Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting

The elephant in the room ...

Las Vegas shooting: Isis claims responsibility for deadliest gun massacre in US history. Las Vegas gunman identified as American convert to Islam. Would wish it wasn't the case, but there might be an ideology behind again.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Albin Schmitt: ISIS always claims responsibility for random shit like this. Might be Lone wolf terrorism if already. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That second source (Israel National News) is very poor second-hand reporting - "While initial reports claimed Paddock was a recent convert to Islam, Clark County Sherrif Joseph Lombardo said he had no knowledge of Paddock's religious beliefs." That's it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

References

ISIS

ISIS is claiming responsibility without any evidence AP Tweet. I would be cautious if anyone decides to write that ISIS committed the mass shooting in the article without more credible information. FunksBrother (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not irrelevant, that ISIS is claiming responsibility. And yes, they always do - and police has all the last times figured out, that ISIS actually was behind. Actually, ISIS is more reliable as a news source than many mass media. But we should of course not claim, that ISIS did it. Including that ISIS claimed responsibility is on the other hand very appropriate.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It’s too early to talk of responsibility. No representative of law enforcement has suggested any motive. Objective3000 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the points are (a) ISIS claimed responsibility but (b) there is as yet no evidence the shooter was inspired by ISIS. Since the shooter apparently committed suicide to avoid capture, establishing motive would require a manifesto by him claiming intent. These things usually surface after detailed search of personal papers, emails, tweets, facebook, comments posted to website verified to come from the suspect. The only thing we know for certain as of date and time is ISIS has claimed responsibility. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should not be added because of other things people have said. Bobherry Talk Edits 15:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

An example of why we should enforce NOTNEWS. Reuters has said US officials are skeptical of the ISIS claim.[1] Doug Weller talk 15:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Official FBI statement is, "No international connection at all at this time." - FlightTime (open channel) 15:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's probably their silliest claim of responsibility yet. They must be desperate for publicity. Let's not give it to them unless an official in the USA confirms any link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Didn't ISIS at one point claim responsibility for an explosion that was part of a hoax in Louisiana? 24.228.225.97 (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The only established fact is they claimed; it tells us nothing about the shooter but tells us a lot about ISIS. They crave the attention; maybe we should starve them. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Again and again, Amaq News Agency claims something about ISIS and journalists twist it into ISIS claiming it. Then they claim there's doubt about whether what they claim ISIS claimed is true. They get their clicks, SITE gets their fee, Wikipedia relays the headline instead of the meat and Hulk has to fix another damn alleged ISIS claim. It's like I'm the only seeing this, but I'm not crazy. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

Can we agree this be removed? This is a hot topic and should not contain dubious claims. Objective3000 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence on the threat back in May should definitely be removed as the source following it predates the attacks and no law enforcement agency has linked this threat to the shootings.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It was dubious when it said ISIS claimed responsibility, but now it's just probably not important. Similar articles have similar bits, though. Consistency is important. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:43, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

What did Emerson say about consistency?:) [2] Consistency is important within an article. WP:OTHERCONTENT Objective3000 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Emerson? Bah! Point taken, though. But what tends to happen is someone notices the article is missing any mention of ISIS and re-adds the bullshit version they read in a headline instead of the Amaq version, because it's easier. When the clarifying's already present, it's less tempting to actively unclarify it. But yeah, that worry, too, is a hobgoblin. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:33, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

And now it's gotten worse. They're adding the bullshit version with a bullshit source. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

ISIS's reaction needs to be in the article all International media have carried this claim .Please note we have added that they have offered no evidence along with the reaction.We are not making a claim that they carried out this attack .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Once we know something about the actual motive, then we can add various initial speculations and claims. Until then, it’s misleading. Objective3000 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Does this also apply to Trump's guess about pure evil? The existence of such a force at all is questionable. That this invisible enemy of goodness had infected this particular soul is even more a shot in the dark. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it again - just because something is reported in media doesn't mean we should include it (just like the right-wing fake news whatever below). There is no real encyclopedic benefit to adding it and could bring potential harm to the family or others, so let's leave it out, please. ansh666 18:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

How's it potentially harmful? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

Read the deleted bit about the right-wing fake news. It's already been harmful to them. ansh666 19:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through every deleted bit of fake news to find what you're talking about. Spell it out, please, or at least link something. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

It's not "potentially harmful". InedibleHulk, I agree with you. The user "ansh666" (funny name shows a lot), sorry to say, seems to be a suppressor of important facts, who is on the far left and maybe a Muslim apologist or something, and delete or ignore or downplay facts that he doesn't like. (A Californian and a lefty gamer...yeah, real objective, I'm sure.) Doesn't change the reality of what was said and claimed, and how it's solidly referenced. The fact that all (what's considered) "reliable sources" and news agencies (both on the right and the left, and the center) are saying this, constantly, and news articles, that ISIS claimed responsibility and also that ISIS just months ago put out propaganda videos about the Vegas Strip etc, is something (for readers to know) that should definitely be included in this article. Leaving it out is just more Muslim-coddling censorship and would leave the article incomplete.

The information is in line with the necessary criteria for WP inclusion: reliably sources, copiously sources, and notable (since it's being mentioned all the time in every news outlet on the planet). Wikipedia is not supposed to be a lefty blog, but a NEUTRAL (neither righty nor lefty) encyclopedia of relevant and sourced information which this arguably is. To say it's not relevant means that every news journalist (of whatever place in the spectrum) is constantly saying irrelevant information. Not WP's call to make. Regards. 71.246.98.171 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The FBI has stated that the perpetrator has no links to terrorism. Perhaps it cold change as the investigation digs deeper, but for now this is the official line. The article does not need to go into any more detail about a spurious claim than it already does. ValarianB (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thus far, and now (so far) no known link. And yeah, the FBI never lies and is always right about everything (sarcasm). ValarianB.... Again, ISIS has claimed responsibility for this: FACT. And ISIS recently put out propaganda videos regarding the Vegas Strip: FACT. The mass shooting was on the Vegas Strip. And every reliable (and less than reliable and everything in between) sources are saying this a lot...also a fact. So far, ISIS has given no solid proof for their claim though, also a fact, (and should be clearly mentioned in article too). The claim is there and is a reaction...by a notable (though horrible) entity. The Islamic State. It's copiously and solidly sourced that this is the claim etc. And that's all the article is saying. Also a fact. Suppressing that would be wrong and non-WP kosher. Regards. 71.246.98.171 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ISIS claims responsibility for lots of things, but there's literally no evidence of involvement. Until and unless there's actual evidence, we have zero reason to include unverified propaganda claims by a foreign terrorist group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Islamic terrorist groups also claimed responsibility for the Oklahoma City bombing, which was obviously false. We definitely need more than "they said they did it." Master of Time (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Could just as easily be a hoax or misreporting. Wait until more evidence comes in. If he was connected to Islamic State, then it will be proved later. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked. an obvious sock/logged out editor and virtually admits it with an edit summary response to mu NPA warning saying that they are “leaving this page anyway”. 20:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ISIS has released an actual statement with company letterhead, translated here. Praises the guy for acting on the call, but claims no orders beyond that. "By God's grace alone." Seems to know his Islamic name. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

• IP was indeed socking. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Its clear ISIS had nothing to do with this, but if there are credible sources reporting their imaginary claims, it should be summarized here, if only to stop arguments about inclusion. Obviously it only makes ISIS appear as "JV team" which ultimately are. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• If ISIS takes credit for hundreds/thousands of things they have nothing to do with, do we need to mention them in every single article when clearly they have nothing to do with this? I see no reason to mention them at all. The news media wants ratings so just said terrorism before knowing anything at all, then once it was known it wasn't, stopped covering that nonsense angle. Dream Focus 13:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  IS is generally reliable in these claims - at least per some RS - [3]. However, the shooter's motivation will probably be revealed by investigators in the near future. If he was indeed a recent convert to Islam, this would lend credence to IS's claim (who put out the Muslim convert angle shortly after the attack).Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• The claim of responsibility by ISIS is obviously relevant to the subject, and it is reliably sourced to multiple RS. Therefore, I think it must be included right now. If the investigators will establish in the future that the claim by ISIS was "fake" (which would be unusual according to RS), the claim should still remain on the page, but it should be added it was "fake" according to investigators. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• This will not necessarily be unusual. the only claim was Amaq News Agency who has been known to claim several events unrelated to ISIL as ISIL related events. And it was that same claim that was reported on news medias and web sites. But there is no evidence of its validity and actual investigators involved including FBI dismissed the claim and this dismissal too has been reported. So other than Amaq claim (which is unreliable) there is no proof. Regardless since many users wants the information to be included, I think it should stay and the current version is more precise, removing it might cause other users who keeps adding it to add an exaggerated version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengoman2017 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It was only Amaq for a few hours, but then ISIS proper gave a fuller version. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

• From WP:BLP: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I think we need be more careful than usual with material about a recently deceased person that is contentious and dubious. I wouldn’t include it at this point. (In fact, it should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.) I might include it, even if false, once an actual motive is determined. Objective3000 (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the thing, though. There's nothing contentious about ISIS claiming this. Many reliable sources agree they did, so we're fine to say they did. The violation would be claiming Paddock shot people because ISIS inspired him, and citing that to ISIS or Amaq. We haven't done that once here, and won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

^Agreed. Well put, InedibleHulk. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Cramyourspam (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism in the United States / Terrorism in the United States

This event is mentioned at Domestic terrorism in the United States. Should it be? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, this event is mentioned at Terrorism in the United States. Should it be? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Not at this time. Removed. Objective3000 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I say it should be. Bobherry Talk Edits 16:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

What policy or conduct of government did the act attempt to change? It has to fit the definition. Objective3000 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree If the POTUS and/or FBI mentions it (AFAIK they haven't yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do in a few days), then it should be as part of those articles without question. ConCompS talk 22:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

How can this possible not be terrorism under Nevada law? Check the definition of "Act of Terrorism" 1(a) under Nevada law. NRS 202.4415:

• 1) “Act of terrorism” means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to:

• (a) Cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or ...

Act. Check. use of violence. Check. Great bodily harm to general population - 600 casualties, check. Death to general population, over 50 dead, check.

Someone explain to me how this doesn't meet an act of terrorism under Nevada law User:Objective3000? Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This question could be answered with a pointed observation on the alleged perpetrator's skin color and religious (or lack thereof) background, but I digress. For now, the NY Times has an interesting piece on labels, Terrorizing if Not Clearly Terrorist: What to Call the Las Vegas Attack? . TheValeyard (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a rather weird definition of terrorism. In the UK, terrorism is defined as "the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause." Investigators in Las Vegas have pretty much ruled this out. Under Nevada law, the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre would have been an act of terrorism, although it is better described as a mass shooting by someone who had easy access to a gun.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz, you omitted the rest of the definition. It requires a political goal. What was the goal? Objective3000 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In Nevada, it's as simple as that. Coercion or violence, not coercion through violence. And you can only ride a ski lift drunk if it's moving mostly downhill. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 I left out the bit after the "or". There's no political or any other goal needed under Nevada law, other than killing or wounding lots of people. If this doesn't meet that criteria, what does? User:Gdeblois19 why have you reverted without addressing here? Nfitz (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the value of pointing to Nevada's specific and unusually apolitical, legal definition of "act of terrorism" in order to label this as such, particularly when the authorities have explicitly stated that they've found no evidence of links to any terrorist organizations and when there has thus far been no evidence of motive at all. We should not be jumping to such conclusions. -- Hux (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, as the perpetrator was a) white, b) not Muslim, and c) not black or brown, then it qualifies as a "lone wolf attack" and is therefore not terrorism! Contrast this to, for example, 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack (wherein a mentally ill man attempted to stab three people with a breadknife), immediately labelled as a terrorist attack. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

In Leytonstone, "the suspect was reported to have declared, "This is for Syria, my Muslim brothers" and shouted, "All your blood will be spilled". This was a crossover incident caused by a combination of mental problems and some half-baked political or religious ideas. Investigators in Las Vegas knew who had done it almost immediately and told the world's media with confidence that his motive was not religious or political. I'm not sure if we're ever going to know why Paddock did it on that particular day. This was also a problem with Charles Whitman. He was known to have some mental problems but it wasn't possible to produce a clear motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite, I don't see much value in Bastun's estrogen induced public self-flagellation about the evils of being a white male. As has been stated above, at the moment, we don't know the perps motivation. "Terrorism" is a very specific thing; it has to have a political motivation, be an indiscriminate attack against the general public, with the aim of forwarding a political agenda by causing fear and anxiety in the general public. That is why Anders Breivik is classified as a terrorist, alongside Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. At the moment this is what we call it in the article; a [[mass shooting], which will probably end up classified in a legal sense as mass murder. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We always defer to local use of language in such articles. This is a Nevada article, so we should use Nevada terms. Perhaps not necessarily for such infoboxes and categories - but the article should not that this is considered an act of terrorism under Nevada law. Now, we'd need a good secondary source for that; and if I can figure it out, maybe international media can too. Gosh, 440,000 Google News hits. Must be a good one in here ... https://www.google.ca/search?q=nevada+law+act+of+terrorism&lr=&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXge24jNXWAhVj34MKHfv7BnoQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=779&safe=active&ssui=on Nfitz (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We do? Where is the guideline for that? It’s not an ENGVAR issue. We can’t just ignore non Nevada sources in any case. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Multiple guns used simultaneously

Listening to some audio of the event, it is apparent that at times, there were at least two guns being discharged simultaneously. Soon, there will probably be reliable news reports of this fact. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to share once you come across appropriate sourcing, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

More likely echoes, given the large, tall, flat-sided buildings in the vicinity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

See the #Weapon section above for more. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There are reports the suspected perpetrator may have set up multiple shooting locations, but I've not heard about simultaneous shooting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's too early to be looking for a grassy knoll here. What evidence there is strongly suggests that all of the shots were fired from a single location in the Mandalay Hotel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No, Andy, it was NOT echoes. It was two AUTOMATIC weapons with DIFFERENT cycle rates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpsqirFRdTo If you really have nothing to say, don't say it. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, see the #Weapon section above - there is the possibility the shooter was using a crank, which would account for the differing (and sometimes erratic) rates of fire. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully this isn't going to end up like Sandy Hook or JFK's assassination where some people spend all day coming up with conspiracy theories. At first sight, this looks like a much deadlier version of the University of Texas tower shooting but there are still many unanswered questions. Please don't post speculative interpretations of YouTube videos, it's not going to help the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I admire your hope of decency still residing in humanity, I lost mine awhile ago. Infowars' top "news" articles read "What they're not telling you about the Vegas massacre" and "Footage appears to show gunfire didn't come from 32nd floor". So, sadly, we're going to have to be prepared to beat this stuff back. TheValeyard (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Infowars, or more generally Alex Jones, isn't a serious news source. John Oliver gave him a proper honest review here. For this event I prefer the honest, noncommercial, troll-oriented coverage on Encyclopedia Dramatica, but I won't be citing that in the article either... Wnt (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There were witneses who said there were multiple shooters. I don't know which media outlet interviewed them.--70.30.221.71 (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No source, no interest. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Gun sales rising

Seeking consensus on whether the section discussing the stock price of gun manufacturers should be mentioned in the article.

Currently reads "Shares of firearm manufacturers rose on the day following the mass shooting, which was typical in the wake of mass shootings in the US as sales rose from fear of future gun control measures."

Risks include it being conjecture and an assumption regarding stock prices. Pros include being mentioned in reliable sources. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I removed it twice myself. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Correlation ≠ causation. I would leave it out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It is being widely discussed throughout mainstream media sources so it appears to be relevant information on this subject. Here is another example from CNBC.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Just because it's being widely discussed doesn't mean it's relevant. It's armchair quarterbacking. Right now it's just a spurious correlation. I vote to remove at this time. Can add back later if there is something especially relevant about it later. 216.119.215.193 (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I re-included it until this discussion is over per WP:BRD (The Bold move was removing it from the article so it is status quo for now). I for one think it should stay as it is a notable reaction. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Add it to a gun related article at some future time if warranted. The markets are very reactive and often immediately reverse. Objective3000 (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes but the rise was connected to this event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

How do you know? How can reliable sources know the intent of investors? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources is why, those people could have degrees in the field. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

How does having a degree mean you can magically tell the intent of investors? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Again per WP:V we go by reliable sources. You can have your opinions on the sources but take it to WP:RSN if you wish. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think you are misinterpreting WP policy. RS covering something does not mean it should be included. It also has to be relevant to the article. We do not and cannot include everything that reliable sources cover. Why not include the ISIS claim? That is covered as well. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's well established that sales of guns in the USA rise after mass shootings.[4] It's unclear how a concealed carry would have been much use against a shooter on the 32nd floor, however.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

The amount of RS reporting demonstrates that including this in the article is WP:DUE, I feel. I support Knowledgekid87's position here. Bondegezou (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see how it could possibly be relevant to this article. Stocks of gasoline generator, bottled water, and canned food companies also rose in the aftermath of Irma and Harvey but I don't see that topic ever discussed in either of those articles, because they are equally irrelevant. The only reason to bring up this fact is to depict gun sales as insensitive to the event, which is not impartial at all. If it has to stay in at all, it should say "[news source] claims that gun manufacturer stocks have risen as a direct result of this event".

72.238.16.121 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that many domestic arms manufacturers are privately held companies (i.e. Colt, Freedom Group, Springfield Armory, Beretta USA corp, Glock inc), so the overall impact on the market are unlikely to be accurately reflected in the RGR and AOBC prices. Further, for the past 252 trading days (the nominal number of trading days in a calendar year) I calculate the standard deviation of the daily logarithmic returns, or historical daily volatility, for RGR and AOBC to be 2.43% and 2.82% respectively. That said, changes in share prices of +3.48% for RGR and +3.21% for AOBC on 2 October (i pulled current and historical share prices form www.morningstar.com/stocks) fall well short of being statistically significant. In my mind, this pretty well rules out including share price changes for Ruger and Smith & Wesson as per WP:DUE, at least for the moment. Dirty.digger (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand the above conclusion cannot be included in the article due to it being WP:OR, but can it be used to justify omitting talk of share prices from the article? Forgive me, i'm new at this. Dirty.digger (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If we have secondary sources discussing the gun control stuff, gun sales, etc. then we should discuss it. I went and moved it from the "Background" section to the end because it is not the way to start the article ... then someone promptly deleted it. Nonetheless if the sources find it relevant so should we; if the sources point out a correlation so should we. I don't believe in gun control but I don't believe in whitewashing our coverage either. Like it or not, massacres are huge political hay, they often lead to new laws, and their political connections have to be explored. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Even if, as dirty.digger pointed out, there isn't a statistically relevant correlation between the events? In the interest of full disclosure, dirty.digger is my roommate and friend. Ein.vögelchen (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Help hotlines

Should this page include the many help hotlines and services offered by the state, city and others? For example http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-hotline/ "The number to report missing people is (866) 535-5654. Police have also opened a “family reunification center” for people to find loved ones at 400 S. Martin L. King Blvd., in Building B." There are also blood drives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegastrong (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with including news coverage of such services, but including them just to be nice and helpful is not the job of an encyclopedia unfortunately Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

We do not put phone numbers, addresses, email addresses in articles, however there is the External links section. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to go with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, but at the same time ... if we have those numbers in the article there is a risk that someone from Prank University is going to change them and see if anyone notices. The other thing to bear in mind is that article text ought to be written like you could read it in two years and it would still be true - will those numbers and addresses still be useful then? Might be best to leave it to the sources, while being very clear that they "were made available shortly after the shooting" in the text and that those sources say where. Wnt (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of Victims

It says 59 victims, but the citations for it only state 58 victims. Msm8bball (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should say 50+ and 500+. These numbers will continue to be updated and can even drop. Objective3000 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia typically includes the deceased perpetrator as part of the casualty count, which may explain this discrepancy. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Should we include a list of all the victims? I think that would be a nice touch to remember the ones that have fallen.

We do not usually name the victims, unless they are individually notable. The latest official statement, from the county sheriff, says 59 fatalities. Sources have not made clear if that includes the perp or not, but even if it does, the number of fatalities is correct as 59 (though the number of victims is only 58). --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Rereading the sources, they seem to be saying that 59 people were killed by the gunman. That does make the total fatalities 60. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The number of victims should be listed with names and ages. Put 59 deaths with 500+ wounded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blysbane (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Firing of CBS Vice President & General Counsel

I object to this edit. The material removed from the “Reactions” section is as follows:

The vice president and senior counsel at CBS wrote on social media that she had no sympathy for the victims because they were mostly Republican, whereupon CBS fired her.

References

Stephen Paddock was a nobody until this horrible incident. Same for [the other person]. This news is really quite amazing, and a sign of the times. Further reliable sources are available, including Variety and Snopes, LA Times, etc. I find it irksome that this info has been deleted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Not the same for [the other person]. Paddock killed more people than any lone shooter has before. [The other person] got politically ugly on Twitter, as people do every day. Few knew she had the job (vice president of what?) and nobody but her is affected by the loss. She's a sidebar topic, and those belong in newspapers. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

• Nor is there any reason at all for us to publish names. BTW I remember when this wasn't fodder was newspapers either. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No one's that old. Not even I:) Objective3000 (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note the OPs attempts to stick this into the CBS article. TheValeyard (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely I did, per the policy WP:Preserve. See also the Toronto Sun, Variety, Snopes, Washington Post, USA Today, The Hill, MSN, The Miami Herald, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It makes fine sense there. Damn fine, even. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

It makes no sense at all. It is not a controversy, and it is not a well-known CBS personality, it is just a lawyer who said a stupid thing and was promptly fired. That's the be all an end all of the story, this non-notable person's name will sink into obscurity in days. TheValeyard (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Does't have to be well-known to play a sizable part in CBS' operations. Unlike here, where we have thousands of commenters, CBS only has twenty-some VPs. Virtually everyone in Vegas or wherever the victims live is unaffected by her firing, but CBS needs to hire someone else and (probably) fight this woman in court. She's a bigger fish in that smaller pond, and has a ripple effect. Out here, she's dust in the wind. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Snopes is not a reliable source. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Snopes is considered RS. If you don't agree, take it to WP:RSN. This is the wrong venue. Objective3000 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Without looking at Talk (never worked on a "live" page so didn't know that was necessary) and seeing that this was already added/deleted, I added it on my own, only to have it deleted. My entry would be as follows:

Hours after the massacre, CBS vice president of business affairs Hayley Geftman-Gold was fired for comments she made on Facebook regarding the mass shooting. She posted that "If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing. I’m actually not even sympathetic [because] country music fans often are Republican gun toters." The comments were reported on a number of websites prior to the post being deleted.

This was reported on on many TV news sites tonight, and as I referenced in WP:RS news sites. This is an important part of the story because if for no other reason, someone at that level at CBS thought they could make such a remark publicly with impunity. So what is the problem including this? RobP (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My problem would be that if a book were written on on this massacre ten years from now, the firing of whats-her-name would be at most be a minor footnote. Trivia gets reported on many news sites nightly, does not make it all encyclopedic. I found her remarks offensively partisan but unimportant in a mass tragedy. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If we can’t squeeze this info amongst our sentences about Alex Jones, Facebook (where incidentally she made these remarks), and other trivia, then her firing ought to be mentioned at CBS. You can register your opinion about it at Talk:CBS#Firing_of_CBS_general_counsel_and_vice-president where inclusion is being opposed just as steadfastly as here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Org suggestion for reactions

The reaction section has a paragraph starting with a sentence from the NV governor, then a lot of content from the POTUS, then a blurb from the performer. I suggest starting with the performer, then the governor. Then, after a paragraph break, the President's info. This would both balance the size of the paragraphs, as well as start with local responses and work up to more global ones. I cannot do this, as it's locked. Comments?

I prefer the bigger thing first, and working down from there. In a story, you want to string a reader along, but in an encyclopedia, best to get to the main point fast. If the reader's still interested after that, they can continue with the lesser tidbits. Not a huge deal, though, and probably works your way, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Las Vegas Strip Massacre?

This has been called a massacre, should the article be renamed? Victor Grigas (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Look, this is an awful act. But, can we pretend that we are an encyclopedia, use neutral terms, and wait for the facts? The word “massacre” means an intentional act. Do we know that the alleged perp didn’t have a brain tumor, as did the University of Texas tower shooting shooter? Patience. Objective3000 (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Massacre" sounds too emotive. Even Sandy Hook, an attack of the most despicable type, is titled Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

References

See the section about about the name. Usually with this kind of event, we stick with the name we have until the dust settles, and then decide (after a week or so, and through a proper RfC) what name to give it. In any case, I don't think "massacre" will be accepted as a name. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an unbiased, objective source of information; it mirrors the opinions of those who edit it, taking into account a weight factor that assigns more relevance to the opinion of those who contribute more. As such, the decision to rebrand all massacres perpetrated on US soil or by US forces to "shootings" and "incidents" is not a sign of Wikipedia bias, but the reflection of the bias of the news those editors consume, and a very little price to pay for those generous NRA donations to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Equally important to bear in mind is the fact that 99% of the USA population (the most regular readers of english articles) are completely blue-pilled into the idea of living in a safe prosperous country. Were they to be suddenly woken up to reality, the impact of realising that having 50% of the population on food stamps, 2 million foreclosed people a year, and 1000 people murdered every day, didn't actually make the US a safe prosperous place but rather had the opposite effect, would be too much. I would actually support the enforcement of anti-terrorism law on people that cause that kind of unnecessary distress on the 99 percenters, just let them live in blissful ignorance.186.57.229.211 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Updated pictures of the shooting site

I just uploaded a dozen pics of the site and its surrounding taking from a helicopter a week before the beginning of the music festival, so they show the actual layout and scenario of the Festival. Because of the window glare and dirt in the windows not all images are top quality, and I use Photoshop to reduce these defects, but please pick a diff pic than the one I posted in the main article. The new pics are Commons:Category:Las Vegas Strip shooting here. The following are some examples of more suitable images. Cheers. --Mariordo (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Annotation on photograph '4950'

Just wanted to thank you for the contribution - these are excellent. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 06:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for these! Bobherry Talk Edits 13:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mariordo: Thank you – I have used one of these to create an annotated illustration, included in the gallery above. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Marilou Danley

Who is Marilou Danley in Las Vegas shooting? SuntukanTayo (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Paddock's girlfriend Danley has been determined to have played no role in the Las Vegas shooting. General Ization ^Talk 04:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the authorities wish to interview her in Tokyo. It's still early on this particular issue.50.111.59.83 (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course. The statements are not mutually exclusive. Danley is still a "person of interest" and by interviewing her they may be able to shed much light on Paddock's personality, his acquisition of weapons, his possible motivations, etc. However, authorities have stated that she is currently believed to have played no role in the Las Vegas shooting. If they learn otherwise, so will we. General Ization ^Talk 21:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"by a single gunman"

User:‎Falkirks: You inserted the qualification "by a single gunman", with the edit summary "Changed intro to describe as "deadliest by a single gunman" for accuracy)". I have removed it because none of our sources add that qualification; they just say "deadliest American shooting". I have seen one or two qualify it "deadliest in modern American history." What is the reason you feel this "single gunman" qualification is needed? --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I will try to find a source later after things settle down in the article. I'm just trying to be precise about the relationship between the death toll of this shooting and that of Wounded Knee Massacre and Lawrence massacre, which were in the USA, but executed by multiple gunman. Some articles use "modern US history" (as is mentioned above I think), but I think "modern" is a much weaker qualifier than "single gunman". Falkirks^Talk 04:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually find it confusing, because most people assume we are comparing it to other modern mass shootings, where one or a few individuals set out to shoot lots of people. So the qualification makes one try to think, "what was the more deadly mass shooting with two shooters? Columbine, maybe?" They don't think to compare this type of incident to the very different situation of shootings by armies or in warfare. (Surely dozens of Civil War battles would qualify if we are going that route.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You both make sense. Hopefully, reliable sources will come up with clearer language over the coming days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Howard Unruh in 1949 is often regarded as the "first modern mass shooter."[5] He was nuts and killed over ten people in the space of a few minutes, which required the use of a gun which could fire more rapidly than anyone had in the 19th century.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

For some precedent, see Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting/Archive 2#"Deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history" and the Wounded Knee section, too. Nothing was really settled, but history's neat. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

In that discussion, someone pointed to the page views for Wounded Knee massacre. It's worth checking that stat now. It seems a lot of people are questioning this claim, particularly in relation to Wounded Knee. 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting eventually settled on the following: "It was both the deadliest mass shooting by a single shooter and the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in United States history." There is imprecision in both "single shooter" and "modern" but neither is false. The language we presently use is false by one reasonable reading, so I think we do need to make a change. I prefer "single shooter" or "single gunman". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to "by a lone gunman". [6] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't really like that either. I continue to think that "single gunman" or "lone gunman" qualifications make people think there must have been some other, more deadly modern mass shooting carried out by two or more people. And IMO the modern lone-gunman situation is not at all comparable to massacres carried out by soldiers. So I still prefer the modification "modern U.S. history." But I think I am probably outvoted here, particularly because the "single shooter" format has been stable at the Orlando nightclub article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. One final thought: I have not yet seen a single Reliable Source (or even an unreliable source) qualify the word "deadliest" by adding "by a single shooter." If there are no sources using this formulation, isn't it Original Research for us to do so? --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that it should say "single gunman" since there have been deadlier shootings that involved multiple people.Rlt152152 (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Shooter's Name

(Restored. Don't delete other people's edits, please. MelanieN (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC))

I've read on WND that the shooter's name was Abu Abdul Bar al-Amriki. We should include that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.149.81 (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't believe anything you read on World Net Daily. 0;-D Actually, the source for this is ISIS. Yeah, those guys. ISIS claimed that the shooter was somehow connected with them or inspired by them, and they claimed that Abu Abdul Bar al-Amriki was an alternate name for him. This name is actually mentioned in the article, in the section Perpertrator, but there has been no confirmation, and until there is, we should regard it as pure invention. It is common for ISIS to claim credit for any mass killing anywhere. --MelanieN (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done -- as per @MelanieN: Fuzheado | Talk 14:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually saw several news stories about this, e.g. [7]. But while this may be relevant to fake news (or Google or Facebook if you look in the articles) it is not clear it is relevant to the shootings. Wnt (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Automatic weapons"

I removed the speculation on automatic weapons as later reports indicate "bump "fire" or "crank" weapons. For the technical distinction, a bump fire weapon is a rifle that replaces the the trigger reset with the shoulder so that the firearm hammer is released when the rifle is pulled back into the shoulder. It's the same principle as releasing the trigger and pulling it again. The required physical reset make it a semi-automatic firearm. The other speculation that the weapons had a crank is also semiautomatic as the crank i required to be moved to release the hammer. While resembling a Gattling gun, the mechanism is just recreating the act of a trigger pull. There is the possibility he had machine guns, but no reliable sources have said so. I believe the entire ordeal lasted 70 minutes. Bump fire and crank fired weapons are not automatic weapon and are still considered semi-automatic weapons as each shot requires a physical act. --DHeyward (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The current estimate is that the shooting lasted at least ten minutes [8], also confirmed by videos of the incident. Unless the police were asleep, it's unlikely that it lasted 70 minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The police radio recordings (on Broadcastify) say that the shots ended by 10:18pm and the first call was at 10:07pm. So 10 minutes is a good estimate for the actual shooting. The room was breached a little after 11:00pm and he was found dead when they entered. But the radio archives are behind a paywall, so I've no idea how to locate a citable source. GaidinBDJ (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The length of time that shots were fired may be less than 70 minute but it was at least 70 minute from shot fired until they breached the room and the gunman killed himself. And no, they were not asleep and that comment is beneath contempt. [9] [10]. --DHeyward (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We seem to have been at cross purposes here and I wasn't trying to be rude, sorry if it came across that way. Some shootings have produced the claim that the police didn't act quickly enough, such as the Virginia Tech shooting, but in Las Vegas the police seem to have acted as quickly as they reasonably could in the circumstances.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward, Parsecboy, and Dragons flight: Yes, a lot of this has been discussed earlier in the #Weapons section, or permalink here: [11]. We should still have something that describes that it had the "firing rate of an automatic weapon" which doesn't necessarily say he used an automatic weapon. Facts are still coming through, but it seems more likely it was a device like a bump fire stock or trigger crank that gave automatic-like capability. So rather than throw out an entire section, I would recommend rewriting it with this qualification/observation. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, new photos of two of the weapons used show a bump fire stock, and a double-stack extended magazine, likely holding up to 100 rounds. [12] -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The magazine is a Surefire double stack, holding 60 rounds. I have one of those. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the bump fire stock in the pictures. Usually they are easy to spot because the stock and handle merge. The rifle with the scope has the safety in regular fire position, not bump fire (and scope cover on?). The EOTech rifle does seem to have the larger magazine but looks pretty vanilla stock. I tend not give much weight to report of "automatic fire." There are just as many "air brakes", "fireworks" and other similes that just don't stand up. Also, bump fire isn't faster than short reset triggers but it gives non-competitive shooters the short reset experience without training to follow the trigger. It's gimmicky but not automatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

The second rifle (with the EOTech) very clearly has a Slide Fire stock. The first rifle is a stock-looking .308 Daniel Defense. Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Parsecboy, the rifle fitted with the EOTech clearly has a bumpfire/slidefire stock on it, although I can't testify as to the specific make. The magazine on that rifle is conspicuously large, and appears to me to be a mag5-100 manufactured by SureFire, although it could be a copy thereof. Lastly, while first rifle in the video is clearly an AR-15 variant, and does appear to be chambered for a round larger than .223 Remington/5.56x45mm NATO (i agree it is most likely .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO) I don't see how you can positively identify the rifle as being manufactured by Daniel Defense without seeing the rollmark on the lower receiver. Ein.vögelchen (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If you look at stills like this one, you can clearly see the DD5V1 logo stamped on the side of their uppers. Not to mention the distinctive Daniel Defense stock and grip the rifle has on it, and if you know what you're looking at, that's clearly a proprietary DD rail. See here for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right, that looks like their handguard interface, I totally missed that. I was focused on the 'Tornado' furniture, which of course can be purchased and installed on any "Mil-Spec" receiver. Ein.vögelchen (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy, DHeyward, and Ein.vögelchen: - Some news sources are now naming the exact weapons - (LA Times) - "Paddock had four Daniel Defense DDM4 rifles, three FN-15s and other rifles made by Sig Sauer." And (Boston Globe) - "Sig Sauer MCX" -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

He had expensive tastes. It seems the news is still missing the DD5 version. --DHeyward (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Cited distance looks to be incorrect

I deleted “The lot is 390 yards (360 meters) from the Mandalay Bay resort” The German Spiegel article http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bild-1170986-1197455.html does say 360m metres ... but a cursory look at Google maps suggests the distance was far greater, surprisingly

Shooting  !! The shooting took place at 390 yards (360 meters)

again, the distance appears to be far greater Tyuiop (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Hydronium Hydroxide put back in the 390m distance .. but I don't see the point in citing a German source that seems to be incorrect from a cursory exam of Google maps. .. at least the shooter was at a greater distance, it seems Tyuiop (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tyuiop:Have reverted, as the LVV lot is to the northeast of the MB across the intersection. See Google Maps. If you use the measure distance option, you'll find that as the crow flies from shooter to center, it's about 360m (Yup, WP:NOR and all that, but there was an earlier source stating northeast). A problem, however, is that 360m doesn't necessarily take into account the shooter being 32 stories up (hypotenuse of a triangle...), and that 15 acres gives a lot of variability for distance. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Distances are and will be relevant given that it's a mass shooting by high-powered weaponry, though whether this figure/source is required at this stage is less certain.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: Yup the 360m seems to be at best from the corners of each property .. so the effective distance was far greater, surprisingly. The 360m is therefore misleading and we are best saying e.g. "several hundred yards" if you like

Thanks - that's a nicely approximate solution. Are you mistaking feet for yards? The linear distance from the edge of the hotel to the corner of LVV is ~225m or ~750ft, which is ~250 yards. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Elevation of the shooter and density of the people in the concert would be a factor. The weapons shown so far though, are not high powered or long range which is why they are not permitted or hunting animals like deer as they are not powerful enough to humanely use. Usually they are zero'ed at 100 yds. At 350yds bullet drop is 20 inches and falling fast (30 inches at 400 yds). It would be extremely difficult to shoot targets that were varying between 300 and 400 yards and moving with those rifles. He seems to have just randomly fired into a large group of people thankfully with a light cartridge. --DHeyward (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

People have been discussing this on the Internet with some degree of puzzlement. This seems to be a joke, although you never can tell these days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That image is not good science and is not even acceptable satire. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

They would still be lethal out and past 1000yds (and it seem he actually had higher powered rifles in .308 and not just "evil" AR15's - but only AR-15's have been shown.). The problem is accurately shooting them that far. A "high powered" rifle (not an AR-15) retain velocity with a heavier bullet. Accuracy is reduced greatly when the bullet exits the supersonic range. All the bullet follow a ballistic trajectory but different rounds can be superonic over longer distances. An AR15 is very flat to 100 yds at its normal zeroing rang. It rises a fraction of an inch before coming down to hit the 100 yd target. Even a round that is subonic is lethal though in accurate. An AR15 accurately shooting targets that varied in distance between 300 and 500 yds require considerable skill. The facination with the AR15 is that it's "military style" but the media and shooter lose sight of why it replaced heavier weapons like the M1 garand (.30 cal WWII) or M14 (.308 NATO). Both of the heavier weapons had longer range of supersonic flight and much more lethal but the weight of each round made it cumbersome to carry ammunition. The Ar15/M15/M4 variants are less lethal than thir counterparts. It's a very accurate round at 100 yds though and wounding is generally good enough for combat at ditances. The AR-10 was the original proposal for the M14 replacement as a lighter rifle but they chose the AR15 because the rifle and ammunition were lighter. --DHeyward (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Images, redux

Mandalay Bay, c. 2006

The view north along the Las Vegas Strip, with Mandalay Bay, center. The concert took place on the dark lot, to the right of and beyond the hotel

The concert area, bottom right, lies opposite the Luxor Hotel "pyramid". The Mandalay Bay is partially visible, to the left.

Mandalay Bay from McCarran International Airport, to which some of the survivors fled

I think the current images are far inferior to the four that were in the article a few hours ago, which I reproduce here with their captions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Is the current infobox image OK? As I said over at Slazenger's Commons talk page, Google doesn't say that its maps are CC licensed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, ianmacm about the licensing or source of the images. To Andy Mabbett: I feel that all the images are bollocks, including the dainty red trajectory lines. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I like the current infobox image, as it shows the huge and somewhat implausible but true 1000 foot plus range of the shooting. However, if the base image is from Google Maps, Google doesn't say they are CC but allows non-commercial fair use. Help needed here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, ianmacm. Commons does not allow Fair Use, as far as I know. Allowing a fair use image on Commons would allow somebody not knowing the CC license rules to think that they could download and share the image, if attributed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Relatively new to all of this (I'm admittedly more of a written content and anti-vandalism editor). Thinking back to the old days, Commons would not allow fair-use, but en-wp will provided there is sufficient rationale, laid out in WP:FU. Perhaps uploading on en-wp with rationale included would work? Anyone an expert here that can help out. I created the image as an overall encapsulating image, showing distance, relative location, shooter location, etc all in one. Appreciate the assist. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 09:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have [uploaded] with rationale - please advise. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As noted below, fair use provision does not apply when a free alternative is available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I stated my lack of experience in this realm, would you kindly use layman's terms? --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

See point 1 at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy - which is a policy. If you do not understand that, you would be well advised to refrain from good-faith uploads of images under "fair use". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed this in its fullest before uploading, added rationale to address concerns, and firmly believe there are no suitable alternatives, as stated in the rationale in the upload. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Firstly I've restored the images here, where they are being actively discussed. As for fair use provision, it does not apply when free alternatives are available. The red line on the current image is on the wrong place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've now put the images back again. I'll ask for admin intervention if they are removed again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the attitude, an edit conflict caused them to disappear. Ever heard of good faith? --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Could Andy put these images in a gallery, then? They've currently got crap layout.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the four images here are outdated in terms of current layouts on the strip (the venue had not yet been created) and provide little to no context for this article. The current image below the infoboxes is an excellent image showing the venue's setup and relative positioning. Not sure how you think they're "inferior" Andy - would you mind expanding? Thanks! --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

What, apart from on being a copyvio and the other not even showing the hotel in full? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got an attitude issue for no apparent reason. You have several other editors attempting to be reasonable and discuss this with you, yet you provide no details and instead belittle people. The article is not about the hotel; your point about the hotel being partially visible makes no sense. The article is relating to the shooting and the venue that was the target more than the hotel. You still have not answered my question regarding what a free alternative would be. Additionally, your point regarding the lines being in the incorrect position is flat out wrong according to multiple, multiple, multiple sources. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The left-hand line-of-sight in your image starts from adjacent to the second white vertical line on the flat side of the hotel; in the sources you cite it is clearly seen that the broken window from which the shots were fired is adjacent to the first such line. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If you take a look here, you will see that the left-hand broken window is in fact to the left of the first wide vertical column, as illustrated in the image. It's slightly too far to the left, but is positioned correctly in relation to which columns it's between. The circle is not to scale of the window, after all. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 11:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a talk page, layout is unimportant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you look at the edit history; and you own non-AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's always a happy event once Andy turns up at an article. Personally, I agree with Slazenger that all of these images are either too old or not very good anyway. We need something more up to date, ideally taken by someone who lives in Las Vegas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

• The MGM Resorts Village where the attack took place is a former parking lot converted into an outdoor concert venue in 2014.[13][14] This means that ancient file photos aren't going to be much use, and could actually be misleading here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you're over-egging the erection of a few temporary structures on what is essentially still a flat area of asphalt. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

---

And now we have just one, distant photograph of the scene. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of this image currently in the article, as it isn't very informative about the shooting. The images need to show what the gunman would have seen; we already know what the Mandalay Bay and other hotels look like. The four that you have suggested aren't very successful here either.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No, we do not need to show "what the gunman would have seen" - a crowd at night and a floodlit stage - we need to help our readers to understand the layout of the area, and what the surroundings - which many of them will never have seen - look like. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say pictures 1 and 4, the palm tree and the airport shot, don't give that much context. But photos 2 and 3, from the air showing Las Vegas Village, are indeed valid and useful. Agree with @Pigsonthewing: that a shot of "what the gunman would have seen" is not a standard we need to aspire to. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

When originally used, the airport pic was in the section which included the text "those escaping the shooting entered the airport property as they fled". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

By "what the gunman would have seen", I meant a good general view of the hotel and the concert area, something the current images lack. By definition, this would probably have to be an aerial photograph. However, this lead to problems for an average Wikipedian if the image has to be copyright free. The first and fourth images are nowhere near informative enough. Two and three are a bit better, but still not ideal.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. If you visit Google Earth, you can get a very accurate, and bone chilling, approximation of the view you're talking about. Not copyright free, however. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added this image to the article. It's cropped and edited from Andy's third image. It's the only copyright free aerial aerial photo on Commons which clearly captures the considerable range from the shooter's vantage point to the concert venue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please use the best images presently available and debate the image copyright questions elsewhere. This is not the forum for deleting images or evaluating copyrights. Wikipedia violates copyright law just the same whether people go to the image page or this talk page or the main article -- if it is violating it at all -- and so there is no apparent virtue in concealing them from the one place where their online availability (at least per fair use) is most likely to be justifiable. Wnt (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's policy - quite wisely - to remove copyvio mages from articles even when they are "available"; but that issue was resolved about 12 hours ago when the copy vio was speedily deleted. Discussion since then has been about quality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Comparison

Las Vegas Strip shooting site 09 2017 4968

Las Vegas Strip Aerial September 2013 (cropped)

At the time of writing the picture in the article is 'Las Vegas Strip shooting site 09 2017 4968'. The image originally added, and used on the main page, is 'Las Vegas Strip Aerial September 2013 (cropped)'.

I contend that 'Aerial September 2013' is better quality, has a better vantage point, and gives a much clearer impression of the area. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we're both out of luck, because the current image in the article is one that was taken in September 2017. All of the four that were proposed here are old photos and there is a lot of change and construction work on the Strip at the moment. This means that in this case, using a newer photo is the best option.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"Two of Facebook's top trending pages were items from Sputnik, a Russian news agency."

This sentence in the context of fake news is problematic, and no I'm not saying Sputnik is reliable. It is phrased to say that the source is unreliable because it is from a country.

To be more specific, it is a Russian state-owned news agency. But again, saying that is confusing to the layman reader, because in that simple context it is no different to the BBC. In this context, you should include sources like this which mention Sputnik as a propaganda weapon, but I don't know if that violates WP:SYNTH. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and fixed this, using the source reference rather than synthesising Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable edit. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There is Anti-Russian sentiment, especially in regards to news accuracy. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It really is a shame as at one point Russia was considered a friend.(Politics as usual from both sides had to ruin this.) Anyways this should be closed now as I don't see anymore issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is publicly funded under a Royal Charter, it is not state owned. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of my error on the BBC. What I meant is that state-ownership of a media source is not ipso facto proof that it publishes fake news. There are different levels of government influence around the world from nominal to total, and only some of them aim to influence events in other countries. The sources say that Sputnik has a record of trying to influence events in the US and its allies. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have re-added the Facebook sentence, with a source that Facebook listed the two pages as "trending", and a source that Sputnik has been described as Russian propaganda. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This sentence should be removed, as it is irrelevant to the article. The Politico article referenced does indeed state the claim regarding Sputnik, yet there is nothing either here or in the cited references that describes any specific fake news or propaganda articles from Sputnik about the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting (in fact, Politico's inline citation links to someone's Twitter post). There is no reason for this sentence to be included as presently written and with its current citations.

I am confused by this sentence also, What was wrong with Sputniks story on the shooting? If it was accurate then it is a good thing it was trending on facebook and not some fake news...Murchison-Eye (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe it wasn't accurate, which is why people are complaining. ansh666 21:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead - deadliest

Recommend this: "This is the deadliest mass shooting by a lone gunman in United States history, with at least 60 fatalities (including the perpetrator) and 527 injuries; it surpasses the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting." Get to the point right away; don't lead with the Orland shooting.Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, that was awkwardly done. I've reverted the two using the same language. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• I think the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting should be removed from the lead per WP:LEAD - ...significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article... the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. At this point the Orlando shooting isn't even mentioned in the body of the article or even in the See Also section, and the claim is not supported by a reliable source in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I added a ref and reworded a little, though I don't really have an opinion on whether it should really be there or not *shrug* ansh666 19:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Main article for Stephen Paddock

Just FYI that this has been created. I suppose something should be done with it. GMG^talk 19:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirected it back here, like all the other variations of the name. If it's reverted/recreated I guess AfD would be reasonable. ansh666 19:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Aaaaand I was reverted by an IP so do as y'all wish. I'll at least move it to the proper title though. ansh666 19:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I hate to go to AfD fishing for an obvious redirect though. GMG^talk 19:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Me too, but apparently people are super passionate about mass-murderers. Go figure. ansh666 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be the whipping boy for this one I suppose. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Paddock. GMG^talk 19:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. This article is going to be kept - just as there is an article for Omar Mateen, the shooter in the Orlando nightclub. There is even a new article about Paddock's father for heavens sake. I sent that one to AfD and it was snow kept. I predict the same fate for this AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that the result for Benjamin Paddock is accurate, since he was notable in his own right before, just nobody bothered to make an article for him. This guy, though, has literally nothing interesting about his life before this event, unlke even Mateen, who'd been investigated by the FBI before, and the AfD seems to be reflecting that as it's headed for a redirect, thankfully. That said it'll probably be recreated and re-redirected many more times as more info comes out, until the next big shooting whereupon everyone will forget about him, sadly. ansh666 20:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of the keeps don't seem to be very heavy in substance, at least not yet. And to be fair, Omar was a much more substantive article by the time someone got around to a merger discussion, to the point where it needed to be a merger discussion instead of a half-cocked AfD. GMG^talk 22:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Social media controversies

A new section was added to the article today, Social Media Controversies. Seems like the perfect spot for the CBS lawyer firing. Scaleshombre (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on ISIS claims

Since we've still got slow edit warring and discussion about this, I think it could be helpful to open a formal RfC. The question is thus: should the ISIS claim that Paddock was ideologically influenced by the group be included in the article? If the consensus ends up being yes, there will also probably need to be a discussion about how much detail, but we can cross that bridge if/when we get there. Thanks, ansh666 19:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. It is a claim with no evidence, made by a radical islamic terrorist organization, rebutted firmly by law enforcement. ValarianB (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:BDP. Contentious material about a recently deceased person involved in a particularly gruesome crime should not be included. The source is a terrorist organization that has made false claims like this in the past and is considered dubious by the FBI. The material could cause harm to the family, and only benefits ISIS. Objective3000 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Trump is made of contentious claims, and contends here that Paddock was evil, terrible, sick and demented (and benefits from it). Anonymous people call him quiet, solitary and unfriendly. When a dude kills more people at once than any American has, it naturally comes with a bit of bad press. Is an association with ISIS really worse than being evil, terrible, sick, demented and unfriendly? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

• Include Highly notable, well covered claim. Wikipedia is not censored. We can state refutations, skepticism, or affirmations - as whichever may this develops. This should be noted even if 100% refuted (along with the refutation). As of present, it is too early to call (has not been refuted by law enforcement yet - but has not been confirmed either) Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Forgot to comment myself, so Oppose per WP:BDP, as I argued much earlier. There is zero encyclopedic benefit in including this information in the article along with the possibility of harm to relatives or other associates, so there is no place for it in this article. ansh666 20:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per ValarianB and Objective3000. General Ization ^Talk 20:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include True or false, the fact that the planet's top boogeymen have posited a theory on why he did it is true. And well-sourced. And possibly vital to understanding (unless they're lying). It'd seem particularly stupid to omit their claims if we kept similar hearsay from his neighbours, classmates and whatnot. They have no evidence for their stories, either, and are basically nobody next to a group with a well-documented history of planning and inspiring attacks of this sort. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Besides, every time this bit is deleted (about seven times now), it's readded by a new person, without detail beyond ISIS claims responsibility. I've repeatedly had to clarify this same clickbait headline. If we left the true story, it could just stay there (that sounds too simple, now that I've typed it). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

• EDIT: Support as it is now. Before it was given undue weight - it's a very peripheral element of this story, similar to the internet hoax section. The current treatment seems OK FOARP (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The Wikipedia does not publish the claims of terrorist organizations, especially when the claim cannot and has not been verified by any other entity. WP:BDP is policy here, there is no wiggle room here on the question of the harm done to a recently-deceased person, friends, and family by publishing claims of terrorism ties when the claim is so badly sourced. The cries of "not censored!" above are absolute rubbish. TheValeyard (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your first claim is rubbish. We hear from ISIS or Amaq here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. There are more, but this is boring. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

In every one of those topics, authorities have corroborated ISIS' claims of responsibilities with these things we like to call "evidence" and "facts". You and the gaggle of new users who keep revert-warring this nonsense into the article are doing do on the basis of ISIS' say-so alone. Apples and oranges. Don't address me again with this sort of nonsense, please. And if you're bored, find another topic area to much around in. TheValeyard (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That's also rubbish, or at least not noted in those topics' articles. And I'm not part of a new gaggle, I've been sorting out facts from "facts" in this topic area since Aurora in 2012. Sorry to bother you. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose ISIS routinely claims to be associated with violent acts that they have no connection with. It doesn't help the reader understand the shooting or its effects. –dlthewave ☎
• Oppose It's free publicity for terrorists based on an unsubstantiated claim. If the latter changes, there's always time to add it later. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Current version tells: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant claimed Paddock was their soldier, inspired by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's call to attack coalition countries. No evidence to this has however been found. The FBI said "we have determined, to this point, no connection with an international terrorist group."[39] Police have not described him as a terrorist.... I think this is fine, exactly as WP:NPOV requires. This is just a well sourced and important, but unferified claim. We should keep that description. Was he actually "ideologically influenced by the group" (RfC question)? No, this is not sourced, and correctly not included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have deleted the first two sentences because they were unsourced. If you would like to restore them, with sources, feel free. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, they've been restored. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Beat you to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - ISIS would claim responsibility if a major tornado hit Oklahoma. This is all for political gain as right now they are being squeezed out of the Middle East. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I like the version of this currently in the article. It briefly addresses the claim and explains that it's baseless. I would agree with the argument that we should not give these evil losers publicity and credence, however this has been reported by reliable sources and it's been refuted already, so a quick mention doesn't seem harmful. I would move it to the "hoaxes and misinformation" subsection, though. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support — ISIS's claim has been widely covered in the media, making it a notable reaction. Of course we should also include statements by law enforcement or terrorist experts and give it due weight. ^Falling_Gravity 05:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Includewith caveats that investigation continues and no proof has been found to back up the IS claim --mentioning that the IS claim happened or that rumors circulated of IS responsibility claims, but not saying IS did commission/inspire/support the act. Report the claim without endorsing it. Not-including it would by now seem like PC POV after there has been such media coverage. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@Icewhiz: It has absolutely been refuted by law enforcement, who said there are no links to any international groups. Quote from the current version of the article: The FBI, however, determined that Paddock had no connection with international terrorist groups. ansh666 20:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

See, that was the problem with the edit you quoted from: it paraphrased the FBI statement in a way that gave a completely false impression. The FBI did not say "he had no connection with" such groups. They said they had, at this point, no evidence that he had such a connection. That paraphrase made it sound as if they have refuted it, which is incorrect. A while ago I replaced the paraphrase with the actual quote from the FBI, but there has been a fair amount of edit warring over that sentence and I'm not sure what it says now. If it says anything other than "we have determined, to this point, no connection with an international terrorist group." - then it is quite possibly misleading. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not a refutation, but rather a lack of evidence and skepticism of the claim. At this point law enforcement has not advanced a motive or a belief system of the shooter. It is fair to say this claim has been met with great skepticism (however the claim regarding Omar Mateen was as well) - however it was not refuted. In any event even if refuted (if and when they discover the actual motive) - this will still be a highly notable claim.Icewhiz (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Note - IS did not claim they directed the attack - but rather that they "inspired" the attacker (i.e. per Amaq he was loosely affilated and shared idealogy but was not in IS chain of command) - this is a claim that is difficult to refute without establishing an alternative motive.Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We only publish verified information that is supported by evidence. We do not include a claim just because it has not been refuted. –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The claim by IS, via Amaq, is confirmed (and widely reported by RS). Whether they are lying or not is a separate matter (doubts dhould be stated per RS) - however when a significant global actor makes a claim - it is notable just because they made the claim. In a case with no or few claims even signIficantly less notable orgs making a claim would be notable.Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We publish reported information. The only evidence we use is a reliable source's testimony. Your seond claim is true. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Everything depends on importance/notability of the claim. A lot of claims on pages have been denied or refuted, but we still include them, and rightly so. There are whole pages about notable but refuted conspiracy theories or important pseudo-scientific subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A fringe claim by a radical Islamist group does not belong in the article. TheValeyard (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no. Please check WP:FRINGE. We have a lot of materials about fringe theories and claims because a lot of them are notable and well sourced. They simply must be described on our pages as "fringe", disproved, unverified, unproven, etc. - whatever RS tell. That one is currently unverified/unproven. My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We had the following in the article: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant claimed Paddock was their soldier, inspired by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's call to attack coalition countries. United States security officials say that no evidence of this has been found. No sources were cited. I have removed it, temporarily; we can't have something this inflammatory in the article without any sources. If someone wants to restore it with sources, temporarily while this discussion goes on, that is OK with me. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it was sourced in the very same ref that was used on the page, i.e. here. Welcome to rephrase though. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We currently have the information in TWO places in the article: Perpetrator and Reactions. The items are completely duplicative, same wording and all, with the Reactions article having a little additional information about how ISIS makes false claims of responsibility. One of the duplicates should be removed. I am going to remove it from Perpetrator and (pending the outcome of this discussion) retain it in Reactions.--MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Now that it's a reaction, does anyone dispute that it's the most widely covered and deeply analyzed reaction in the section? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

A stage has been reached where if the article didn't mention the ISIL claim, we would be having talk page discussions every day about why it was not in the article. We all seem to be agreed that the claim is baloney (so do law enforcement) but it is mildly notable that ISIL is now so desperate for publicity that it will make claims like this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The father

The brother in the article claims that they never knew their father. That doesn't make any sense - Eric is 7 years younger than Stephen, so Stephen must've known his father, otherwise how would Eric have been born? Obviously, "know" is a relative term, but at 6 years old you notice a person being intimate enough with your mother to father another child. Whether or not he emulated the father's criminal tendencies I do not know, but if the father disappeared from home when Stephen was 6 or 7 (in 1960), that would've been plenty time for him to leave a lasting impact on the child's psyche.46.109.76.173 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Haven't seen whether the timing makes any sense based on Eric's comments and the father's dates of incarceration, but here is one possible explanation. General Ization ^Talk 21:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The shooter knew his father (until he was 7at least), there is period coverage on how a neighbor took him to the pool when the father was arrested. As for the brother, speculation here is tangential.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

[[File:Las vegas wiki.gif|thumb|A visual representation of what happened (2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting - Mandalay Bay)]] SSSBeyond (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The image is a copyright violation and has been tagged for deletion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No mention of security camera outside hotel room

New information is that a security camera was discovered by police outside the hotel room door. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-las-vegas-guns-20171003-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggera (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of Injured is 507 as per recent News Conference

The number of injured in the shooting is 507, as there was a double count of 20 at one hospital.

Please see the following link at 19 minutes 30 seconds to 20 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z00MiGfhveY

 Not done I was unable to find this reported in any Reliable Source. If sources do pick it up we will make the change, but right now everyplace is still saying 527. --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Describing Alex Jones as "far-right" projects a biased POV

The term "far-right" is inherently pejorative and is used to attack anyone who believes in nationalism. According to Wikipedia's article on Far-right: "The term is often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views." Alex Jones has never promoted Nazism, fascism or racism, so the use of this term to describe him is dishonest and inaccurate. Oren Balaban (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones' organization features extreme reactionary views. The list is an "or" list, not "and". A far-righter can be extremely reactionary without being extremely fascist, by your definition. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We just follow reliable sources. Technically, this is sourced to the Alex Jones article and WP is not an WP:RS. But, we could just copy the sources. WP:RSN is the place to debate such. Objective3000 (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

On the converse is CNN biased to the left and if so what would you base that on? We cant go by our own opinions here on what puts an entity on x political spectrum. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it, since the source used only called him the famed sort of conspiracy theorist. Wikipedia holds extreme views on calling people famed, so I didn't. Maybe that makes me sheeple, but meh. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

I have restored it, using the exact wording that opens the Alex Jones (radio host) article. Include the citations from that articles lede if you wish, but this is pertinent and relevant to a sub-section that discusses fake news and misinformation. Alex Jones is noted as a primary purveyor thereof. TheValeyard (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the whole damn thing for being unsourced. That apparently wasn't self-explanatory enough. The problem is the whole damn thing's a quote. And the quote isn't in the source. It's not even attributed to anyone. It's just there, being fake. Is this an inside joke? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

I have no real string feelings one way or another but since it has been removed back and forth feel that we need some kind of consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel it straight-up violates a pillar of Wikipedian law, and I'm allowed to revert you. I feel so strongly I almost know it. But OK, let's see where this goes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

• What a bunch of bullshit--and now this, Medeis? It is common practice to introduce people--like American president Donald Trump, NRA president Wayne LaPierre, Rush drummer Alex Peart, and far-right radio host Alex Jones. Plenty of readers have no idea who this person is, so mentioning what he is makes for better readability. That he has an article--we're not going to ask our readers to flip back and forth for basic information. ""far-right" is inherently pejorative"--I don't even know if that's true, but denying that Jones is far-right is ridiculous; Oren Balaban, if someone doesn't want to be called far-right, they shouldn't espouse far-right ideas. User:Inedible Hulk, it violates nothing: "far-right" is in this case established by reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Quotes, particularly in this article, need to be cited. It should be removed until a source is provided. –dlthewave ☎ 02:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This guy gets it. Nobody cares about far-right anymore. It's this "Communist takeover of the country" stuff now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead and remove it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, it shouldn't be controversial to describe him as a conspiracy theorist. He's literally made his fame by spewing unfounded, false and outright insane conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I Googled the quote and found that "nearly every far-right rally so far in 2017 has featured an impassioned speaker who warned of an impending Communist takeover of the country." Can we list them all, or is Alex Jones their collective mouthpiece here? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

Suggest we remove him. The guy thrives on attention and his opinion here, as bizarre as it may be, is simply not notable enough for inclusion.--MONGO 02:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The closest thing Googling his name and the quote gets me is PrisonPlanet saying Bill Ayers "wanted to kill millions of Americans who resisted a communist takeover of the country." It's a story about domestic terrorism and the far-right, but it's from June 14, 2010. This article (ours) is the second result. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. What are you trying to argue? What are you Googling and why? "American far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist" is incredibly well verified, with five sources in our article. MONGO, the problem here is that millions of people believe that stuff he spouts, and thus it becomes important. Personally I think we should give people like him and his opinions as little airtime as we can but we have decided that WE ARE THE NEWS, and so we can't really get around it: The Daily Beast, Salon, GQ, Newsweek are pretty reliable. Oh god, "Deep State" is responsible. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"Communist takeover of the country". Where does it say Alex Jones said this beside Wikipedia? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

I think Jones said this absurdity while he was podcasting. I still think his opinion is worth less than 2 dead flies, but I'm just a hairy woodland beast.--MONGO 03:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought that a bit preposterous. So I clicked your link. Now I believe in you. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

RE "where does it say Alex Jones said this beside Wikipedia?" It says it in the Politico article which is already linked in the paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It says that, but it doesn't say he did. Could put something it does say he said in place of what it doesn't, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

I totally don't understand this note. --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The bit I deleted said Jones tied the shooting to what he (Jones) claimed was a "Communist takeover of the country", but the source didn't contain that phrase at all. The Politico article you offered is a bit better, because Ben Strauss (the author) says "Communist takeover of the country", but doesn't say Jones said it, so it's still no good for the deleted claim.

So I proposed (if we must say something about Jones at all), we use the Politico article to say he said something like “It’s the 100-year anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. We’re here. It’s happening now.” Not sure what that has to do with the shooting, but he verifiably said it. He's probably said more clearly relevant things in other sources, alternatively. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

Stocks prices of firearms rose?

POV pushing, WP/UNDUE. Stock prices across the board rose. Firearms and munitions sales hit perpetual records under Obama and I'm not seeing that on any WP pages. The first sentence should read during the festival at the village on the strip. Harvest 91 is not a place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Something weird is going on with this talk page

A lot of material seems to have mysteriously vanished between 02:04 and 02:07 on 4 October.

Here’s This talk page at 02:04, 4 October. Here’s This talk page at 02:07, 4 October. And, here’s a diff purportedly showing the difference. This diff mysteriously doesn’t show the removal of a massive amount of material, including the recently-edited section titled “Firing of CBS Vice President & General Counsel”. I’ve never seen anything like this at Wikipedia. What’s up? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

As your diff shows, there was an unclosed "ref" tag. This caused Wikipedia to interpret everything that followed it until the next "ref" to be part of a single reference, with the result that ~6 sections were entirely hidden. I fixed it. [15] Dragons flight (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well Done, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of dead is 59 including the shooter, not 60

58 victims + the shooter. Please update.

http://wgntv.com/2017/10/03/nearly-all-of-the-58-victims-of-las-vegas-massacre-identified-here-are-some-of-their-stories/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C492:CE00:397C:CBBE:713C:827B (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Further confirmed by Reuters in their latest flash updates and article edits. 58 fatalities, plus the 1 death of the shooter. [16] Akaricloud (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Just heard this clarified by a sheriff at the press conference. Article now reflects this information. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)