Talk:Westroads Mall shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Westroads Mall shooting article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2
Good article Westroads Mall shooting has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Refactored discussions

Info This section has been refactored from several different sections that have been archived, and presents the perspective of one Wikipedia contributor. The summaries here might not reflect everything that was discussed previously, and none of it should be viewed as absolute truth or the opinions of those involved in these discussions.

[edit] Robert A. Hawkins's own article

Much discussion has gone on over whether the perpetrator, Robert Hawkins should have his own article on Wikipedia. A consensus has been reached that a Robert A. Hawkins article can be forked from Westroads Mall shooting ONLY IF this article exceeds 32k characters and enough information exists that a standalone article can be written about him to avoid redundancy. Considering the importance of the crime, WP:BLP1E might not apply.

[edit] perpetrator pov

I noticed that the MIP for alcohol is mentioned as a misdemeanor, but the other misdemeanor is not mentioned. As it reads right now, the article seems to be saying that the MIP has something to do with it specifically (uncited claim), from the impression it gives, though not outright stated. In order to fix this POV problem, if someone knows the other misdemeanor, please add that in there too. That gives the information without drawing conclusions, removing the emphasis on the MIP by including the other. KV(Talk) 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to call it POV in the meantime KV(Talk) 13:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I added the other charges, and removed the tag. Someone replaced the tag. Did I forget something? - NGC6254 (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that should fix it then, as long as it's all mentioned. Otherwise the article gives the impression that the alcohol was the source of the shooting by mentioning that and not whatever else was happening. A puritanical bias if you will. Either mention it all or none of it, preferrably all of it though, imo, I'm an inclusionist. KV(Talk) 13:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that this matter is resolved, please remove the tag. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Since this discussion seems to be only referring to "The shooter" section, I'm changing the tag. - NGC6254 (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Would removing this phrase solve the problem? --> "..one of which was underage possession of alcohol." - NGC6254 (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Westroads Mall Posted Against Concealed Carry

All entrances to the Westroads Mall are posted to prevent citizens with concealed carry permits from being able to intervene in such a situation. Laboros (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank god they posted that sign. Now all of the future shooters will have to leave there guns outside. Problem solved! What would we do without Democrat Mall Management!?!? 131.46.41.71 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There would be huge legal issues with allowing wild west style shootouts in one of their malls for hostage or holdup situations. But I don't think any of this really relates to this incident at all, unless you can find a source that discusses it. JayKeaton (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert A. Hawkins article

I removed this edit, as Hawkins' article is a redirect to this one, and that could create confusion (for example, people may click on his link, think that the page didn't load, and keep clicking 'til the death of the universe). However, that got me thinking; is he going to get his own article? He's certainly notable enough. Master of Puppets Care to share? 03:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You will find your answer in the archives; there has been much discussion on this topic already. I probably wouldn't mind putting this in a "refactored discussions" section on the top of the talk page so people would know. Tuxide (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I suppose after more information has come out we'll revisit the topic. Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Denial of Reward

Surely we shouldn't give the perpetrator the fame he desired? It would be accurate to say the "the shooter/gunman/criminal" did X, but do we have to perpetuate the problem that the next copycat will do the same, safe in the knowledge that they will be guaranteed fame?

I would prefer that they be denounced as "the complete loser", but to maintain a neutral POV, we shouldn't use names or pictures of the culprit. Likewise, we shouldn't publish their blogs, notes, etc. Their evil doings earns their entire memory a one-way trip to society's rubish heap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.175.141 (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read most of this page Wikipedia:NOT JayKeaton (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that on January 11, someone has been repeatedly editing the article to replace the name of the shooter with "loser", as well as other vandalism. The IP doesn't match the above unsigned comment asking to call the shooter "complete loser", but it's worth noting. Clockster (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons column in news report concerning the weapons used in the Omaha, Nebraska mall shooting.

Further news reports and investigations have stated that there were multiple weapons in the Omaha, Nebraska mall shooting on Dec,5. Police detectives have stated that the gunman, Robert A. Hawkins, was also weilding two semi auto-matic hand guns that he did not use in the shooting, but were found on his body. I think that this information should be included in the news report on this subject.≤diphuntanddrink≥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diphuntanddrink (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked through a number of the sources, including the source for the assertion that the shooter had a semiautomatic AK-47 with two 30-round clips, and the only thing I could find in the media was a reference to a "AK-47 type assault rifle." Note that this journalist was confused: a semiautomatic AK-47 is not an assault rifle. I haven't seen a really good source stating that he used an AK-47 or anything else, so it might be premature to put that in the article -- that is, unless it IS cited. By the way, AK-47s don't use clips; they use magazines, and so I made that change in the article. --MatthewLiberal (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a citation stating that the Omaha Sheriff said he used an SKS stolen from his father's house, along with two 30-round magazines. Please note: the civilian SKS is a semiautomatic weapon and thus not an assault rifle, despite its intimidating looks. --MatthewLiberal (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that your conflict with the term assault rifle stems from two seperate definitions. With regard to military use you are correct, assault rifle would probably not be applicable, however with regard to civilian firearms the weapon used by Hawkins is was covered by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and therefore I believe the term is applicable. Also the most recent reports i've seen have named the weapon an AK-47, it was the earliest reports (which naturally are the least reliable) that name the weapon a SKS. Parsival74 (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying! The Assault Weapons Ban actually refers to "assault weapons," which, if you look at the article, are essentially defined by looking scary, not any particular feature. The SKS used was not an assault rifle, but it was an assault weapon. See the difference? Assault rifle is the military term; assault weapon is the legal one. Also, you have apparently ignored my citation of the sheriff's report that it was an SKS. Although the media has widely (and inaccurately) called it an AK-47 (based, I believe, on a picture that was released and the cosmetic similarity of the two firearms), I'm going to trust the sheriff on this one. I don't really feel like edit warring, though... --MatthewLiberal (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
An update: the current citation is based on a Google News report that AK-47 ammunition was found at his father's house. Of course, the SKS and the AK-47 both use 7.62mm, so that's not proof that it was an AK-47. Again, I will trust the sheriff here. --MatthewLiberal (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
All of the newer sources state it was an AK-47. The sheriff also claimed it was an SKS that used 7.66 (sic) ammo which is clearly incorrect. Let's stick to the newer sources, rather than insisting on citing with the older ones, that had claimed it was an SKS erroneously. Yaf (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus against me, so let's agree to AK-47 for now. I'll keep checking the news, though ;D Thanks for your input! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewLiberal (talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it was in all likelyhood an AK-47 rifle. Note how I didn't add any politically-charged adjectives to that description :) WP:NPOV and all. All the more recent sources describe it as such, and, the Sheriff may not have been working from firsthand experience, or, may not in general be great at identifying firearms. I recall, in training, there were a few officers there, taking the same course, for recertification. I got a good chuckle out of it, when one of the other folks in my group, took an interest in one officer's sidearm (he was looking to get a baby glock himself). He asked the officer "Is that a glock 23 or 27?", not knowing that much about them at the time himself. The officer responded with "No, it's a Glock 40" (For those of you that aren't familiar with glocks, there is no "Glock 40", .40SW is the caliber of the firearm). :) Not to say he was bad with the sidearm, heck, he outshot me. Just illustrating, that the police aren't always the end-all-be-all, when it comes to firearm identification, particularly when it comes to arms that are fairly similar. SQLQuery me! 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number Injured

The article alternates between 3 and 4 injured. KETV has an article[1] from 2007-12-22 that lists it at five injured, including one person who did not seek medical assistance. Since this seems like an area that could lead to dispute on different sources I wanted to post here instead of updating myself. Big Merl (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed that before; however, two weren't injured by the gunman, but rather in other ways (one hit his head on a counter or something, I think). Those weren't included. I'll get you a diff in a second... Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Here you go. Not exactly a diff, but that works better in my opinion. Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I updated the article per the Omaha World Herald and KETV, with the report of another injury by a bullet fragment. Shawn W (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, just make sure to check your {{citeweb}}s before you save. :P Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

Thank you ThreeOneFive for nominating this as a Good Article. Thanks to the actions of several editors, this is a concise, well-written article which spans all pertinent information. It's well-researched with terrific sources and appears to be stable. My only concern was with using 2 images from news sources, but fair use rationales were applied correctly. Clockster (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As one of the editors of this article, I greatly appreciate the kudos. - NGC6254 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)