Talk:2023 Allen, Texas mall shooting/Archive 2

List of victims
I have boldly removed the list of names and ages of victims in this event from the article. The content was sourced, but see the essay Victim lists. The families and friends of those killed are entitled to some degree of privacy at this point, and the names and individual ages of the victims add nothing useful to our coverage of the event in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a memorial.  General Ization Talk  20:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also see the companion essay Casualty lists, which offers the opposing view (with which I do not personally agree).  General Ization Talk  20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My understand of WP:MEMORIAL is that it applies to article only covering a person, not an event. Hence,   --Super Goku V (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The remainder of that sentence is That principle should apply both to articles about people and articles about events.  General Ization  Talk  22:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not at all what WP:NOTMEMORIAL says. See WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL Esb5415 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What I placed above is a verbatim quote. I offered a number of reasons why I believe the list of victims should not appear here, and linked to essays both against and for its inclusion. My only reference to WP:NOTMEMORIAL was the link underlying the word memorial in my comment. I did not say that the guidance at that link prohibited such inclusion; my point in including that link was only that memorializing victims is not the purpose of Wikipedia, which is what is being discussed at WP:ISNOT. Also, please note that WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL is an essay, not a policy, and not all editors agree with its suggestions concerning the intent, meaning or application of the policies at WP:ISNOT.  General Ization Talk  23:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is the shooting, not the victims, so WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply. Esb5415 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And I reiterate: The families and friends of those killed are entitled to some degree of privacy at this point, and the names and individual ages of the victims add nothing useful to our coverage of the event in the encyclopedia.  General Ization Talk  23:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The families and friends of those killed are entitled to some degree of privacy at this point Our reliable sources are publishing them, so we are not invading privacy. the names and individual ages of the victims add nothing useful to our coverage of the event in the encyclopedia I highly disagree; WP:UNDUE clearly states we need to include them to have a neutral point of view. Esb5415 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not everything published by reliable news sources belongs in an encyclopedia. Exercising editorial oversight to determine what is and is not relevant to the purpose of our article is not a violation of neutral point of view.  General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 23:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since we name the weapon, and discuss the shooter (his name, occupation, possible motive), WP:UNDUE applies to cover the other "viewpoints": the victims. Esb5415 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, a verbatim quote would have included You omitted that, because it quite clearly says ; nobody is proposing we start Victims of 2023 Allen, Texas outlet mall shooting, nor any articles on the individual victims themselves. As noted above, see WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL, specifically the RFC's linked at the bottom, for further guidance. TL;dr: it's a WP:DUE concern, as these articles typically lean heavily on the perpetrator's history, background, etc. while relegating the victims to naught but a statistic. I consider naming the victims the bare minimum we can do to bring some balance to these articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I omitted that phrase because the editor to whom I was replying had already reproduced it, just above my comment. The perpetrator invited inspection and the level of detail appearing in our article through his acts. The victims did not, and I'm not at all convinced that they or their families would view the inclusion of their individual names and ages in an encyclopedic article a matter of "balance" with information about their murderer. What "viewpoint" is served by this inclusion, or being suppressed by their omission? <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 00:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The victims? That people, real people, died? Not just dry statistics like genders and ages? Our sources routinely cover the victims, often dedicating entire pieces to them, the lives they lead, and the grief their families endure. The absolute minimum we can do is give them the benefit of being named as victims, not just numbers. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you have lost sight of the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. The personal identities and lives of the victims should be explored by reporters who can actually talk with the families and develop this content in a fair, considerate and thorough way, not by editors who are specifically prohibited from doing so. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I haven't. I'm telling you we must follow our sources on this, not omit details because some editors don't like them. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We very regularly omit details that are incompatible with our purpose and policies as an encyclopedia. That's called editorial oversight. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Another part of the encyclopedia is always presenting a neutral point of view (it's in WP:NPOV). Part of NPOV is giving balance to subjects. There are multiple parts of this subject: there's the incident itself (the shooting, inclusive of the investigation, details from law enforcement, etc), there's the perpetrator (and seemingly any detail one can scrounge up on them, including make and model of firearms used), there's the victims (you know, the deaths this events notability rests on in the first place), there's also other details like reactions from political leaders. We must balance all of these. When editors seek to censor victims, we create an imbalance disallowed by policy, one that is . Now. Is there a WP:PAG-based reason to exclude the victims? We've already eliminated WP:NOTMEMORIAL. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think this is incorrect. WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.  Again, this is with regard to views, not facts.  The fact of the victims' identities is not a "view."  NPOV does not tell us that we have to put in every bit of information in reliable sources; in fact, WP:VNOT says we do not have to.  Again, I would suggest to everyone that there is no policy that solves this for us.  It is a case of editorial judgment, and there are valid arguments on both sides.  It will come down to persuasion and the weight of consensus.  But then again, I am often wrong.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Should apply" is not the same as it actually applying nor does it make it a principle. Based on past discussions, I do not believe that this principle exists as claimed.  This also means that I disagree with your claim in your edit that WP:VICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, and WP:BLP1E apply in regards to preventing them from being mentioned at all.  (In fact, two of the three are focused on not making a standalone article in certain situations, which this isn't.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I am very much with General Ization on this one, and I am not sure policies actually cover the situation one way or the other. For me it is a case of pure editorial judgment, and I would exercise that in favor of being cautious, for at least a short time after the event in question.  I don't see the need to rush.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE would be the policy that applies. Esb5415 (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And how would WP:UNDUE apply? Dumuzid (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE says Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail. Since we give the shooter weight, we need to give the victims weight as well. There is a section about the shooter, listing his name, occupation, motive. There's a listing of the gun used in the shooting. But there's just a generalization about victims, with simply the age range and number of victims. Finally, Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Our reliable sources list the victims [1 ] [2 ] [3 ] Esb5415 (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I stated above: The perpetrator invited inspection and the level of detail appearing in our article through his acts. The victims did not, and I'm not at all convinced that they or their families would view the inclusion of their individual names and ages in an encyclopedic article a matter of "balance" with information about their murderer. What "viewpoint" is served by this inclusion, or being suppressed by their omission? You seem to be drawing a rather disturbing false equivalence between the murderer and his victims. (Also, as you clearly note, this data is available from sources linked in our article to those who wish to obtain it. We are under no obligation to repeat everything news sources report.) <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a hot take: can you explain why we should deviate from our reliable sources and go your way on this? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you suggesting that the victims somehow invited this attention and the exposure of their individual identities in an encyclopedia? And our reliable sources are news outlets, not encyclopedias. I'm sure you understand that there are significant differences in editorial focus between the two. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I said what I said, please don't strawman me again. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a strawman argument; I genuinely don't understand your description of my comment ("The victims did not") as a "hot take". If you have a cogent argument to make to contradict that statement, please share it with us. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 02:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're saying the victims did not seek out attention. That is a "hot take", as they are already getting attention whether they sought it or not because of their involvement with this event. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you may want to reconsider your future use of the term hot take. It doesn't mean what you think it means. In this case, the statement was both factual and well-considered. The treatment of people discussed in our articles should take into consideration whether or not they have invited that scrutiny. The fact that the victims are "already getting attention" doesn't mean that we should abandon this principle. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 03:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An explanatory essay for WP:BLP1E, which, like WP:NOTMEMORIAL, is about creating entire articles for individuals. The "principle" is inapplicable here. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And as I stated above, Our reliable sources are publishing them, so we are not invading privacy.
 * You seem to be drawing a rather disturbing false equivalence between the murderer and his victims. What is that, specifically? I think the only equivalence I'm trying to make is that both the victims and the shooter were involved in this shooting.
 * What "viewpoint" is served by this inclusion, or being suppressed by their omission? The victims.
 * PS, heading to bed. Esb5415 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Esb5415 -- "Undue" generally refers to giving a minority viewpoint more coverage than it deserves. It does not somehow involve balancing the equities between participants in an event.  The fact of the victims is not a "viewpoint."  It is a fact, and certainly a verifiable one, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.  Again, for me, this is simply editorial discretion.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Undue" can also refer to giving a majority viewpoint more coverage it deserves. We need to follow our Reliable Sources on this. For instance, this is focusing on the shooter; its journalistic viewpoint is the shooter. Meanwhile, this is an article, from the same source, covering the same event, from a different journalist viewpoint: the victims. This is an article covering the same event, but from a third angle: the reactions. Esb5415 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops, this got posted without me finishing. Third article. Basically, since our reliable sources cover so many different angles on this shooting, we should too to follow WP:NPOV. Esb5415 (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Esb5415 -- I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I absolutely understand your side of the argument, and I hope to some degree you see mine.  As I said, I thought you had consensus there, though it's been somewhat complicated since.  Whatever happens, all the best. Dumuzid (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your side as well. Hopefully my tone didn't come across as hostile. All the best :) Esb5415 (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dumuzid Would you be so kind as to self-revert to the prose version of the victim list? I'm not a fan of the bulleted list that is now in place. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Locke Cole - I would, but that's actually not my doing? That was done by Pinecar. Dumuzid (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That was me. Did not notice there was discussions going on. I used articles on other such incidents as guide, while I added the information. I used as official as it can be (though did not give it's reference, as it was part of FB page). I wish, we can have the victim list the way it was published. If other authors prefer not to publish victim info, I am OK (not as passionate one way or the other). Thanks. (Pinecar (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC))
 * With that, as it appears General Ization and I are the only two opposed, I think there's a rough consensus for inclusion, so I wouldn't undo, but I would again suggest there's no rush. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't find the NOTMEMORIAL or NPOV arguments very persuasive in these types of discussions, as a list of victims in an article about a shooting isn't necessarily memorializing and the list of victims isn't a viewpoint needing to be balanced. I'm more likely to look at it from the perspective of WP:AVOIDVICTIM, Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. Those recently killed in a shooting are definitely still covered by WP:BLP, and maintaining a list at this time seems to be prolonging victimization, and not just for those shot but those grieving their recent loss. Leaving the lists out until six months or so down the line avoids some of that, and it also gives more time for WP:DUEWEIGHT to develop.Since these articles are almost always based on news reports and news agencies are always striving to be the first to provide any detail they can, e.g. victim names, there's a lot of unnecessary detail (for an encyclopedia article) that is provided. If we follow WP:AVOIDVICTIM and wait some time before adding victim lists we can see if the weight of coverage after the initial rush places any weight on the names of the victims, or if they stop using the names. That gives us a much better idea if the inclusion of the victims' names are WP:DUE.That said, I don't feel very strongly about this topic. In my experience I've seen that if there is an RFC bringing in the broader community, more often than not the victim lists are rejected. However, when dealing with smaller groups specifically interested in a article it will tend towards inclusion. Also, going to quickly note that Dumuzid reached out to me on my talk page to solicit some uninvolved input. As far as I know I've never discussed victim lists in the past so they'd have no way of knowing where I'd come down on this topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * By definition, WP:BLP doesn't apply. The question here is including the dead victims, not wounded but alive. WP:BPD states this clearly: Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 8 May 1908 [update]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Here's a reliable source confirming their death. Esb5415 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.
 * Recently died - two days ago
 * Contentious - look at this discussion, clearly it's contentious
 * Implications for living relatives and friends - covered with AVOIDVICTIM
 * Particularly gruesome crime - well.. yeah.
 * ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * SFR, I think you're misunderstanding BDP:
 * Yes, it's recent, this we agree on.
 * Contentious in this instance I think means something editors believe material, for some reason, may be false or incorrect. I don't see any editor disputing the names and ages of the victims as widely reported in RS.
 * The implications here are tied to the previous "contentious material". I think the spirit of that specific phrasing however was designed more towards the following bullet;
 * Yes, the crime was gruesome, but the spirit of this passage seems to be about including excessive details about the manner of death. We wouldn't want to describe the types of wounds they sustained, or how their last minutes were spent if they survived beyond the initial attack even if RS reported such details.
 * Simply naming them (which again, nobody is claiming the names are wrong or being misreported) is not something BDP would forbid. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Locke (I hope you don't mind me calling you that!), I am actually on the fence here, because I think your argument about the spirit of BDP is basically correct. That said, I think reading in a narrow interpretation of "contentious" is maybe a step too far.  Just a thought.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't mind you calling me that. =) I think, taken in totality with the bit about suicides and gruesome crimes, you can infer what the author of that line intended. I suppose if we really wanted to figure it out, we could go spelunking the archives at BLP and find out how that exact passage came to be (the context/reason for it). But I think it's a stretch to go from contentious material like how the victim of a crime died, their last moments, the types and severity of wounds sustained, etc. to simple disagreement among editors about whether or not a name should be in an article.
 * All that being said, 90% of similar mass shooting articles name the victims. And recently, it's been far less of an issue to include names than it was, say, two or three years ago. I'm sad to see we're back to having these debates again after that kind of progress. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll just say I think people tend to undervalue how much editorial discretion and consensus count for on Wikipedia--many, if not most issues are not clearly solved one way or the other by policy. As I say, I find your argument here fairly persuasive, but (as SFR pointed out independently), I think that one definitional bit is a weakness.  I think 'contentious' is specifically meant to encompass disputes like this, where editors in good faith disagree on article contents.  Having said all of that, I do wish there were an overarching policy one way or the other on this particular point.  Once again, happy to defer to the wisdom of consensus, though I can't lie--I have no clue where it currently stands.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of your argument hinges on your interpretation of contentious. If what it meant was something editors believe material, for some reason, may be false or incorrect then there would be no need to also stipulation questionable material. Contentious means likely to cause disagreement or argument, which is how it is generally used on-wiki e.g. contentious topics. Lastly, you're relying on your own interpretation again. That's why the whole thing hinges on editorial consensus, because it's not up to a single editor's interpretation of BLP/BDP.
 * All of that said, people are spending a lot of time disagreeing with someone who doesn't actually care if the names are included or not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think contentious was included so that material that was perhaps widely reported but disputed by editors would be included (so no longer merely "questionable" as there are RS for it). Again, I see nobody disagreeing with the RS on names/ages. What...? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What I meant by that last line is that my own argument isn't strong enough to convince myself to take a position on listing the names of the victims, so it really isn't worth the effort to refute it. I clearly don't think it's a significant BLP issue because if I did I wouldn't have said I don't feel very strongly about this topic in my first statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The victims' names shouldn't be in the article due them being irrelevant to 99% of readers & a violation of the families' privacy. For obvious reasons, including surviving victims' names would be even worse. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody has suggested including surviving victim's names that I'm aware of? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently, someone edited the article at least once to add the survivor's names and was reverted. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahh I missed that, well I definitely wouldn't support that. At least not without some serious discussion (obviously if a survivor starts going on social media/news/etc. to speak out, similar to survivors from some high school shootings have, then they become more relevant and any privacy interests are negated). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think including the victims is fine, but I did remove the bold around their names. The perpetrator's name I understand is bolded per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT, but I don't see any exception to MOS:BOLD that would apply to the victims—rather, it seems the bold was being used just for generic emphasis.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry—updated—I didn't realize the list of victims had been added just two minutes before I came across it. I've reverted myself and that addition in light of this discussion., I believe in light of this discussion, the invocation of BLP, and WP:NOCON, the names of the victims should be left out of the article until a consensus is reached.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

As I've stated in other discussions, I think we should include the reported victims names in the article as their is no policy related reason to exclude them. I think we should limit it to short descriptions such as name and age, possible relation to other victims. Rather not have unnecessary details of their jobs and hometowns. Aside from the employee that worked at the mall as security I believe, we don't really need that info. I am against all inclusions of survivor names per WP:BLPNAME, and the names of relatives as victims. I had removed instances of both of those while the victim list was up. <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 19:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This sounds fine with me, provided that it is in prose like prior to this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it's preferable to have them in prose, not just a plain list. This also makes it easier to explain familial relationships vs. a dry listing. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, the decision to include the names of the deceased from the article is not specifically disallowed in Wikipedia. I believe it is important to include their names out of respect for their deaths in the incident. Additionally, it is worth noting that many other articles covering mass shooting events include the names and ages of the victims. If other articles have followed this practice, I see no reason why this one shouldn't. Poiwert (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

There still appears to be a rough consensus for inclusion. Or do we need to go the RFC route again? —Locke Cole • t • c 17:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2023
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  22:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Allen, Texas outlet mall shooting → 2023 Allen mall shooting – Per WP:CONCISE. This event is highly unlikely to be confused with any other event that has occurred in 2023 at a mall in a city or town named Allen. The first 20(!) pages of Google search results for "Allen mall shooting" are all about this event. Carguychris (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would oppose this just on the basis of the utility of including "Texas" in the title--sometimes I know I forget the specific place but remember the state. That said, happy to go wherever consensus leads.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose See Allen. There are at least 15 cities, towns and unicorporated communities within the United States named "Allen", and it is unclear from your proposed name whether the name refers to geography, the name of a mall, or something else. The inclusion of ", Texas" provides simple and effective disambiguation, minimizing any potential confusion. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 21:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation is only important when the subject of a Wikipedia article is likely to be confused with a different, similarly named subject (e.g., Midway Airport or King Charles). What other notable subject is likely to be confused with this one? The proposed capitalization makes it clear that the name doesn't refer to the mall itself ("Allen mall" rather than "Allen Mall"), and it's no more likely to cause confusion than the current "outlet mall" name. Carguychris (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mixed I don't agree with removing the Texas portion of the title, but I would be okay with both removing the outlet portion of the title and having "2023 Allen mall shooting" redirect here. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, see and, above. As Dumuzid notes, omitting Texas is a non-starter for me. I'd be willing to see the "outlet" go, though I think it helps readers understand that it's not your typical indoor mall (which just "mall" implies). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are at least 15 places called "Allen" in the US. The proposed title is ambiguous. WWGB (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The title is not ambiguous, for the same reason that London Bridge and Brooklyn Bridge are not ambigiuous—there are numerous places named London and Brooklyn, and many of them have bridges, but none of them have a notable bridge. Has there been a mall shooting in any other place named Allen in 2023? Carguychris (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it should be 2023 Allen, Texas Shooting, Allen, Texas Outlet Mall Shooting, Allen, Texas Massacre or 2023 Allen, Texas Outlet Mall Massacre. just missing the name of the state where it happen would not do. Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but Support 2023 Texas mall shooting - as others have pointed out, there are other Allens, so that it imprecise/potentially confusing, but there has only been one "Texas mall shooting" this year, and that's what sources have taken to calling it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. There was a mass shooting at a mall in El Paso, Texas, in February. Carguychris (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 2023 El Paso shooting was also a 2023 Texas mall shooting. In any case, the article needs Allen in its title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Merika be crazy. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I believe that "Texas" should remain in the title. I also speculate if having "outlet mall" (instead of just "mall") in the title reinforces a bias that some people might have against "outlet" malls, but that will have to be a separate debate. Mike Richardson (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I explained above in the section, I chose "outlet mall" to make it distinct to the reader that it was not a traditional indoor mall, but rather a mall with exterior facing entries. I'm neutral on whether that wording should stay/go, it just felt more useful to the reader to make that distinction so that lists of similar "mall" shootings might make it stand out. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do all "outlet malls" have exterior facing entries? Certainly not in my country. An outlet mall sells items that are remaindered or out of season. The layout of the building is irrelevant. WWGB (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The term "outlet mall" does not necessarily refer to any particular style of architecture, but as a practical matter, the majority of those developed within the last 20 years in the US (especially by Simon Property Group, one of the leaders in this type of development, and the developer of the Allen site) have a similar format: a "mock" village consisting of multiple buildings containing relatively small retail spaces, each typically one-story (though they may have faux two-story elevations to reinforce the village impression), exterior entrances to all or most stores distributed across two or three elevations of each building, and a central court or plaza, generally located on the edge or outside of a large metropolitan area. In this sense, they are distinct from "outlet stores", which generally consist of only one retailer. Outlet malls or centers do not usually contain any anchor stores, which are more typical of enclosed (generally regional) malls. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 14:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The (intentionally) ambiguous and flexible definition of "outlet mall" is a major reason I proposed the name change. @General Ization, I think this discussion establishes that the term suggests different things to people from different regions and cultures—particularly those where Simon Property Group has no presence—but we should all be able to agree that it's a "mall". Carguychris (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a mall, but only in the vaguest sense of the word: would outdoor mall be more palatable? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems the intent of including these types of phrases in the title, is to provide a basic context of the scene. "Outdoor mall" is far less ambiguous, compared to "outlet mall" or "mall". Is it important to have this context in the title? (Example: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the "Elementary School" part of the title is extremely important.) Mike Richardson (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I prefer "Allen, Texas" because it makes the title more understandable to a wide audience: I wouldn't know what "Allen" means in "2023 Allen mall shooting". I also prefer "mall shooting" as opposed to "outlet mall" or "outdoor mall", because the purpose of an article title is to help people identify whether that article contains the information that they're looking for. I don't think it needs to "stand out" as Locke suggests above, and I don't think it needs to contain a full description of the event. "2023 Allen, Texas mall shooting" is easily understandable, and descriptive enough. Toughpigs (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the mall's type & layout are nowhere near important enough to be in the title. 2023 Allen, Texas mall shooting, 2023 Allen, Texas shooting, Allen, Texas mall shooting & Allen, Texas shooting are all better than the current title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Neo-Nazi" in the lead?
Hello all, SonofPorkins removed the "Neo-Nazi" descriptor as applied to the gunman himself from the lead, based on the reasoning that we don't really know if he self-identified as such. After looking through a few RSes, it does seem to me that the Nazi stuff seems to be a bit qualified: "ideations" and "leanings" and the like. So, I don't think the removal is necessarily wrong, although a small part of me feels like there is something of a WP:BLUESKY argument here. That said, even if we remove the personal identification, I feel that neo-nazism is covered just too much in the sources to be out of the lead entirely. Thoughts? Dumuzid (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "... described by some sources as having adopted and promoted neo-Nazi ideologies, ..." <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 17:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have updated the lead based on this discussion. Does it look fine where it is and how it is sourced or is further changes needed?  --Super Goku V (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thank you! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the headline of one of the cited articles (or some other article) that has found its way into the text of the lead: I wasn't able to take the time to figure out which one. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 04:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I . <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 16:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ugh... Yes, that is the headline to this Washington Post article.  I had considered including it at one point in my editing, but ended up not doing so as it only briefly touched upon the shooter's motives and beliefs.  Unfortunately, it looks like I had already copied over the headline and failed to notice it.  Thank you for fixing my edit and sorry for the trouble.  --Super Goku V (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that we have enough to mention in some way that he had a connection or involvement in neo-Nazi beliefs between the non-Daily Beast sources in the article and additional sources online. (Guardian, Texas Tribune, PBS, Reuters 1, 2)  --Super Goku V (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

To add to this article: exactly which types of guns were used in this shooting
It is very, very ridiculous that the text of this article still does not contain any information about the types of guns that were used in this shooting other than "Three guns were found on the gunman's body" (and a previous "Talk" page comment containing a request to add this basic information was sent to the archives without any action to correct this serious omission, or, indeed, any response). To add to the article promptly, in order to make it more properly encyclopedic: exactly which types of guns were used in this shooting--something anyone visiting this article would expect to find in the text of this article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for which types were used? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Gun-fixated America. What type of guns were used? Deadly ones, that's what. Who cares? WWGB (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This information is certainly encyclopedic, but I have not found a source meeting WP:RS that positively states the precise types of firearms found at the scene, as opposed to ones seen in Garcia's social media posts and ones he's known to have purchased at Dallas area gun shops. Many blogs and so forth conflate these three categories, but only the first category is relevant here, and it's still a question mark as far as I know. I edited the page earlier this morning to state that, per the Dallas Morning News, authorities still have not released any information. Carguychris (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently some readers care. (Doesn't matter though without a reliable source.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and per WP:UNCENSORED, it should be included in the article once a reliable source emerges. Carguychris (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Nazi symbol
Allen gunman signed name with Nazi symbol on security guard application but still got license. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

New Academic Reference, possibly of use
I just wanted to flag for everyone this paper from West Point's Combatting Terrorism Center. It's interesting on its own, even if not for Wikipedia. I will warn that the site seems to currently be having some issues, and it took me several tries to get through. Cheers all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Non right wing extremist
Was a crazy gunman. Political views had zero to do with what he done 2600:1702:54A1:A410:B0F1:7950:E385:6958 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Add media allen mall shooter on YouTube
There is a police body camera that was recorded for suspected Allen mall shooter. It need for insert external video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqpOSKmwSVs for news. 47.234.198.142 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the language used, especially in the reactions section describing Keith Self is politically neutral.
this reaction was the only one to include additional text describing backlash to the reaction and was the only republican (or other person on the pro gun side of the debate) mentioned. additionally the writer of this section elected to use language such as "dismiss" and "blamed" rather than something that would be more neutral and lack an implication of negligence good replacements for that phrasing would be: "rejected" and "suggested that" respectively. GastroGaming (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant Political Bias
In the Aftermath section, the line "However, the bill is unlikely to be successful in the Texas Senate." is very unnecessary, irrelevant, and blatantly politically motivated. That is why no one takes this site seriously. 2602:306:3644:D0D0:E8F7:9539:963A:E284 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the Deus Vult tattoo anti-Muslim?
In this diff user 2601:188:C77E:94D0:B967:701E:EBF9:99E5 struck "anti-Muslim" from the following sentence:

He posted photos of himself with large Nazi tattoos, including a swastika, the SS lightning bolt logo, and also a tattoo of the anti-Muslim slogan "Deus Vult," a reference to the Crusades.

The edit summary says, Corrected information, Deus Vult is not “anti Muslim”. The given USA Today citation (quoting the ADL) says, “Garcia also used phrases and imagery, such as ‘Deus Vult’ and Crusader crosses, that are commonly used as anti-Muslim symbols,” reads the ADL’s Center on Extremism analysis of the shooter’s posts. “One T-shirt Garcia purchased and wore featured a Crusader and the phrase ‘I will see your Jihad and raise you a Crusade.’ Garcia even got a ‘Deus Vult’ tattoo to match his neo-Nazi tattoos.”

The phrasing there is important because according to multiple sources, Deus Vult is not inherently anti-Muslim in all contexts. So even more accurate would be, commonly misused by neo-Nazis in anti-Muslim messaging.

I am going to tack that phrase on to the sentence in question, add the Time magazine article as a supporting citation, and refer to this thread in the edit summary. If any object, feel free to revert and discuss here.

Xan747 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you Xan747 for the editing and the references. I certainly believe mention of the tattoo belongs in the article.   When it comes to "use/misuse," I am fine with either, but confess I lean toward the former.  While the excellent writers and historians you cite absolutely do make the case that white supremacists are oversimplifying and misinterpreting history, I don't think it's actually a particular corruption of that phrase, narrowly examined.  As the Time article says, "the medieval crusades did indeed contain a clear spine of conflict between Christian and Islamic powers."  Whatever the truth of the speech given at the Council of Clermont, it seems pretty obvious it was anti-Muslim.  So, is the phrase anti-Muslim in all contexts?  Certainly not, and the Crusades are layered in all sorts of cultural baggage and meaning.  But using Deus Vult in this evil way strikes me as not outside its original context.  But, as I say, no great worries either way.  Hope everyone has a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about it after I made that edit and said, you know what, used is more neutral than misused. And after reading your comment here I edited accordingly.
 * This topic is not exactly my bailiwick, but I find it difficult to think of a context where the Crusades are invoked in popular modern discourse that isn't either critical of Christianity as a motivating factor, or Divine justification for anti-Islamic sentiment. As I read those other articles I cited, I thought the academics were perhaps reaching a little too much. However, it could be I hang out in too many of the wrong corners of the Internet--it wouldn't be the first time. Thanks as always for your considered and well-informed commentary, and a good weekend to you as well. Xan747 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)