Talk:Stephen Paddock

Autopsy Report

Clark County Coroner (February 5, 2018). "Pathological Examination on the Body of Stephen Craig Paddock" (PDF). DocumentCloud. Retrieved February 10, 2018.

Time of Death

According to the official postmorten examination he died the following day: October 2. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.209.102 (talk) 07:59 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018

A warning attached to the recording of the shooting warning that some may find the footage disturbing. Benbradshaw (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Iffy★Chat -- 11:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2018

Stephen Paddock → 2017 Las Vegas shooting perpetrator – Subject is notable only for this one event. Although a separate article might be warranted, his name need not be the title of it. The cachet of a self-titled wikipedia article will only encourage more such acts. AndyBloch (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles such as Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and Dylann Roof. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral, but CREATE REDIRECT from suggested title. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY WereWolf (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report facts, not to change the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly Support There are many examples where the killer is not mentioned in the article's title. The page contains a long life story about the guy. There are very little details about the life stories of the people who died in the article. We are focusing more on the attacker and in a way providing motivation for these kinds of shootings to keep occurring. It even says in the article that he thought some blood had to be shed to inform the public about the dangers of gun control. This article is getting his message out. The lives of the people who died are not being read about. We are not being affected by the messages of their life stories. The article is promoting the attacker and encouraging a repeat to occur. It is almost glamorizing his life choices. Many people will want to emulate him because of it. I know this view won't win but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. "The idea is that kids bully to gain status and power." "If you can get the bystanders to focus on the victim and not the bully, then bullying isn't a very rewarding thing to do." These ideas are from the following article on how Finland combats bullying: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/11/health/finland-us-bullying-prevention-trnd/index.html Wikipedia is one of the few vehicles the masses have to voice their views. It is not just here to report facts. Otherwise we would let the families of the victims add facts about the lives of the victims to the article too. However, doing this would be flagged as 'not notable'. The status quo is to say that only the life of the attacker is notable. I bet IBM Project Debater agrees that we should focus on the victims and not on the attacker. Here's a video about IBM Project Debater which is an AI that can debate humans pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naQujxmg9gg In fact, I would go one step further and say that the article should be merged with the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting article or redirected to it. When I google 'Stephen P' guess who comes up first? Instead of giving Stephen P his own page we can do what was done for Esteban S and redirect to the incident. Stephen P is not notable for anything else besides the shooting per Wikipedia guidelines. Synesthetic (talk)
• Oppose per User:Rreagan007. An exceptionally notable person, not low-profile. Titles are neutral placeholders, not a "cachet" or prestigious honor. -- GreenC 01:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose History records names and as such so should an encyclopedia. Very bad people get recorded in history too. Killers can become notable. Moralizing is not our job. GuzzyG (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per McVeigh. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:FORK and as to the title, WP:WHITEWASH. This seems like tearing down statues to me. John from Idegon (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support The current practice of using the names of terrorists and mass murderers (famous only for one event or series of events) as the title of articles about them is contrary to Wikimedia's values, and the rules mentioned above should be ignored. Needlessly publicizing their names encourages copycats, changing the world for the worse.