly about deceased subjects, I'm certainly not implying that we shouldn't consider the possibility of harm to living persons other than those on whom our biographies are written. I'm saying that I see no evidence that the suggested measure would accomplish anything substantive. As noted above, despite our consistent use of "Jared Lee Loughner" as the article's title, "Jared Loughner" has come to predominate. So if other Jared Loughners are experiencing difficulties due to their names, our inclusion of "Lee" in the title won't prevent that from occurring.
    Furthermore, I seriously doubt that actual confusion (i.e. people mistaking other Jared Loughners for the shooting suspect) is common. Problematic associations most likely stem from intentional teasing (a scenario in which someone could simply omit "Lee" for the joke's sake, even if it were used throughout mainstream media).
    But as I said, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that Wikipedia adopt a naming convention that you believe would be beneficial. This is something that should be formally proposed, not artificially applied by opposing a move request made in accordance with current policy.
    Incidentally, thanks for pointing out my typo (which I've corrected). However, please note that Jared Laughner redirects to the article (just as Jared Loughner does). I didn't even notice the discrepancy, just as someone typing Jared Loughner and arriving at Jared Lee Loughner probably won't experience any sort of revelation. —David Levy 20:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: Unless I'm somehow erring, a Google search for the quoted expression "jared lee loughner" now yields about 6,770,000 results, with the quoted expression "jared loughner" yielding about 2,590,000 results. I don't know whether a shift has occurred or the previously quoted results were erroneous, but I've withdrawn my support and now oppose the requested move. Obviously, if someone can explain how I've misinterpreted the data, I'll again reconsider my position. —David Levy 00:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    The google search must have gone bonkers; now, a few hours later, it shows 15,400,000. Hopefully it will self correct soon or else I'll have to be giving Ventura's theory another look :)(government controlling google?lol). Avanu, do you intend to move the Charles Manson and Timothy McVeigh BLPS to include their middle names as well? If not, why not? Your logic would apply more with them, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Those articles don't relate to the points I have been making. First of all, I'm not asking for any article to be moved. I'm making a case for the status quo on one article. Second, those articles are using what have become established names. I do feel that the same points I am making here *could* be applied to those as well, but I'm not terribly concerned about them, I'm only suggesting a rationale. I do think that David's suggestion of taking the full name rationale to the BLP policy group and asking for them to review it for inclusion is a great suggestion, and I was planning on asking for his advice on how to do that. I would think it makes sense with regard to people who carry a generally negative or infamous reputation. -- Avanu (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Again, this idea — whether good or bad — is unrelated to the BLP policy (apart from possibly contradicting its principles by deeming certain persons' reputations "generally negative or infamous" and arbitrarily applying special naming conventions as a result).
    If you wish to initiate a formal proposal, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). —David Levy 06:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    I'm still seeing "about 6,770,000 results" on my end. I don't know what the heck is going on. —David Levy 03:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Me neither, this search [10] right now is showing 15.4 million. btw, no offense meant to Avanu, but I did just notice this block info on his talk page where his re-emergence after 5 years and his edits regarding this shooting incident were seens as being suspicious. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Wow, really uncalled for comment there, Mr.grantevans2. As you can see from the dialog on my Talk page, the admins reviewed it and overturned that block. I demonstrated very clearly that all my edits have been and continue to be in good faith, and considering that we have been having a very good dialog here on this subject with few personal attacks, I really don't see the need to begin now. Please stay on topic if you feel the need to post things. The kind of thing you seem to be engaging in is simply unprofessional. -- Avanu (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    @Avanu, An Administrator mentioned on your talk page [11] that "your account was reactivated around the time of the Tucson shootings, after a gap of almost five years" and that you "then used(the reactivation) to bypass semi-protection at one of those articles and engage in a revert war". I think that is worth taking into consideration when evaluating your opinions within this dialogue and maybe 1 or 2 other Editors might want to know about it as well. What they do with the information, if anything is up to them. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Mr.grantevans2: It is inappropriate to mention here because it is the assertion/assumption of 1 admin based on a complaint. Another admin reviewed it with a cool head and found that I was fine. To bring it up here, without context, is simply rumor spreading, and as I said, it is neither appropriate nor on-topic. -- Avanu (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    Now the google search is showing 13,200,000, a 100% increase from last night. Its obviously flawed. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    We base the article on the usage of "reliable sources" not the random web in general so news.google.com hits are a better source. And that gives roughly 1500 for the full JLL and 2200 for JL. Active Banana (bananaphone 17:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This debate has now been running for over a week with no strong consensus one way or the other. Probably best to leave the article as it is for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    I agree there is no "strong" consensus, but there is definitely a majority supporting the move and the Supporters have expressed, I think,a wider variety of thoughtful reasons for the move includingWP:COMMONNAME, currently 2,130 to 1,185 in favour of Jared Loughner; and without the Wikipedia effect, the margin would undoubtedly be greater. Mostly the Opposed focus upon, as another Editor well said the "theoretical protection of other Jared Loughners (assuming that such confusion is even plausible". That argument, to protect other Jared Loghners, seems shallow to the point of absurdity when facing reality. There are no other Jared Loughners on Wikipedia and I can't even find any others on Google. To leave the title as is just because there is no strong consensus to move it would be to give "status quo" a deciding vote. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Google hits are meaningless. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Since we started this discussion, I have been trying to find material online that would demonstrate the point I have been making about being prudent and cautious with naming infamous subjects. I have a degree in Communication/Journalism, and we were taught to be cautious to avoid accidental libel. Unfortunately, I don't know where the textbook is anymore :) Below, I'll add the quote I found, and yes, I know this is a journalistic guideline, not an encyclopedic guideline, but I feel that the principle is probably applicable to either.

Whenever possible, give the person's full name, age and complete address. Such information should pinpoint a specific person. The danger with incomplete information is that several people in your circulation area could have the same name. If the information is incomplete, readers could conclude that the wrong person is accused of the crime, causing that person unnecessary embarrassment. Avoid this unfortunate situation by insisting on complete information.

— Stan Ketterer, PhD, Crime Stories (Web-based guide)
-- Avanu (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I also have a communication degree. (My area of concentration was radio/television/film, but I studied journalism as well.)
The principle that you cite above is quite valid, but it isn't applicable to our article's title (which has no bearing on the information contained in the article's body). We aren't going to list Loughner's address, but we can identify him as "Jared Lee Loughner" irrespective of whether "Lee" appears in the article's title. —David Levy 06:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That standard is all well and good for use by OK state students and graduates, but every publication has its own standards and Wikipedia's standards for the name of the article are not those. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, like I said, not a perfect fit, but hopefully its helpful to the conversation. Incidentally, I'm not too torn if the article was named either way. -- Avanu (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: No skin off my back either way, but down in the dirty south we have a bit of a tradition of calling people by their first and middle name together as their common name. For instance: Bob Roy, Kenny Wayne, Davey Lee, Jamie Earl, etc. are just a few I've met in my day. I'd be curious how this person is most often addressed in the familiar. (Also, really just add a redirect and be done with it IMO). David Able 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Avanu. It is a long standing tradition to refer to murderers with precise names since there are in most cases many other people in the world with the same last and first name. —Soap— 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not seeing a WP:COMMONNAME#Exception for killers within Wikipedia policy. And Loughner is as of this point, still an alleged murderer and so it wouldnt apply here anyway. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that example of vacuous Wikilawyering. It should be self-evident to anyone not more obsessed with 'winning' an argument than using logic that being mistaken for an alleged murderer still has negative connotations. If there were to be such a policy, it would clearly have to cover the pre-trial situation too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
In your theoretical claim about "protecting the potential innocents with the same name" - what about the theoretical Jared Lee Loughner (abstract painter). If we are going to be protecting the innocents, we then need to rename this Jared Lee Loughner (alleged Tuscon shooter). Active Banana (bananaphone 20:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose & Close - It is the guy's full name, it is used somewhat less often than the 2-name version according to google news hits but not enough of a difference to matter. just leave it at that. Suppose the article really were moved to the two-name version, so what? The lead of the article will still contain the "Jared Lee..." line, and this would also be retained as a redirect. This has been weeks of pissing and piddling over nothing. Wrap it up and get to work on editing concerns of actual substance. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree, there isn't a clear consensus to move anything. I also struck my support comment and have moved to neutral on the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Move To Tarc. I think this is an interestingly profound decision; profound in the sense of how a nonresponsive SPA can determine the title of a reasonably important BLP contrary to typical policy and then inertia takes over to cement that SPA's wishes in place. It exemplifies by analogy to me how a turd like Mubarak could stay in power for 30 years. This rename suggestion was first made by another Editor exactly 1 month ago and right from then it has been met with vehement objections from Editors who seem to feel its not an issue worthy of their time. So why in the hell do those guys even get involved at all in the discussion? Nobody is keeping anybody from getting to work on editing conmcerns of actual substance. We have spent 10 times as much talk on where a fucking photo is going to go, so, Tarc, get off your fuckin high horse. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    The SPA angle is a bit of a red herring and has little to do with the discussion at hand. So, if you could, focus on just the Jared vs. Jared Lee topic specifically? Thanks. Again, far too much time has been wasted discussing something that no matter which is the actual name, will lead readers to the same article anyways. Time to wrap it up and move on. Tarc (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
@ Mr.grantevans2: firstly, you've already !voted when you began this discussion, you don't get to !vote twice. And secondly, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mr.grantevans2 regarding your use of language above. That really wasn't called for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fair use status of Pima County photo

I am aware of the spirited discussion regarding the first mugshot released by the Pima County Sheriff. However, a new federal mugshot (free) has been released by the U.S. Marshals Service. I think this undermines any fair use argument for the other image, unless it is being specifically used to illustrate the media reaction to the release of the previous image. KimChee (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it does. The photo needs to die a drama free death --Guerillero | My Talk 02:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with the above, and in fact I was already going to tag the Pima County mugshot for deletion. I'll wait to see if there's any objection here first, though, but the non-free image is replaceable by the new copyright-free one at this point. Note that the Pima County mugshot is currently still used in the Jared Lee Loughner article. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with removing it then CSDing the photo--Guerillero | My Talk 03:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • New pic is much better, blow the other one away. Tarc (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Given responses here, I've removed the image and tagged it for F5 deletion. Anyone who disagrees with this has seven days to object, and then the file will be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

After all the time we spent arguing over the Pima image (probably the longest WP:NFCC debate ever) this image turns up. A lesson here, as Wikipedia articles always change over time. Anyway, now we are all happy as there is a copyright free image of Loughner.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a free mugshot. But the previous one is used (by now) exclusively as a basis for the media reaction to the image as discussed in the article. The new image is not the one that was published on front pages nationwide and therefore does not substitute for the old one in this respect. I've therefore reverted its removal. However, for this purpose, we might also use an image of one of the newspaper front pages that used the image instead.  Sandstein  10:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As I pointed out on my talk page, the mugshot image with Loughner's wild stare is a memorable part of the case coverage in the media. However, with the new image it is now harder to justify it per WP:NFCC. The article should mention the "staring eyes" image and link to it, but it would be difficult to have two mugshots if one was non-free.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sandstein; that is a much better approach. Current usage is uncomfortable. --Errant (chat!) 11:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Merely linking to the photo is not satisfactory because links may die and readers may want to read the article offline, such as on a printout. As long as an image has a valid fair use rationale, as this one does - it is the subject of sourcend commentary - it should be retained even if this means we now have two creepy mugshots instead of one. But as I said, the article might be better served by replacing the unfree mugshot itself with an image of the NYT cover displaying the unfree mugshot.  Sandstein  18:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - This photo is an obvious booking photo per this story and is usable under Fair Use.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Re "needs to die a drama free death" - Fat chance. When has anything on WP been drama free? @Sandstein - I was with you on the debate about the first image Sand, but given that this new image has come out, it seems to make the old one redundant. We don't need two mug shots. I support removing the old non-free one if for nothing else than to avoid any further lame non-free content debates. NickCT (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
How does proposing to delete the image save us from debate? To me trying to remove an image which has been so much fight to keep is bound to be contentious. Also, I don't see how the fair use rationale has changed for the first image. It's fair use rationale is to provide context for the discussion of exactly that picture in the press. The new picture can not do that. The only reason I could see for removing the first image would be if the fair use rationale for the first image wasn't genuine, but a bogus rationale which was made up to get around WP:NFCC (#1).TheFreeloader (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Re "so much fight to keep is bound to be contentious" - I'm personally hoping that the people previously supporting keep will recognize that there is a better, freer image, making the debate irrelevant. NickCT (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
At this point, I think the county mugshot itself is not as relevant as the media reaction. I suggest replacing it with one of the newspaper covers from this article if the non-free fair use argument is still going to be pursued for this aspect of the media coverage. KimChee (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I support that, perhaps a zoomed in portion of #2? NYT's is nice and reliable and the image there lacks the dramatic text and potential BLP concerns of some of the others whilst being observable in context (unlike yet others in that set, which are minimal at best). I'd be happy to do the work tomorrow if no one disagrees :) --Errant (chat!) 00:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner/Archive_2&oldid=1136836910"