Talk:Greenwood Park Mall shooting

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the article!.

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   01:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox picture
I added a picture of the mall to the article's Info Box. It's from Wikimedia Commons, and the rights to use it are good. I chose this one out of a total of 58 currently available, because it shows an entrance to the mall, with the malls name over the entry way. There are not currently any photos of the malls food court on the Wiki Commons. Juneau Mike (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Request
Could someone add an archive to reference number 3? I can't access it. Trade (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Trade Reference 3 has now been archived. Silent-Rains (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

intro - "bystander"
Is bystander the right word to use here to describe someone who was directly involved in the events? I feel like a bystander is more like someone who was a witness but did not get involved. Additionally, why do we refer to this "bystander" by name in the intro but not the perpetrator? I feel like this affects the neutrality of the article. Landfish7 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, he was a bystander until he got involved. It seems to me to be the usual phrasing to communicate the situation. But, if we were to change it, what would we change to? "shopper"? "mall patron"? "mall customer"? "potential victim?" I agree with removing his name from the lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Landfish7 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The perpetrator is not particularly notable. There isn't much to say about him, other than "he lived in an apartment" and "he worked at a job once" -- the sole thing he seems to have done is commit murder, which lots of people do without having Wikipedia articles written about them. Most coverage that I've seen has focused on Dicken, as he played a larger role in the event. Anyway, yes, "Bystander" isn't a very good name for the section, but I couldn't think of anything else when I wrote it -- right now it's "concealed carrier", which seems like an improvement, but maybe there is something else even better than that. jp×g 07:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, someone mentioned "civilian bystander", which I think works better than the others. jp×g 08:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Names in the lead
I noticed the perpetrator was removed from that lead, but the civilian bystander's name was added. Both are non-notable and do not need to be mentioned in the lead. I removed the civilian, but it was reverted with no explanation. Please explain here. (It should stay removed until this is resolved.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * One-off shooting incident articles normally include the perpetrator's name in the lead unless they're still alive pending trial. Sure, they're not notable as individuals outside this one tragic event, but we're not talking about notability for having their own BLP article, instead we're just identifying them at the onset for the reader. Compare the Greenwood Park Mall shooting to the Westroads Mall shooting, Tacoma Mall shooting, Cascade Mall shooting, etc. Are there any real differences between the perpetrators in those mall shooting articles and this one that warrant excluding the perpetrator's name in the lead here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not know. Maybe I am off on this. Sure other stuff exists, but maybe those article are unbalanced. It feels POV pushing a bit to me. The lead is for important information and putting their names in the lead says this person is important or that person is important, when these sort of things have become routine and nobody becomes important for having a part in them. I feel Wikipedia should follow cultural trends, not set them, at least outside its purview of providing a high-quality encyclopedia. If Dicken gets a statue or Sapirman becomes the face of villainy, then sure a mention in the lead. But neither have become well-known and Wikipedia should represent that by having the names in the body, but not the lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate what you're saying and yes, these things have become very routine (too routine) in society now with endless shootings. That said, the perpetrators in the plethora of Wikipedia shooting articles available almost always identify the participant(s) in the lead (you can browse through the list here); the bar isn't set at later becoming the face of villainy or statuary as the case may be. Have a look and you'll find that being "well known" isn't a requirement either. Perhaps the real concern is that somehow by including their name we are complicit in lavishing attention on the perpetrator? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a question of glory, but of importance and the summary style of Wikipedia. But measuring importance objectively is difficult. If the lead just said "Some people got shot somewhere." this would clearly be too devoid of information and most people would demand more. But how much detail is needed to satisfy WP:DETAIL "a quick summary of the topic's most important points". Anyhow, if you do not mind I would like to wait a day or two and if nobody else voices an opinion, I will put both names back in the lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly, by all means give it some time and no rush on my account. It's not urgent and users who continue to read past the lead right now will still find the information they're looking for. The problem is that the absence of the names will undoubtedly draw endless revisions by newcomer editors in the years to come when they compare this shooting article to all the others; it jumped out at me only because (sadly) I've read so many, hence my initial edit on this article here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it has been more than a few days. I have added the names. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary -- the name is mentioned multiple times in the article. The perpetrator is a non-notable nobody, who is now dead, and his only claim to fame is attempting to commit mass murder. Where he went to high school doesn't really seem like a major aspect of the event. Does it serve a purpose for readers to be going off about this in the first sentence? jp×g 02:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)