Talk:Westroads Mall shooting/Archive 1

message: There is no relevance of the high school he attended, and does not belong in this article, and is better suited in the his own article rather than this one.  On that note, the fact that he dropped out and received a GED also does not seem relevant to this particular article, and would also be better suited on the his own article.
Omaha new station WIZP state that the perp was wearing a t shirt of an upstate New York Grindcore band called "tora Tora"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mundials2007 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that his high school is not relevant.  The fact that he was a dropout with a GED, however, is.  Rklawton (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: High school

message: User:Mikco made an edit saying a NYTimes page was published by Wikipedia.  I assume that was just a mistake (wrong paste?), but I want to explain why I reverted. Superm401 - Talk 02:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is NYTimes 

message: Is Quail Creek a neighbourhood of Bellevue, or a different town? It isn't clear from the article. 78.86.33.152 (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quail Creek is a housing area in Bellevue.  There are only five towns in Sarpy County, Nebraska.  Tuxide (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gunman's Address 

message: I removed the image presented in the article of that of the "perpetrator" until is verified with a link.. this can pose as a hoax. --Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of perpetrator

message: I question the reasoning for having a separate article for the perpetrator that only has the same information as this article. I have no experience editing current events articles; is there a good reason to have a separate article when this event is the only reason for his notability? It could easily be a redirect here. Salamurai (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other article

message: At the initial press conference, Omaha police chief Thomas Warren said Hawkins was 19, but then went on to state that his birthday was May 18, 1987 (making him 20 years old).  However, a recent CNN article states that he was institutionalized on "May 18, 2002, the day after his 14th birthday," which makes his birthday May 17, 1988.  Apparently, the officer had a temporary case of dyslexia. - NGC6254 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there consensus on age?  It still looks too murky to make a claim either way to me. Parsival74 (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newest clue as to age of perpetrator

message: I'm guessing that this section does not need to turn into a list of shootings - such a list already exists and is already cited.  Thoughts?  Rklawton (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: I looked at the source for footnote three, where the police identified the shooter as a "raging homo."  I was not surprised to find no such reference.  Is it possible to remove the "raging homo" comment in the article?  It is fairly inappropriate.
:This was vandalism that was reverted fairly quickly Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Change 

message: Article says weapon used was SKS Rifle but NYTimes says AK-47. Somebody Clarifiy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.60.191 (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN is saying it was an AK-47 with SKS 7.66mm ammo. That article is here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/06/mall.shooting/index.html But I've seen other sources saying it was an SKS. Can anyone else confirm the validity of this statement? I didn't think the SKS or the AK-47 used 7.66mm ammo, but I also know there are a lot of variant models. Is the CNN writer off by .04mm or is that possible? Tonytnnt (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *There's no such thing as 7.66mm ammo. Both the SKS and AK-47 use 7.62x39mm ammo (in original configuration at least). The CNN article has been changed to omit reference of a specific firearm. Possibly because they're not even sure yet. I'd wait before adding the weapon back in. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 9 Google News artiles reference AK-47.  Over 500 articles reference SKS.  Rklawton (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Either way, the weapon used has not been confirmed to be an "assault rifle" as that is a politically charged, and likely inaccurate description. Every news outlet is quick to attach this label which, especially if the weapon turns out to be an SKS, is completely erroneous. There has been no description of automatic fire, and the vast majority of privately owned AK47 weapons are semiautomatic and not equipped with selective fire modes therefore not assualt rifles. This inaccuracy is what leads a lot of gun control/assault weapons ban debates. --Cefoskey (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I don't know if this is happening for anyone else. But there's a giant picture of a penis on top of this article for me. So... yeah.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.6.148.148 (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was happening for me too, confused the heck out of me because I couldn't see where it was coming from in the edits and it even was appearing in old versions of the page, but it's gone now...? -- Atamasama 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's likely that someone had vandalized a template somewhere and replaced it with a giant picture of a dick. My guess is somebody swiftly resolved that problem. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ummm... ? 

message: John Edwards and Hilary Clintons press releases do not strike me as being relevant to the article.  I would expect pretty much every major politician in the US to offer words of condolence over the next few days, so what makes these press releases particularly notable?  If every political figure who comments on this tragedy is going to be mentioned specifically then that section will quickly become unwieldy.  On top of that they are cited directly from their personal political campaign websites, which can be construed as OR or worse. How does their inclusion add depth to the article?  Parsival74 (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here is what I typed as you were typing that: The responses from different candidates are irrelevant and should be excluded. Also, including responses from Edwards and Clinton would mean that in order to maintain NPOV, responses from Obama, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Tancredo, Huckabee, Giulani, Hunter, McCain, Paul, Romney and Thompson would also have to be included. This would be a waste of time so it makes more sense to just exclude the two we have now. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politicians press releases 

message: I could be wrong but this looks like the by-product of a clumsy merge, and it adds nothing to the article, which isn't "about" Mr. Hawkins anyway, it's about his shooting spree. His date of birth can be mentioned in the lead sentence of the "Perpetrator" section. "Occupation: unemployed" is a bit awkward, but maybe that's just because we aren't used to seeing it in an encyclopedia. I mean yes he was unemployed at the time of the shooting, that much can be inferred from the part that says he had just been fired from McDonalds. Is there anything other than (arguably) the photo that isn't wholly redundant and tacky? — CharlotteWebb 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of an infobox is to provide a summary of information from within the body of the article, so it seems to me the redundancy is built in and accepted. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)  I do not believe in this case the infobox is inappropriate or indeed tacky.  Parsival74 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an infobox summarizing the key facts about the subject, which is the shooting itself. We don't need one for the perpetrator. — CharlotteWebb 20:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not?  I think he might be a key player in all this.  Rklawton (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, an infobox is by nature redundant solely on the basis of its information.  "the information in the info box is already stated in the article", you could make that argument for the deletion of virtually every infobox on Wikipedia. Parsival74 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't about the perp.  If it were then I would say that an infobox would be appropriate.  As more additional information becomes known, I'm sure that an article will be spun off about Mr. Hawkins (as was done with the Virginia Tech shooter).  Any infobox in this article should be related to the overall event that the article is describing.  Also, two infoboxes  right above each other makes the entire page look awkward.  But that last part is just my opinion. will381796 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article is in an embryonic form it is of course going to look awkward.  There has been a decision made to redirect from the perpetrators page to this article as he is not notable enough to have a dedicated article (a good decision), therefore this article will be the repository of information on him.  I believe it makes more sense to work along these lines rather than speculating about a possible article spin-off in the future.  Parsival74 (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawkins infobox 

message: This template is really inappropriate for this article. It should be removed. Takenages (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   Stifle (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News Release template 

message: Come on, are we going to place everyone's 911 calls? The information is not encyclopedic. How many of the other massacre and shooting articles have 911 calls? 128.227.1.239 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit it's a bit redundant; I added the transcript and the template because the section was a stub. The Amish school shooting wiki, which contains a lot of unnecessary content, includes it.
LeatherEngine (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  911 calls 

message: In keeping with article titles of other similar shootings in the US I think this needs to be moved to "Westroads Mall Massacre" or "Omaha mall massacre"--CastAStone|(talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's currently a redirect. We'll deal with it down the road, once the article develops with the release of more information. --wpktsfs 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur Concur now to the new name being Westroads Mall massacre; there's more than one mall in Omaha.  Tuxide (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After seeing that this article was moved from Westroads Mall massacre to where it is now by Rdsmith4, I decided to go with his reason for doing so for the time being.  Least until the AFD subsides and more news develops around this incident.  I would still probably call it a massacre considering a 20-year-old suicidal was involved.  Tuxide (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Shooting" implies one person getting shot not necessarily killed but just injured. A shooting can be an accidental event Edkollin (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree now that about a day has passed.  I remember back when Crossroads Mall down the street had tons and tons of shootings.  Thus, "massacre" would probably be a more appropriate title here, but get Rdsmith4's permission first before doing so.  Tuxide (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was driving to work this morning listening to talk radio (WOAI) and during the news break they referred to it as the "Westroads Mall massacre."  If this has become the common term used by the media in describing the incident, then I think this warrants a name change to reflect the common usage of "massacre". will381796 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur.  CNN is now using the word "massacre" too.  Tuxide (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure I moved the page when it was first being called a massacre and then it was reverted, obviously some people dont know as much as they think they do.--Joebengo (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, a bureaucrat switched it back and gave his reason for doing so.  I am marking this discussion as archived since it has been resolved already.  Tuxide (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Article 

message: *What qualifies at "conventional usage?"  I would consider multiple major news agencies referring to this as a "massacre" to qualify.  But perhaps I don't understand the exact definition (if there is one)... will381796 (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename cont 

message: Are you sure 'recently fired' in reference to his job is entirely appropiate? Notb665 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be either "Unemployed" or "McDonalds" not "Recently unemployed from McDonalds" since that isn't a job. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current employment status should be "an hero" because he is dead, thus not employed or unemployed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.165.2 (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...that might be funny on /b/, but not here. It's neither productive or helpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.77.3 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda hilarious when you think about it honestly. Occupation: unemployed ... LOOK MOM I'M ON WIKIPEDIA!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by This is a problem (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  I think his employment status is relevant - especially as the stress over losing a job may have been a stress factor that helped push him over the edge.  As a relevant, sourced, and oft mentioned fact, it should not be removed from the info box.  Rklawton (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not NPOV. Come on. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employment status 

message: I know this is controversial so i am not posting this on the main page but to me it is so blatantly obvious that antidepressants play a huge role in these spree shootings which have been increasing in number over the last few years. Here is a link to the news story where his best friend tells that he was on antidepressants.
http://www.ketv.com/newsarchive/14785654/detail.html
Here is the quote.
"A friend of Hawkins, Shawn, told KETV NewsWatch 7 said Hawkins had been on antidepressants. He was staying with friends in Quail Creek, the friend said, and he said Hawkins had recently begun bouncing from job to job and making "some bad judgment calls." Shawn said he was shocked to hear it was the man he calls "Robbie." Shawn said he had heard through the grapevine on Wednesday that Robbie was suicidal."
Here is a link to a database of SSRI related deaths and violence i strongly encourage you to check out.
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php
On SSRI stories you can sort the events by category and see all the school related incidents side by side. Remember that Pekka-Eric Auvinen the Jokela shooter was on antidepressants so was Eric Harris one of the Columbine shooters.--Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obvious to you or not, this doesn't belong in the article until a reliable source has mention any potentialk connection. Also, this is not the place to discuss your own personal theories, sorry Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What you're posting here is considered "Original Research" (see WP:OR), which is NOT allowed for inclusion. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *Concur, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think editorial pieces on network news really are verifiable sources, they scramble around for all sorts of pop psychologists immediately after these incidents.  A good example is after Virginia Tech when certain people were claiming that violent video games were the cause, even naming specific games, only for gaming to be discounted as a factor fairly quickly.  Stick to solid news reporting, avoid the editorialising. Parsival74 (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't watch the whole news editorial you mention above but it appears to have been added on April 21st 2007. Unless Fox News has a crystal ball and somehow knew this was going to happen (and didn't do anything about it!), I fail to see how the news editorial, which isn't a great RS anyway demonstrates any linkage you mention Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *News reports uploaded to Youtube are copyright violations and are subject to removal at any time by Youtube staff. Beyond all the (very good) reasons you mentioned, this video would make a poor reference for any statement in the article since it will be removed at some point. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: From what I can tell, multiple secondary sources have suggested a potential link between antidepressants and the Columbine High School massacare as such, there's nothing wrong with us mentioning this on the talk page. So far, there is no secondary source making such a link in this case, therefore, it is clearly inappropriate and it is OR for you to make that link whether on the talk page or on the article. If you wish to discuss your theory, I suggest you go to some other forum suited for such discussions as the wikipedia talk pages is intended for discussions related to improving the article, not for people to present their own theories regardless of whether they wish to add the theories to the article. As for your profiling comment, it's simple. We don't and should not 'profile' people excessively on wikipedia. If a fact is important, then multiple secondary sources should cover it. If it's not then they won't. This is the most reliable way for us to decide what we should mention and what we shouldn't. For all I know the Finnish guy had a dog named Teddy when he was 9 years old and this guy had a cat name Molly when he was 12 years old. These facts, even if they are true and can be sourced should not be in the article unless they are covered by multiple sources. Including something because you consider it important because of your own theories is a form of OR. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another SSRI killer 

message: Robert Hawkins (Killer) was created and was quickly redirected to this page. I am torn as to if redirect is a correct action or if a separate page is warranted. Per  WP:Bio seems to indicate that a redirect is what is needed, this discussion here and this page tend to support a separate article. Gtstricky (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert Hawkins hasn't got up to the length of those involved with the Columbine Massacre yet. Maybe a sandbox job needed? I see the IP that did the change, isn't exactly active, so could we say that this edit, although in good faith, went against not creating a discussion? — Rudget speak.work 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The general standard that I think many feel should be followed (but often isn't) is to keep it in this article until it's clear a seperate article is warranted (usually because this article get's too long and/or has too many details which don't have anything to do with the shooting). I suspect a seperate article will probably be warranted eventually but for now, it seems fine as is. However Robert Hawkins (killer) seems inappropriate to me. Robert Hawkins (shooter] or something similar would be better. But since there's no Robert A. Hawkins (already a redirect) that would probably be best. It's only necessary to include a descriptor when we can't adequetely disambiguate without one Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)I also see the page that is being discussed may be the same as or similar to another Robert Hawkins page, (which is also a redirect). — Rudget speak.work 17:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks everyone. As I see it we will leave it alone for now. As the info comes in (as we all know it will), we can reconsider. I agree that "killer" was biased. So who ever does the work should use Robert A. Hawkins. Gtstricky (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good plan.  In the Finnish case, the killer hasn't yet ended up with his own article.  Rklawton (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nil Einne on this, first: killer is really bad to put in a title, even if true. Second, the Robert Hawkins (Killer) page which I turned into a redirect had nothing on it, and until there is enough information on him to need an entire page, his info should go as part of the shooting page. To wit: he is not notable (in and of himself), but rather what he did is notable, and his info gets mentioned as part of that. Plus the main page on him should be the one with his full name: Robert A. Hawkins, the (Killer) page is not actually necessary - would the admins delete it? Ariel. (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged it with speedy deletion-redirect misnomer although I don't know if it will succeed. Doesn't seem to quite fit Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The author tagged it and it was speedly deleted Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree that it is what he wanted. I prefer that he never be mentioned again. However, Wikipedia does not censor. If he meets the WP:N and  WP:Bio guidelines at some point he will get his own page. GtstrickyTalk or C 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Hawkins seperate page 

message: I question the cat "Spree shootings in the United States". This (and other incidents in this cat) come closer to the definition of "American mass murderers". Spree killers do multiple murders in an extended time frame, a la Charles Starkweather. A mass murderer is someone like Richard Speck. A serial killer does single murders separated in time and are usually sexually involved, as with Ted Bundy or Aileen Wuornos.--Ace Telephone (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article fits the category.  If you have an issue with the category, then you'll want to take it up on the category's talk page.  Rklawton (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: is it just me, or including the murderer in the count of eight innocent people who were murdered is completely wrong?
what is the wikipedia policy in these cases?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.68.208 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly standard practice since we're recording the number of deaths, not the number of innocent victims (and we specifically mention it includes the perpetrator). E.g. Trolley Square shooting, Virginia Tech massacre, Columbine High School massacre & Jokela school shooting for a few examples. Remember this is an encylopaedia dealing with facts, not emotions Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep your pretentious sense of morality to yourself jm4847  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.83.180 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  jm4847, you don't have to be so insulting. I was just asking a simple question, i only wanted a clarification of wikipedia's policy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.68.208 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article deals with the whole shooting incident, so he should be included on that list, albeit at the end with a space between him and the rest, plus a notation that he was the killer and that he killed himself. The list feels incomplete otherwise, and you see all the other peoples names and ages at a glance but you do not see his, which makes it incomplete JayKeaton (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is correct, when reporting the number dead, you just report the actual number.  To separate them out would be editorializing.  Just stick to the facts .--Rtphokie (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times article sited doesn't (footnote 4) doesn't include the killer as one of the 9.  This article should say he killed 8 and himself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.245.113 (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is the mass murderer included in the count? 

message: A bit trivial, but is there any source confirming his middle name? 
LeatherEngine (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation currently given with his name in the infobox provides a source for the initial "A" Parsival74 (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Proof of that?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name? 

message: Big question...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.248.199 (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposedly he stole the gun from his stepfather.  Tuxide (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a cite for that? We generally should not be making unsourced claims about living people, not even on talk pages, especially when they potentially negative Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your principle, of course, but I'm slightly confused about that last bit:  how is it "potentially negative" to be described as the victim of a theft?  216.52.69.217 (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one that advanced the argument, but failing to secure a weapon properly is grounds for a wrongful death suit brought against the (step)father, or at the minimum would imply irresponsible gun ownership (I am a gun owner). That being said, it has not been made clear the EXACT circumstances as to how the kid managed to get the gun. I'm not inclined to jump to conclusions here. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that "failure to secure" applies in the case of children obtaining a weapon.  However, the killer was an adult.  Rklawton (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very cursory search on Google brings up a Boston Globe article in which a court decision ruled that gun owners can be held liable *if* a weapon is not secured properly, regardless of the shooters' age. The case in question involved a mentally ill adult stealing a gun from a parental figure (sounds familiar). See Article here. Ignoring the law for a minute, it's also irresponsible gun ownership. I think a lot more info is needed before it can be added back in. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Legal issues are somewhat irrelevant. Regardless whether or not the stepfather is liable, if he didn't properly secure his gun and it was stolen and used to commit a crime that would still be seen as negative by many people. Particularly for an automatic rifle. For that matter, even the fact that he had a gun, especially an automatic rifle could be seen as negative to some people (whether or not it's negative to you is irrelevant). Therefore, claiming that he had a gun if he doesn't would be a clear violation of BLP. There is no evidence thus far presented that the father owned an AK-47 let alone that it was the gun used in the shootings Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies for the delay, here.  I say supposedly because the police aren't done tracing the weapon yet.  Tuxide (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More? Have you seen this article? Parsival74 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the paper upstairs and I haven't read it yet.  Interesting...the stepfather was in Thailand during the shooting?  Is there a better URL of the same, or similar article?  Omaha World-Herald has a shitty news archiving system and we should probably avoid citing from it if possible.  There's only one Von Maur in Omaha, it doesn't make any sense to me why 911 would have to take two minutes to figure out where the fuck it is.  Tuxide (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, maybe they needed to figure out how to get to it....navigation isn't necessarily easy.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in Omaha, Westroads Mall has always been on I-680 and Dodge.  Everyone knows where it is.  Furthermore, the Midwestern United States is very unusual in that the way the major streets are arranged to form perfect square mile blocks.  You wouldn't see anything like this where you live.  Tuxide (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did he get the gun(s) / ammo ? 

message: Can someone please explain the relevance of having "concealed carry" laws mentioned in this article? If I'm not mistaken, there is no debate whether the shooter used a "concealable" weapon or not. It is agreed that the shooter used a rifle, the debate is about what type of rifle was used. Is this inclusion to suggest that he had a legally acquired concealed carry permit for an SKS or AK-47? The concealed carry laws mentioned have no relevance to this article.--Prusik knot (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I was tempted to delete the section earlier, but simply removed an editorialising comment from it instead.  Parsival74 (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd be in favor of inclusion regarding concealed carry, if you have a reliable source (better yet a few), that you can cite, to back up, not only that the mall bars lawful concealed carry, but, that it would have made a difference. At least, I think that's what you were getting at... SQLQuery me! 11:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Just remember that you'll need a published source (avoid blogs or websites that don't have a layer of editorial oversight) that draws the same conclusion.  If you're stating your own conclusion and linking to evidence that supports that conclusion, that's original research.  What you need is a published source saying "the shooter may have chosen Westroads Mall because it was a gun-free zone", or somesuch.  (Note that I agree with you about concealed carry and private prohibitions on same, but WP's policies exist for good reasons, and still apply ;)  ).  216.52.69.217 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concealed carry? I petition this for removal. 

message: The following was added by user:Srjsignal on 19:08, 7 December 2007.
Nebraska is one of more than 40 states that allows citizens to obtain concealed carry permits.  The state law also allows establishments to post signs prohibiting legally carried weapons from being brought onto private property. since the law was enacted in January, the Westroads Mall has added "no weapons" to its code of conduct.
I have removed this section as not relevant; concealed carry permits would not apply to an assault rifle. Although the weapon is disputed, all current sources show it as a rifle. CNN source has police saying an AK-47 was found on the scene. - Davandron | Talk 20:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looked like this consisted of original research and analysis.  I would support its inclusion if this reflects commentary from reliable, verifiable sources.  For example, if someone files a lawsuit agains the mall because of its policies - or if a state lawmaker made an issue of the matter - then I think it would be worth mentioning.  Rklawton (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: two links on this subject fox news and the wallstreet journal opinion journal.com. is that a good enough source? Cryo921 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no because they are opinion/editorial pieces.  The wallstreet opinion page seems to be a blog and the Foxnews piece is to all intents and purposes a letter to the editor by a writer described in the blog as a gun-rights advocate.  Theres going to be a lot of editorial speculation on this issue, I don't believe it has a place in Wikipedia.  If that is a serious issue in this event then I would expect wider, mainstream articles to be citable that do not come from the blog and opinion pages of various media. Parsival74 (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun laws section not relevant 

message: I believe the name, birth & death date, as well as the perpetrator's age in this section is redundant (all of which are stated in the adjoining infobox).  I plan on deleting that part, but would like to get some comments on it before doing so. - NGC6254 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How classy and original of you to insult the dead. jm4847  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.79.189 (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The article falls under several WikiProjects, including WP:CRIME and infoboxes are part of that project. In this instance, the pages for the shooting itself and the perpetrator are combined, so there will likely be a small amount of redundancy. However, the infoxbox should remain, and as the editor above noted, the infobox is a summary of the main particulars of the crime. I agree, though, that there is redundancy. While the birth and death dates of the shooter should remain in the body of the article, the further addition of his age is redundant and can come out. Please leave the infobox as it is an accepted tool in this project. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perpetrator section 

message: Some nerve you have.  Because of this sick man, eight innocent lives were lost on that day, and you say he deserves his own page like he's some sort of hero.  He knew the coverage this would get, and it's exactly what he wanted.  These types of stories should not be given the amount of attention they are receiving.  It's almost like you're placing an ad out there,  "Commit mass murder and be immortalized."  This is wrong, and we should not stand for this.
Can we drop the whole "holier than thou" attitute and give Robert Hawkings his own article? Cho has an article and so do the Columbine shooters. jm4847(189.148.79.189 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cho, Klebold and Harris gained a certain amount of attention to receive their own wikis. Hawkins doesn't receive as much attention as how they focused on Cho or the Columbine shooters.  
LeatherEngine (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You will find your answer on WP:BLP1E, although I think it's more of a redundancy issue since even the media is writing articles about him in particular.  If Westroads Mall massacre exceeds 32k characters, then I wouldn't mind forking this topic.  Tuxide (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This has already been discussed before and has nothing to do with being 'holier then thou'. The simple fact is that the level of detail and information about Hawkings is not yet overwhelming this article. When and if it does, then a split is fine. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Its too soon after the event and there is not yet enough information solely about Hawkings to warrant an article at this time.  As time goes on I'm sure enough info will become available and uncovered about him to put into a separate article.  But until that time, I do not support a separate article. will381796 (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooter deserves his own page 

message: I added a ref for the transcription of his suicide note. Nowhere in the note does it say "going out in style," as it was reported by the media, so I made note of this in my edits.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of easy reading, please try and put comments like these under the appropriate headings. There's already two headings for CCW issues. The message board post in question isn't unverifiable. I, and a lot of other Wiki Editors, are fairly timid about using message board posts unless they can be traced back to a particular person. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going out in style 

message: In the article, it says 'The Omaha Police found a suicide note stating "I'm gonna be (expletive) famous."' Does anyone know what the expletive is? Wikipedia is not censored, so I'm thinking that the original word should go there. I'm guessing it was fucking. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fuckin", apparently. The Smoking Gun has a copy of the actual note:  --W.marsh 06:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I move that a citation for The Smoking Gun article be added in addition to, or lieu of, the AP citation. Having the AP filtering the news for moralistic reasons doesn't do anyone any good. In addition "I'm gonna to be fuckin famous" seems to be the appropriate quote. Agree/Disagree? --Kensuke Aida (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AP should definitely remain. It's much easier to read then the note and being text is also compatible with screen readers etc. I don't know if it's true AP censored the note for moralistic reasons and in any case I don't think it really matters. Most people probably don't care that much. Sure include a link to the smoking gun as well and our quotes should not be censored, but let's not get worked up about nothing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not getting worked up over anything. I'm trying to build consensus and pointing out that *maybe* people might want a unsanitized version of the story (I think it's reasonable to assume that the AP made a decision to censor so as not to offend, while Wikipedia is free of said restrictions). It's an and/or sort of thing, and I agree that *and* might be more fitting here. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can have multiple sources for the same line, which someone has already done for this.  I fixed the smoking gun ref tag up a bit. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I agree with including both the AP and Smoking Gun sources; if anything, that builds the strength of the citation. Master of Puppets Care to share? 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You specifically said 'AP filtering the news for moralistic reasons doesn't do anyone any good' so I was responding to that. As said, there's no reason not to include the smoking gun reference but suggesting to remove the AP one (as you did) seems a mistake to me. Now that we have the whole transcript in the article, perhaps it isn't quite as bad although personally I'm unsure of the encylopaedic value of the entire letter (it would probably be better in wikisource). Also I would suspect that AP censored it more in recognisation of their target audience and their decise not to offend such, not for general moralistic reasons as you originally suggested. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expletives 

message: I just removed a pastel-coloured quote box from the lead where the gunman's suicide note/whatever-it-was was quoted in. Such inclusion would seem to be contrary to Wikipedia:Lead section both in formatting (pastel boxes are highly unencyclopedic, especially in the lead) and content (it's meant to be a summary of the article, not specifics). As a guideline, Wikipedia:Lead section "...is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". However, if someone is going to ignore it, it should be discussed first and have consensus for inclusion. Daniel 12:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, I also just had to remove a giant slap of text (the "Background" section) which negatively portrayed a recently deceased person (the gunman) and was entirely unsourced. Although the policy is titled biographies of living persons, the rationale for the policy and our verifiability policy make it very clear that such information must be sourced. Daniel 12:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. However, I'm wondering why the real quote from the killer ("I'm gonna be fuckin famous") hasn't replaced the false "going out in style" quote mentioned? Is it really important to show how the media got something wrong? Do we even have a source on them getting it wrong? Why not just delete that sentence and replace it with the correct information (citation linking to both the censored AP story *AND* the Smoking Gun story as I alluded to above)? --Kensuke Aida (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Reference one mentions nothing that was quoted in that paragraph. Daniel 12:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference two is better, but "Two weeks before his day of rage, his girlfriend broke up with him" isn't referenced in there. Furthermore, the whole section lacks balance, and it's really bad to source such contentious and negative information to a single source. "Presumably, Hawkins had had enough" is also tabloid-like and unencyclopedic. Daniel 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote in lead 

message: Should the "f" word be censored or something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, no. Please see our policy Wikipedia is not censored. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for that fucking clarification. ;-)  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that's a joke but I should emphasise (since anon clearly doesn't understand our policies) that just because wikipedia is not censored doesn't mean users are not expected to remain civil. They are Wikipedia:Be civil. Also it doesn't mean profanity can be used in articles without reason either, see Wikipedia:Profanity. Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Rickyrab was using the word "fucking" more as an adjective than as a meaningless intensive. In any case, it's absolutely hilarious, at least in my opinion. :) - NGC6254 (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-Word 

message: I left out the actual SSN for the perpetrator when I added the "Suicide note" section. I wasn't sure if that would be appropriate of not.  I know that SSN's of deceased are public domain, but should it be included here? - NGC6254 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think its unneccessary to include it in the article. Parsival74 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social security number on suicide note 

message: If so, can someone track it down? It might be relevant in some manner to the article subject (as well as to the parking-lot grenade). No, I don't mean he's a member of Al Qaeda or anything like that, but it might provide background on the sort of national security climate that the shooting happened in.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is something that really needs to be discussed in this article.  will381796 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for "an hero", this has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word "hero". The term "an hero" in some Internet circles apparently means an idiotic suicide.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I know.  will381796 (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we will need evidence that this 'background' has some relevance to what happened. If for example it affected the way police handled it or the level of security or security policies of the store or something similar then perhaps. Maybe even if it had a specific effect on the way the media dealt with the story (as opposed to the fact certain media like Fox News always link anything with Arab or Muslim terrorism at the beginning). If there is no external link then no, we shouldn't link it internally Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=an+hero an hero] did this crap, wasn't there a gov't warning out there about terrorism in the shopping malls this holiday season? 

message: Seems to be missing from the article. Dunno whether it's public information though. --85.5.94.202 (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm no expert on firearms, but from this image of the shooter, it would appear to be some sort of AK-47, though the initial police description did say it was an SKS-type rifle. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interpretation of photographs and visual images would be classed as original research, WP:OR.  Theres still some dispute as to the exact type of weapon used (theres a discussion further up the talk page) Parsival74 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of gun/ammo? 

message: I have removed sections of this article for Bush's visit to Omaha, the full transcript of the suicide note and a section for the clothing worn by Hawkins. The information about Bush's visit was sourced to a White House transcript of a speech he made at the event which makes no mention of the shooting and therefore does not support any of the statements being made. These were therefore original research and were removed. The transcript of the suicide note was cut because it is included in full (and as a scan of the original) on The Smoking Gun's website. It is therefore somewhat redundant to include them here, since only portions of the note are relevant within the context of the article. The section on Hawkins' clothing was removed because it is hugely irrelevant within the context of the article and is sourced to a google cache of an old webpage. Since these are not published, but rather archived copies of old webpages, they fail WP:V and are not sources. This makes those statements synthesis at best and original research at worst. 
I've also conformed the remaining sources again and I would ask everyone who is adding references to this article to read the material at WP:CITE to ensure you are doing it correctly. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that archived copies of news articles fail WP:V, due to Omaha World-Herald's own shitty news archiving system as I keep expressing here.  Perhaps not Google though, the Wayback Machine is more reliable.  Tuxide (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *By definition, those sources are no longer published and therefore fail WP:V. If the article was published in a hard copy of the newspaper, however, that information can be cited using a template other than . In any case, what he was wearing on the day of the massacre is immaterial and doesn't belong here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree with you, as per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Archive references.  I can cite from the newspaper itself if I wanted to because I have a paid subscription to it.  And that is where everyone is going to draw the line:  If anyone can read the same text without having to pay for a back copy, then citing from the free version is preferable.  The only thing the author didn't do was include the URL to the original World-Herald article, which is still available.  I should go back and preemptively add URLs to the archive versions to all the refs in case the original articles are lost.  Tuxide (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruned material from article 

message: I think the suicide note should be left in, because it shows Hawkins' state of mind at the time.  The original is tough to read, too.   - NGC6254 (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide note