Talk:Westroads Mall shooting/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Westroads Mall shooting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

High school

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)

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)

WP:NOT#NEWS

That is policy, and should be remembered in this case.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The event is newsworthy AND worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Its another case of an American mass shooting event that killed several people. The fact that it is news should not preclude it from being on Wikipedia. We have many other articles about similar events: the Amish school shootings, the Columbine massacre, etc. ThreeOneFive (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should NOT be deleted. Wikipedia has a number of similar articles. To name just a few:

It is true that "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." (core policy of WP:NOT#NEWS), but a 8-person shooting is a suitable subject. Superm401 - Talk 02:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is meant to be descriptive of what we do as a community, not prescriptive of what we are or are not allowed to do. A mass shooting that has received national and international publicity, is, prima facie a notable subject for an article. In my view, it would take an awfully strong counterargument to overcome the inherent claim of notability. --Ssbohio (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is probably not true that "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." If really was true, then we wouldn't have an article about Michael Jordan's father. Rklawton (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that news coverage is not the sole arbiter of a persons notability. Many people who are notable never attract news attention. By the same token, simply being in the news is not a claim for notability either. The "not necessarily" in that quote signifies that there is a element of judgement required to determine notability, and WP:NOT#NEWS encourages editors to make that judgement on encyclopaedic grounds rather than being dictated by headlines. Parsival74 (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

While I wouldn't dispute this subject's notability, Wikipedia has a plethora of articles covering subjects which I think clearly lack sufficient notability. The problem (if you think it's a problem) is that the work involved in filtering out such articles is difficult because someone wants that article there, and there is no task force to filter out such a large number of articles due simply to notability, an effort which is less conducive to a better Wikipedia than simply improving on existing content. --David Gannon (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well said. Rklawton (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NYTimes

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)

Gunman's Address

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)

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)

Image of perpetrator

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)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/05/mall.shooting/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.32.30 (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Age of Gunman

I'm curious, Wikipedia and numerous sources site the gunman as a 20year old, while the offical link to CNN.com on this page links to an article stating the gunman is 19 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirbykirbykirby3 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the bio in the article below, he was born on 5th May 1987 making him 20 years old Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

KETV discussed this on the air, there are two different dates of birth being provided. I think we should be able to get a good citation on this in the next few days as the article is flushed out. Big Merl (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is true, then it's probably best we don't use either date or age until one is confirmed (remember this is wikipedia not wikinews). Instead, simply mention that there is conflicting info with some sources putting him as 20, some 19. I've modified the article accordingly but it would be good if someone could find a citation for the conflicting info out there Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

CNN[1] annd The Omaha World Herald[2] state 19 while KETV[3] is now saying 20. I think our best bet is to search for his criminal record or court record since he had a court date coming up.

Remember Wikipedia:No original research, its not our job to look for primary sources such as court records, wait for published information though the news media. Parsival74 (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. If his birth date is reported in official court documents, whether online or in files, it's not unpublished; it's a matter of public record and therefore not OR. EvilCouch (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually using primary sources in this way is considered to fall under OR and is also bad practice. It is especially a bad idea in BLPs, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Well known public figures but even biography of a non living person, it's still a bad idea (remember that there may be additional living people who may be harmed by your use of primary sources). If his birthdate matters then it's something that can and will be resolved by secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. Thank you. In case anyone reopens discussion on his age at a later time, I change my stance to be in line with Nil Einne. Thank you.Big Merl (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Newest clue as to age of perpetrator

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)

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)

Victims?

A list of the victims exists; is that appropriate for inclusion? I don't want to post them, even in the talk page, if not. --72.196.0.51 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See: Columbine High School massacre for a sample list/format. Rklawton (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

since I'm not allowed to edit, I'll post the names and let others do it.

Deceased

Gary Scharf, 48, customer, of Lincoln;

John McDonald, 65, customer, of Council Bluffs, Iowa;

Angie Schuster, 36, employee;

Maggie Webb, 24, employee;

Janet Jorgenson, 66, employee;

Diane Trent, 53, employee;

Gary Joy, 56, employee;

Beverly Flynn, 47, employee.

Injured (note: listed are still in serious/critical condition, status may change)

Fred Wilson, 61;

Michelle Oldham, 65.

source: http://www.ketv.com/news/14782867/detail.html --72.196.0.51 (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I included a list, didn't see your extra information here. I have to be somewhere, so I'll check back when I get back home in case nobody else updated the list with their location. Unless people don't think that's necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonytnnt (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a rule that innocent victims who are otherwise unnoteworthy should not have their names published on WP. There was a similar discussion on I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapse, where the names were removed.--Ace Telephone (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Columbine Shooting article has a list of the victims. That's why I thought it was alright to add their names, although I admit I did it with hesitation. Tonytnnt (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your hesitation was justified and I think that Wikipedia is not a memorial applies to a certain extent here. I would support the removal of that list. Tomj (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I find the reluctance to name victims a bit baffling to be honest. No I don't think the victims of these terrible crimes are notable enough to have their own articles (except in exceptional circumstances), but the naming of victims is hardly memorialising them. The names are already being published by the news media, when books are written on these subjects the names are freely used, so why should Wikipedia respect sensitivities that simply don't exist? It is important to wait for very good verification before using names, and there can be legal considerations in regard to Witness Protection or minors, but the general use of names is not a problem. Publication of the names of victims is a staple of crime coverage, to not do so runs the risk of dehumanising victims. Parsival74 (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That presumes these people and their families want their names to be forever associated with this incident. Remember that by leaving it in this article, it will probably be one of the first things that shows up in a Google search. While many papers are now keeping long archives online, most of them do not show up in general web searches, you actually have to go and search them specifically. The alternative view is that rather then dehumanising victims (and besides this is an encylopaedia so it isn't really a great concern), by not presenting the names of innocent victims we are preventing them being continually held victim from an event they would much rather move on from. Remember BLP Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, this needs to be discussed in a larger context than just this article. Names appear in other, much older articles as well (The Columbine article was my original justification for posting names. The victims in the Virginia Tech Massacre have their own list (see List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre.) Unless a consensus is reached across Wikipedia, I believe the list should stay posted until it is seen fit to be removed.Tonytnnt (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the decision regarding whether these names will be forever associated with this incident has been taken out of those families hands, and it is not Wikipedia's role to self-censor on those grounds alone. As I said, it is a standard of crime research to include the names of victims, I have never read a report that did not include the names of victims other than exceptional cases such as those cases where the victims were minors. To withold basic information in this manner would make Wikipedia's articles sub-standard with regard to this subject. For example, referring back to the Columbine article mentioned, show me a well respected book on the subject that does not name the victims. Parsival74 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested Change

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)

Clarification

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)

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)

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)

9 Google News artiles reference AK-47. Over 500 articles reference SKS. Rklawton (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ummm... ?

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)

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...? -- Atama sama 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Politicians press releases

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)

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)

Agree Everyone with a heart and soul will be expressing their condolences. Including these two would be a non-neutral POV problem and listing all of them would take up too much space. will381796 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree I don't there's anything particularly NPOV about their statements per-say (it's not like the railed about gun control). I just think it's utterly irrelevant that they feel sympathies for the victims (as I'm sure a lot of people do). --Kensuke Aida (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hawkins infobox

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)

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)

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)

Why not? I think he might be a key player in all this. Rklawton (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously he's the key player in all of this. But the information in the info box is already stated in the article. We don't need the redundancy. will381796 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

News Release template

This template is really inappropriate for this article. It should be removed. Takenages (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Edit this page 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)

911 calls

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)

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)

This transcript is interesting:

J.L: As far as I can tell, I remember quickly, he was a white gentleman, about 5-foot-8 inches, had kind of a mustache. Large gun. D: How old is he? J.L: I really saw him from a far distance. He was probably around mid-20s." ... J.L.: When he came in, he just came over to customer service and told them to open the vault. D: He told them to open the vault when he went over to customer service? J.L: Yeah. "Open the vault, open the vault." D: So this was possibly some type of robbery then that went bad? J.L.: Correct. Correct. ... D: Does it look like that's the guy on the camera, is that the guy who was doing the shooting? Can you tell by the clothing? J.L.: Yeah, it could have been. It's about the age. I'd have to see his face to be able to tell because of his mustache, it was like he had a mustache.[4]

70.105.52.165 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It has NOT yet been verified whether the rifle was an SKS or an AK-47.

OLD ARGUMENTS:

I'm trying to change the article to show it was not an SKS but an AK-47 as cited in this article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/06/mall.shooting/index.html

Also witnesses have said the shooter brought multiple magazines. The SKS only has an internal magazine, and would require multiple magazines. (Dahar81 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

1) You can buy high cap removable magazines for SKS

2) AK-47 were banned in US in 1986, so it inlikely he had one. Maybe a semi-auto version, but that would not be AK-47. Lorus77 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

When I checked earlier today, 9 sources indicated AK-47 and over 500 indicated SKS. Rklawton (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen mixed reports. Some news sources say 'SKS' while others say 'AK-47'. And 'AK-47' is often used to refer to semi-auto AKs. Some SKSs do have detachable magazines and can look similar to AKs. Some of the news articles say that someone said the gun looked too old to work, so it could be an SKS or an AK that has been converted to semi-auto. Or, unlikely, an automatic. --Kalmia (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OPD Chief Thomas Warren stated at the following press conference that the gun was an "AK-47 assault weapon" [5] (See "Mall Shooting Update (total length: 5:14) - forward to 3:17-3:25) Toni S. (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Add to theat the fact that the AK and the SKS both fire the same 7.62x39 mm round. There are definitely SKS variants with detachable magazines.

The CNN says says "presumably". In short, CNN doesn't know what the hell it was. Rklawton (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He used an SKS, and yes you can get multiple magazines for an SKS just like any other weapon. Wikidaily2 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He used a SKS. The SKS can use the same magazine as the AK-47 which is probably why some people are getting it confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.114.200 (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

NEW ARGUMENTS:

It appears that all of the major networks are alternating between calling it an SKS and calling it an AK-47. It appears that they don't realize there is a difference between an SKS and an AK-47.

Fox News referred to it as both an SKS AND an AK-47, in the same article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315441,00.html).

Like Fox News, the Los Angeles Times refers to it as both an SKS and an AK-47, in the same article (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mall7dec07,1,6727552.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo).

At one point CNN even reported, "Warren said Hawkins' body and the AK-47 with SKS 7.66 mm ammunition were found on the store's third floor." There is no ammunition with the designation "SKS" or a diameter of 7.66 mm. Fox News also reported that it was an AK-47 that fires "SKS" ammunition. This further supports the theory that the cable news networks do not realize there is a difference between an AK-47 and an SKS.

The police identified the rifle as an SKS, in their initial statement yesterday. Unlike "SKS," "Ak-47" is part of the national vernacular; therefore, it is much more likely that a media outlet would mistakenly call an SKS an "AK-47" than that a media outlet would mistakenly call an AK-47 an "SKS."

Though both guns are distinctly different, an SKS can be configured to look very much like an AK-47, as illustrated by this picture: http://www.concealedcampus.org/SKS-AK47.jpg

The person who posted that the semiautomatic 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov is not technically an AK-47 is correct; however, it is typically referred to as as an "AK-47," even by gun aficionados, because "semiautomatic 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov" is kind of a mouthful.

The Wikipedia page on this shooting should be updated to list the firearm as "unverified 7.62x39mm rifle" or "either an SKS rifle (7.62x39mm) or a semiautomatic AK-47 rifle (7.62x39mm)." Douva (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree As mentioned in earlier discussions, the news organizations don't seem to know what type of gun it was. Some state that it was an SKS, some declare it to be both an SKS and an AK-47 in the same article, and some describe the gun simply as an AK-47. We don't know and thus we should not state that they gun used was an AK-47. --Estrbrook (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree - until more reliable information surfaces. Rklawton (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Local news sources have confirmed it is, in fact, a semi-automatic variant of an AK-47 (likely AKM), chambered in 7.62x39. Check WOWT, KETV, etc. for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.70.64 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The police keep changing their story. First they said it was an SKS; now they're saying it was an AK-47. You would assume the most recent report (AK-47) is accurate, but who knows?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwDBK1rbuGs

http://www.ketv.com/video/14790000/index.html?source=CNN

Douva (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Until we see a picture of the gun, we'll never know. News reporters in general don't know squat about guns, and a lot of police don't. Srjsignal (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct, and if it was semi-automatic, the term "assault rifle" is instantly false. --Cefoskey (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They just released the security camera picture, and as an AK-47 variant owner myself... it looks like an AK-47 variant. The outline of the gun shows the gas tube above the barrel. That's a pretty unmistakable feature to me. Image I'm speaking of, hosted on my own site: http://www.ecimulti.org/albums/album80/1_23_120707_hawkins3.jpg

Ashinn11 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree Though the picture is a bit blurry, it sure looks like an AK variant. (http://www.showbizspy.com/2007/12/07/police-release-chilling-images-of-omaha-mall-gunman/) --70.130.165.156 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The SKS gas tube is also above the barrel. The difference is, there's a gap between barrel and tube with and AK-47, and there isn't a gap with the SKS. The image does not show a gap, but the image also isn't all that clear. Our intepretation, however, comprises original research and should not be considered. On the other hand, the police chief also said "AK-47" and I'm going to guess that he's seen the weapon and knows the difference. At any rate, I trust the chief as a reliable source more than I would a reporter. Rklawton (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeida editors interpreting photos is original research. If there are multiple mainstream media sources reporting AK-47, then it meets the standards of WP:V and should be included in the article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the picture is not very clear and very inconclusive. I guess when I first saw the picture, the "hump" on the top seemed much more pronounced to me than most SKS's I've seen. I apologize, and agree what I did would be considered original reseach. I'd never add anything to the article itself until I knew for sure though, and am merely trying to get to the bottom of this. Two days later and still no conclusive (to me) data on what the weapon actually was. Ashinn11 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(u)This is most likely completely WP:OR, and, probably not worth squat as far as the 'pedia goes, but, I hope it helps with the discussion. As someone whom collects SKS rifles, and, owns a (civillian) AK-47, based on the reports, I'd have to say it's most likely an AK-47. Most SKS rifles do not take AK-47 magazines. Very few, in fact do (Model SKS-D), they are very prized collectibles, and very expensive. The detachable "duckbill" magazines (they're an aftermarket replacement for the OEM permanent internal SKS magazine) that are available for the SKS in the united states are a pain to swap on the fly, and, are notoriously unreliable. I'm hesitant to use the loaded term "Hi cap", as 50-75-150 round magazines exist, but, are not generally available in the US. It may be shadowing, but, it does not appear to even be outfitted with a 30 round magazine, in that picture, but, possibly a 20 round magazine.

From the picture[6], the front sight looks a lot more like the AK-47's front sight. Also, it appears to me, that the gunman may be holding a pistol-grip on the firearm.

Also, in the photograph, I don't see the bayonet lug, present, and near-impossible to remove on every SKS rifle. Given all of the above, it's almost without a doubt, to me at least, an AK-47 rifle.

Realistically, it's probably best to wait for an official statement, from some form of expert, but, I wouldn't hold my breath on anything reliable surfacing. Who knows, however.

Overall, I'd say almost without question, that "A 30 caliber rifle" (sounds better to me than "A 7.62x39 rifle", and, is the same thing.) would be a sufficiently accurate statement, for the time being. Hope this helps. SQL ^{Query me!} 11:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, from the pictures, it definitely looks like some sort of Kalashnikov (i.e., an AK-47) rifle. Douva (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

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. --w p k t sfs 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

~~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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Since the media has been calling it a massacre now, I think it should be relocated to Westroads Mall massacre. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. CNN is now using the word "massacre" too. Tuxide (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

Rename cont

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)

Employment status

Are you sure 'recently fired' in reference to his job is entirely appropiate? Notb665 (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

When I created the infobox, I added that the perp was "Unemployed." In retrospect, that seems a bit tacky, so I'm going to delete the "Occupation" line. - NGC6254 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Leave the unemployment bit as it only adds to his status as a loser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.88.255 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I think it should be removed. His occupation, that is. Also, if it's listed that he died on whatever date, why list him as deceased? --Studio Ghibli (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Another SSRI killer

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)

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)

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)

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

This connection has actually been mentioned on mainstream television by Douglas Kennedy on Fox. I think he is the first reporter that started mentioning this.

Here is the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S-7aNPf33A

Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I never suggested that we should cite this video in the article. The reason why i posted the video was to counter the claim that i was posting original research wich i am not. The link between SSRI and SNRI drugs to aggession and violence has been known since the first antidepressants (Prozac) was tested in clinical trials during the eighties. There are even articles about this here on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSRI#Suicidality_and_Aggression). I would like to mention a few examples to support this.

1.

The best case for this not being original research would of course be that Wyeth pharmaceuticals actually mentions on the package instert for Effexor that the drug may cause “homicidal ideation” and “impulse control difficulties

http://www.wyeth.com/content/ShowLabeling.asp?id=100 (bottom of page 38)

2.

Another example would be this 1985 data analysis from Eli Lilly on Prozac.

” In July 1985, Eli Lilly’s own data analysis—from a pool of 1,427 patients—showed high incidence of adverse drug effects and evidence of drug-induced violence in some patients

^ Eli Lilly internal analysis submitted to the Joachim Wernicke (July 2, 1985), PZ 2441 2000. Document uncovered during Fentress litigation.

3.

Here is a trial by Pfizer on Zoloft.

Pfizer’s data from the pediatric Zoloft (sertraline) trials shows that “aggression was the joint commonest cause for discontinuation from the two sertraline placebo-controlled trials in depressed children”.

^ Wagner KD, Ambrosini P, Rynn M, Wohlberg C, Yang R, et al. (2003) Effi cacy of sertraline in the treatment of children and adolescents with major depressive disorder: Two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 290: 1033–1041.

4.

These 4 links are all examples of how the drug companies themselves admit this link but the regulatory agencies also admitt it. The cases of aggression on paroxetine (seroxat in the U.K., Paxil in the United states) reported to the MHRA (that would be the British equivalent to the United States FDA) rose dramatically in 3 years.

“By 2003, the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) received 121 cases of aggression on paroxetine, and by January 2006 that number had risen to 211.”

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (2006) Adverse drug reactions online information tracking: Drug analysis print

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/public/documents/sentineldocuments/dap_1130236020641.pdf

Now let my explain the reason why i started this discussion before posting on the article. During the Jokela school shooting i witnessed a completely non-controversial mention about Peka taking antidepressants citing a respectable Finnish newspaper, not mentionioning any links to violence being deleted twice and it is still not mentioned. I would argue that even if you don't believe in this connection between violence and antidepressants it still belongs in the article as a part of profiling the killer. These guys are usually profiled from head to toe and i don't see why antidepressants shouldn't be mentioned .The Wikipedia page on the Columbine massacre mentions antidepressants as you can see here.

“Harris was prescribed the anti-depressant Zoloft by his family doctor. Shortly afterwards, Harris reported having suicidal and homicidal thoughts.[32] Harris was then switched to a similar drug Luvox. At the time of his death, Harris had therapeutic Luvox levels in his serum. Some analysts, such as psychiatrist Peter Breggin, have argued that one or both of these medications may have contributed to Harris' actions. It has been claimed that side-effects of these drugs include increased aggression, loss of remorse, depersonalization and mania.[33] “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

So my point is simply this. The link between antidepressants and homicidal ideation, aggression and violence is covered by mainstream media, acknowledged by the drug companies themselves , acknowledged by regulatory agencies and also gets written about on wikipedia. I am posting this non-controversial bit cited by a respectable source not hinting any links between antidepressants and violence. about how his best friend told the media that he was taking antidepressants just to see see how long it stays up there.

This is the only sentence i will add to the article.

“and according to a friend of his he was taking antidepressants”.

Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Look people, how many times does it need to be said that correlation is not causation? Depression, and the use of antidepressants, are extremely common in America. SSRIs are among the most frequently prescribed medications. If a large percentage of killers, including spree killers, did not use SSRIs, then it would be extremely surprising. At the same, killers, especially spree killers, will almost always have mental health issues. Depression being the single most common mental health issue, it is unsurprising to find that a large percentage, if not a large majority, of spree killers are depressed. While many have not been treated, one would expect to find that many had been prescribed SSRIs, as they are generally the safest and most effective medication for major depression. Nothing about this indicates that depressed people are particularly homicidal, and it certainly does nothing to indicate that SSRIs themselves are provoking the killings. Let's not insert misinformation, especially not before it becomes widely associated with a particular incident. NTK (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If this article is going to have a bizarre section on carry laws (all of which were broken by this kid and irrelevent) I think we should mention that he was taking crazy pills. Is the fact that he was crazy less relavent than the fact that, had he applied, he could have legally carried a concealed handgun as backup while shooting up folks with a rifle? 131.46.41.71 (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some kind of consensus that psychiatic medicins don't change the statistics of violent incidents significally. Ofcourse the pharmaceutical industry is served, through this logic but it is not clear if the patients are not. General talk about "crazy pills" shouldnt do, as i remember a few tranquilizers etc. have been associated with escalated violence, however in these cases , you can't make the point nothing could have happened without the pills. Prescribing psychiatric drugs as easily as US apparently does however invite that young people walk around terribly dosed, i much wonder if that wouldn't cause weird distancing with the usual social context. Also i suspect that the impact of pharmaceutics on the human mind is still much much bigger then of natural drugs (forbidden substances), might be a notable detail of this case. When it comes to details, i disagree with excluding the schools name. WHen the invertigation will be over, or at least a case made, his school-life or the lack thereoff will be researched thoroughly, you can't assume that people being a dropout has nothing to do with the schools they went. Thats bullying;) Somehow i have difficulty with the label "19 yo man". I think the kind of ideas and sentiments for this kind of actions is rather typical for juveniles, not for adults, it might be psychologically more sound (and encyclopedically more true) to treat the phenomenon and the kids involved, like that.77.251.188.67 (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Hawkins seperate page

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The author tagged it and it was speedly deleted Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly this will come under commenting on the article, but why should we give this guy his own Wikipedia page? He wanted to be "fucking famous", so went and committed this horrible act, and now we're obliging him?--148.197.115.149 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

why is the mass murderer included in the count?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(u)It's fairly simple to me. If murderer died, that probably merits inclusion in the 'deaths' part of the box. SQL ^{Query me!} 11:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

infobox

Just wanted to say that imo the infobox, particularly the info on the used gun types in it, is really distasteful. The same box is also used e.g. in Virginia Tech massacre, but this article currently has the most attention, so I decided to state my opinion on this here. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 02:09, December 7, 2007

Leaving aside that Wikipedia is not designed to be "tasteful" (indeed Censorship need not apply), I'm curious to know in what manner you think it is? --Kensuke Aida (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about censoring the information out of the article. Let me put it this way: What encyclopedic purpose does it possibly serve to put it into the infobox? It's in the article text anyway. Is this part of the crucial information the average person is looking for? Look, it's actually above the number of victims (which is tasteless in itself to include in the infobox). The whole template reminds me of Go Fish. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 07:19, December 7, 2007

Weapon is a standard part of the infobox. While arguably we don't need to go as specific as AK47, specifying assault rifle is the bare minimum and from there it doesn't make much difference is we specify the actual type of assault rifle Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "standard" part of the infobox, as it is part of the wiki and can be changed to a new "standard" at any time, you see. Again, the info is relevant and is appropriately included within the article prose. But including it in the infobox like that serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:35, December 7, 2007

You seem to be missing the point. If you don't agree with the design of the infobox, then that should be discussed somewhere else not here. Also, you seem to be missing the point about infoboxes. The intention is to make it easy for people to quickly see some key facts about something. In this case, the infobox is intended to show info about the crime. The fact that an assault rifle was used is a key fact that is highly relevant and should show up in the infobox IMHO. As I've said, to the level of that assault rifle being an AK47 is probably not needed but there is no reason not to either Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "distasteful", but I don't believe the weapon needs to be in the infobox. It just doesn't seem like something the reader needs or cares to know upfront. -- tariqabjotu 02:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton, if this is the section you are referring to, it obviously has nothing to do with the "person" infobox I removed. — CharlotteWebb 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to any section - and that was the problem. You removed an infobox without any discussion, and that's really not appropriate for this article. All significant changes to format should be discussed first. Rklawton (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says that? Last time I checked, consensus is found through editing. At the very least, present a rationale for reverting. I dorftrottel I talk I 00:42, December 8, 2007

I don't know if "it is written." I do know from long experience with protected articles about a current event that significant format changes are typically discussed first. However, that point is moot. You've made your edit, and you found there wasn't consensus for it. The rationale for keeping the box is simple. The biographical box you removed dealt with a principle subject of this article, and it allows the reader quick access to basic details. Rklawton (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not CharlotteWebb btw. I just agree that the infobox overkill isn't useful. I dorftrottel I talk I 04:33, December 8, 2007

You bunch of retarts

If this is not glorifying the crime what should this be called. The poor bastard wanted attention, wanted to be famous and you spell his name and put his picture on? Now, that's a good way to stop something like this to happen again. Morons! 90.5.225.195 (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside your ad hominem remarks for a second, I *WAS* actually thinking today about the irony that this kid said he was going to get attention, and sure enough people were falling over each other to add it to Wikipedia. If it weren't for the fact that this is now the most deadly mass shooting in Nebraska I would have voted to delete it or merge it into a more appropriate article. --Kensuke Aida (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

While it might feel good to do the opposite of what the shooter wanted - it doesn't actually make any difference to anyone. It doesn't help the victims, and it doesn't prevent a future shooter (someone who is that depressed is not going to stop because wikipedia won't write his name). As much as we would like the world to be different, sometimes people do bad things and get what they want - he wanted publicity, and he got it, and that's just how things are. And BTW, not doing what people (a supposed, future publicity-seeking shooter) want does not stop people - it makes them try harder (a bigger shooting). Ariel. (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Before we had an article, the news were all over the place otherwise it would have been deleted already. You see, we only include topics that have been significantly covered in published, reliable third-party sources. Also, it's retards btw. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 07:14, December 7, 2007

You can leave the article, but please do make an effort to erase any link related to his name, picture or anything like that. Maybe somebody will find a use to this kind of news, but keeping the info with his info (bio and all) just serves his interes. The main problem is the US media that corrupted media everywhere into this type of sensationalism. A hundred years ago there were people snapping and going on a rampage as well, but they were the really sick people and you can't help it, these things are going to happen anyway. Now, with all this advertising more and more are turning for attention and, as you can see they are ready to pay the price only for that. Some are whoring for youtube, some are getting into more and more dystopian society TV games, some are ready to take others with them. It is our duty to stop anyway we can at least the most harmful type, the ones that are getting others into their sick plots. He is not even some sort of a special case like Albert Fish. I would think these types of antisocial behaviour should be erased from the public access libraries, but maybe some could find some sense and bring something good from the most weird cases. A loser that decides to do something bad, not even because he is actually sick, but because he wants his 15 minutes of fame - the least thing a community can do is erase their memory in all forms. This has happened all over history, the facts that were too exagerated in a bad sense were cleared from the chronicles unless they served some political reason. It's only now that the media (our chronicles) are so perverted that they spread only the worst things. 90.5.176.141 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, they say a corporation should serve the interests of the owners. Reuters, Time Warner, are there to make money either directly or by endorsing a certain policy that serves a private goal. Wikipedia is supposedly belonging to the community, to the human race... the human race doesn't need an ode to these sick bastards. 90.5.176.141 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, sorry for the harsh words, as a lack of decency as expressed in this news-artcile getts me mad as well. I also keep my stand as long as the names of individuals like this one or any identifiable data about them is kept in the public records of Wikipedia and not burried down in the archives. I mean it's one thing to state he had two brothers and one sister and his mother was divorced and a completely different thing to state his name, his former address, burrial place, etc. 90.5.176.141 (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the info in the article is relevant and verifiable. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, and is btw not censored. Feel free however to ask all the newspapers out there to erase that information. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:32, December 7, 2007

This isn't a "news article." This is an encyclopedia article. Taking articles like this down isn't going to prevent sick people from doing sick things. Stop trying to push your beliefs and viewpoints on everyone else. Now let's keep the topic of this talk page directed towards improving the article. will381796 (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, basically you don't be a retard. The fact that a DERANGED mind SHOOTS AND KILLS, NINE people, and just happens that he seeks attention, is NOT a reason to bury your head in the sand and stop thinking such DERANGED minds exist. Look at it this simple way, there are many crazy people in the world, that talk lots of bullshit, they will say many different crap like you pay attention to them or just random things, the fact that they exist and are crazy and aggressive and extremist does not stop just by forgetting them. In the end they are mentally unstable and extremely aggressive, ANYTHING they say it will be either random, aimed to piss you off or aimed to STOP YOU FROM STOPPING THEM, such as by means of knowing what they are and how they operate. Such an article fulfills such a role. It is sad that some use as an argument only that "wikipedia just copies sources", no, it's better than that, it's GOOD to know how deranged unstable minds work and that they exist to better avoid them, understand them, and avoid them re-emerging. --Leladax (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, every sicko from Stalin, Hitler and the US Presidents to the last monkey brain who thought killing is cool getts publicity for their deeds. Now, could you point out how glorifying the murder helped prevent cases like this one? 90.5.176.141 (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:NOT#SOAP. If you want to debate the role of media in crime then I suggest there are forums better suited to this argument Parsival74 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody glorified the murder; what is this troll? Please find a forum. --Leladax (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Could it be making sense to say that wikipedia can only be as ethical as its contributors lecture? I think as this quest for fame happened another 10 times wikipedians will get fed up with these idiots names and personal details somewhat.For that to happen we do however need to publish the pictures, i myself get really curious when things go missing.77.251.188.67 (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Middle name?

A bit trivial, but is there any source confirming his middle name?

LeatherEngine (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

His middle name was EMO.24.46.98.142 (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Where did he get the gun(s) / ammo ?

Big question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.248.199 (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly he stole the gun from his stepfather. Tuxide (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

More? Have you seen this article? Parsival74 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Concealed carry? I petition this for removal.

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)

It's gone. And I agree with you. will381796 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Absolutely not, the section was intended to provide a bit of background of the laws of the land in the area where the shooting took place. It had nothing to do with the perpetrator, but with the people in the mall. I agreed with the removal of my "editorial" comment, but disagree with the idea that it is not relevant to know that A) The state laws would allow the innocents in the mall to have had the opportunity to defend themselves and B) The mall had decided to take away that opportunity. I had planned on making the section cleaner and without opinion tonight, but if everyone's against it, I won't waste my time. Srjsignal (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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... SQL ^{Query me!} 11:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to work something up sometime this weekend, that initial thing was my first attempt, and done on my lunch break at work. It's conjecture that it *would* have made a difference, but possible that it *could* have made a difference. (I've got a link somewhere to the fact that people who are planning these things almost always choose "gun free" locations, but that may not be totally relevant). Anyway, I'll see what I can work up that is acceptable to all.Srjsignal (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Gun laws section not relevant

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.{{cited}} 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)

To further support the removal of this section. This Robert Hawkins was underage to have a firearm and has a state documented mental health certificate as a ward of the state to treat depression and drug abuse. Under the law, no one minor or adult can obtain a license to carry a firearm if they have had certified mental impairment, criminal background that retains a felony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.71.134 (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of mentioning concealed carry being banned in the mall is that someone with a permit to carry a concealed weapon could not carry one in the mall because of the malls "No Weapons" policy. Someone else with a gun could have shot back.

It's also worth noting that if the sign said "no weapons" then the killer obviously didn't heed that sign and it could be that he picked this location to start shooting people since he wouldn't have to worry about anyone shooting him other then himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.90.15.3 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

two links on this subject [7]fox news and [8]the wallstreet journal opinion journal.com. is that a good enough source? Cryo921 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Perpetrator section

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)

I agree that there is redundancy. I would say delete the information from the infobox and keep the information stated in the article. Wikipedia is, afterall, made up of articles. Not infoboxes. will381796 (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

- "Certified Loser" would be appropriate to add to this article about the shooter, but that is purely subjective.

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)

The use of infoboxes for perpetrators is a well established practise on Wikipedia so I don't believe removing the infobox is a good option, but I don't really see why the main text needs to be compromised either. The infobox is a summary of the main text, replication is a natural result of this function and I think both are worthy of retention. Parsival74 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

N Fair enough, I'll refrain from the deletion. Thanks - NGC6254 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

NNtl;dr. fine with me anyhow. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Shooter deserves his own page

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

Going out in style

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)

One person, a holder of a Concealed Carry Weapon license, claims to have been on-scene during the attack. He says that if the mall had not posted "No Weapons Allowed", he could have had several seconds of a clear shot. http://p207.ezboard.com/fccwnebraskafrm7.showMessage?topicID=394.topic&index=13 is the source.

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)

Expletives

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)

"Fuckin", apparently. The Smoking Gun has a copy of the actual note: [9] --W.marsh 06:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Birthday

As per the earlier discussion #Age of Gunman the consensus appears to be we should not add his birthdate until sources agree on what the date is. I see this has now been added back. Is there now clarity from the sources? The birthdate is sourced to the general KETV website and I was unable to work out what page in particular it was referring to Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we can put this question behind us: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10205217

"Robert was born May 17, 1988, at Royal Air Force Lakenheath, a military base near London." - NGC6254 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If possible, we should find better places to cite from than the Omaha World-Herald, for long-term goals. Its news archiving system is the shits, I remember how awful it was from the Skutt Catholic lawsuit incident. Tuxide (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote in lead

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)

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)

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)

I was about to set the references

- NGC6254 (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference one mentions nothing that was quoted in that paragraph. Daniel 12:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

- Understood, thanks. - NGC6254 (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I "boiled down" the Background section and sourced it. How'd I do? - NGC6254 (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

F-Word

Should the "f" word be censored or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In short, no. Please see our policy Wikipedia is not censored. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that fucking clarification. ;-) — Rickyrab | Talk 06:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Social security number on suicide note

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)

I agree, I think its unneccessary to include it in the article. Parsival74 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the last page of the suicide note is centered while the other two pages are aligned left? I couldn't see any way to remove this formatting. will381796 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess it's because none of the sentences are long enough to force the alignment to go all the way over to the left side of the page. {{Lquote}} would probably solve this? --W.marsh 22:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. will381796 (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Before an hero did this crap, wasn't there a gov't warning out there about terrorism in the shopping malls this holiday season?

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)

I don't think that is something that really needs to be discussed in this article. will381796 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Type of gun/ammo?

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)

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)

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)

Pruned material from article

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)

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)

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 {{cite web}}. 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)

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)

Suicide note

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)