Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting

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)

Dude. You followed me here from another two articles just to get a personal attack in? What are you like... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:42, 4 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 note 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)

Hmm, yes, b'y. We certainly be seeing it occurring in the Canadian articles. There bes hints of it in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Historic sites, but nothing clearly defined. There bes also use of regional Canadian English variants such as Quebec English and Newfoundland English in local articles. P'raps I's assuming too much.

How it's used colloquially in Nevada though I don't know ... but a simple Canadian English definition of terrorism does cover a single massive event of murder, with no particular motive – and if 600 casualties doesn't qualify, I don't know what does. That all being said though, I think what's been added has covered it. At least until we can figure out some motive to all this ... as there isn't particular evidence of mental illness – though I've been trying to ignore the foreign news coverage. One the other hand, how different is this from other US attacks we identify as terrorism such as the Bath School disaster or the unsolved Wall Street bombing – although there's probably enough evidence to link that to the extreme left. Nfitz (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You know thought that we need reliable sources for such a claim. I've removed the cats from Bath School Disaster, but the Wall Street Bombing could probably be sourced. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we need the sources. Just talking it out at this stage. No point searching for something that one won't find. And a stray comment might lead to a thought. Sorry - brainstorming engineers can be a bit like a writer's room sometimes. Nfitz (talk) 09:19, 5 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."[1] 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". [2] --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)

@MelanieN: I think the problem is that there isn't a specific, widely accepted term for these kinds of shootings. Mass_shooting#United_States uses the term "public mass shooting", which is probably what corresponds closest in the literature to this kind of shooting. However, this term isn't really used in the coverage of this topic. By qualifying "mass shooting", I think it could be construed as OR, but it's really just trying to refer to the same thing that the media are referring to, just with a little more precision. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 03:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It's still my opinion that these modern "mass shootings" are so different from massacres carried out by armies that they are not comparable, and it is not necessary to qualify that this was "the worst mass shooting - well, but of course the Civil War was worse". --MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I'm still waiting to be shown a single Reliable Source, one, that lists this case as "the deadliest by a single shooter" or "lone gunman". I have seen one or two sources say "in modern American history" but most simply state deadliest without qualification. So that's what Reliable Sources do. Comparing it to military massacres is Original Research in my book. --MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for pointing out the link Mass_shooting#United_States. It proves my point exactly. It talks only about "modern" shootings and doesn't even mention Wounded Knee or the Civil War. I think we are way out of line to be insisting that those military massacres should be included under the category of "mass shooting". --MelanieN (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

More evidence: Category:Mass shootings in the United States by year only goes back to 1929. Category:Mass shootings in the United States likewise includes only modern shootings. We are completely out of line with WP practice when we pretend that the term "mass shooting" is reasonably applied to actions by armies in the 19th century. Such things are listed under Category:Massacres committed by the United States, Category:United States military killing of American civilians, Category:United States military war crimes, and the like.--MelanieN (talk) 06:11, 5 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)

I'm persuaded by your argument and happy to drop "lone gunman/single shooter" and replace with "in modern US history" if that's what you'd prefer, User:MelanieN. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Anthonyhcole: I've found a meta-article on why most sources have been saying "in modern US history". This article, for example, features a correction where they added the qualifier "in modern US history". According to that first article, the corrections were a a result from a reminder from National Association of Black Journalists that mass shootings such as the Tulsa race riots, which had caused over 300 deaths. Thus the struggle of trying to find a qualifier/term that captures the idea of "mass shooting" more precisely. I'm not the biggest fan of "in modern US history" because it's basically code for "after it became socially unacceptable to kill black people", but "lone shooter" doesn't particularly capture the idea of a "modern" mass shooting either, since San Bernadino, for example, was done by two shooters. However, "worst mass shooting by a lone shooter" here is accurate and I feel like something that describes the nature of the shooting is more precise than the vagueness of what "modern US history" is. The only issue is that most sources right now are either discussing the terminology or using the "in modern US history" qualifier, though I have found one source that uses the "single gunman" terminology. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 08:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Slightly tangential to this discussion, but I noticed you reverted my MOS:GNL edit from "lone shooter" back to "lone gunman". Isn't it better to follow MOS, even if the sentence is a little awkward? Although very few women have participated in mass shootings, San Bernardino, for example, involved a shooter who was a woman. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 02:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@FenixFeather: And it's been reverted back to "lone shooter". I really hate "deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter" for stylistic reasons. But I hear you on the "-man" thing. How about "deadliest mass shooting by a single individual"? (And of course - this linguistic awkwardness is yet another reason for my preferred wording, "in modern American history" or "in recent American history".) --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Also slightly tangential, but if we're not saying "modern US history", we don't need to say "in US history". Just "in the US" or "in America". Everything's in history, by default. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

Apart from Brenda Spencer, women aren't very good at this sort of thing. However, we have to use gender neutral language nowadays. Also, words like "modern" and "recent" are clearly discouraged by WP:RELTIME because they are so vague and woolly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 6 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 [3], 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. [4] [5]. --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: Special:PermanentLink/803603031#Weapon. 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. [6] -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The magazine is a Surefire double stack, holding 60 rounds. I have one of those. As others said, it might be one of the 100 round versions but they usually start jamming in use.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)

Can't tell by the photos if it is the 60 or 100 version, but if the later, the shooter would have found it to be unreliable. Had one for a while but would lead to jams near the end of it. Ended up swapping it to someone for an EoTech and then sent that EoTech in when they were being recalled and before the recent settlement. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:12, 4 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)

The victims say that there are noise of automatic weapons, but why people don't add "modified" in front of the gun's models? It's obvious that Steve Paddock obtains some weapons such as AKs. --Iagen0509 (talk) 08:20,4 October 2017 (UTC)

@DHeywood is the DD5 the weapon Paddock left at home? Iagen0509 (talk) 14:40, 5 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.[7][8] 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. However, one of the problems with Las Vegas Strip shooting site 09 2017 4968.jpg is that it doesn't show the area where the victims were killed (the concert arena). The photo shows the nearby area, but isn't very clear at depicting the route taken by the bullets to the victims.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the 2013 image with some further cropping. The gunman was behind where the word "ONE" is on the hotel, and the arena is on the right hand side in the black area of asphalt. The purists are going to say that the Village arena wasn't built at this point, but nothing in the free images is ideal at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Mandalay Bay, McCarran, and Route 91 (masked)

@Ianmacm: @Pigsonthewing: This illustration, derived from one of the newer photographs from September 2017, does show the particular wing from which the shots were fired (the one pointing north along Las Vegas Blvd) as well as the arena site and main stage area of the Route 91 Harvest Festival. The only flaw is the prominence of the non-relevant Luxor Hotel, as the view is facing roughly ESE. So for what it's worth, I used a semitransparent white mask on non-relevant objects to "fade" them into the background (basically, I added fog to everything but the Mandalay Bay and Route 91). This isn't too difficult to adjust (I could, for instance, make the "fog" a bit denser to better fade out non-relevant elements, or remove the mask that's open around the McCarran terminal, as that structure is not terribly relevant either). Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mliu92: Your illustration has abruptly become much more desirable, due to the revelation that the shooter also targeted fuel tanks at the airport, which are visible in this illustration. [9] Wnt (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Mandalay Bay, McCarran, and Route 91 (masked and cropped)

@Wnt: I've uploaded a cropped version which adds a label for the fuel tanks and drops the label/mask for McCarran. Let me know if I can adjust anything (adding labels, dropping labels, making the fog denser) – edits are easy for the vector mask. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That's already better than I would have thought of myself, so I leave it to you. Wnt (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Still not resolved

We still have only one, poor, photograph in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

For now I've added the cropped illustration to the infobox. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• 
  2014. positive: Shows conversion of parking lot into LVV.
  fixes needed: Needs color correction, resolution of pincushion distortion visible on left hand side of frame.
• 
  2009. positive: More clearly shows LVV site.
  fixes needed: Still just a parking lot, desaturated effect, needs slight rotation to bring horizon back into level.

Here's a few more pictures for consideration. They're not precisely "view of Las Vegas Village" from the north wing, but they do show the 32nd floor of the north wing and LVV. There are some fixes that could be done, as noted, which could be sent to the good folks at the Graphics Lab if these pictures are useful (I'm not a raster editor expert). I also like the Highsmith photo linked above as a good establishing shot, though there appears to be some color cast that could be edited out as well. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:13, 6 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)

Claiming "BDP" is ridiculous. We are saying the man killed 58 people. By contrast, very roughly 50,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq were estimated by the UN to have killed 18,000 people and 30,000? outside killed 1,200 people in attacks. That's less than a murder per capita. Saying this man was in ISIS (a) is a very mild thing compared to what he actually did, and (b) would at least suggest some kind of reason for his actions, which is almost too kind. Bottom line: if we're going to have an article that says a man killed someone, then respectable "BDP" is to allow a free-ranging discussion of all potential motives under discussion. We aren't even saying he was in ISIS, only providing readers with the knowledge that ISIS tried to claim him. Which is, if nothing else, a fair commentary on his behavior. Wnt (talk) 06:05, 6 October 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)
• Include It has been noted in the media that ISIS doesn't willy nilly claim credit for anything that goes boom, but when they do it usually turns out to be accurate. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, can you please post some examples of media sources that indicate that ISIS doesn't often claim credit and when they do it's usually accurate? Because what the majority of sources say is the exact opposite of what you said. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The majority of sources conflate ISIS claims with Amaq claims, distorting this answer. Amaq releases the standard line for every attack by a Muslim in a coalition state, regardless of anything and offering no further information. It's quite rarer for ISIS to release an official statement, distinguishable by a logo, name and religious talk of martyrdom, glorious mercy and the like. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There’s no encyclopedic benefit in adding information about a fallacious claim by the group which is deemed absolutely unrelated. JahlilMA (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Update to Weak Include under exactly current condition which the news is put into ‘hoaxes’ section so that contextually it is framed in the appropriate way. JahlilMA (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – In comparison the wide breadth of coverage of this event, the few sources covering the ISIS claim is relatively small. NickCT (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include What he have now is appropriate in size and in treatment, with the claim's credibility (or lack of) being thoroughly assessed. This has received as much coverage as many other things we include, and it is likely to be one of the things our readers are curious about or want more information on. To simply suppress it would raise more questions than answers. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• No Include – but, I think it's absurd that we ARE for including literal fake news, but not this. ISIS claims should be put on the same level as other probably fake news and misinformation. Which is to say, perhaps a bare mention but no details. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think it's fine as long as it's clear that it's an opinion from ISIS rather than actual fact, it's worded nicely as is. South Nashua (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include Islamic state claims with a caveat investigation continues and no proof has been found to back up the IS claim.FBI have only said we have determined, to this point they have not ruled the Islamic state fully yet and the cause for the shooting is still not known Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include. This is mostly a notable "reaction", but it also is part of the investigation. You could say "X, Y, and Z said there was no link to international terrorism, dismissing claims by ISIS that it was responsible." And to be sure, it is not out of the question that authorities would falsely deny ISIS involvement in a case where it can plausibly be done, at least temporarily, simply to deny the organization the credibility boost it would get from a large attack. I'm not saying it isn't much more likely ISIS is lying; they are not exactly known for ethics... the point is, readers should be given a complete picture, not just All The Facts That Wikipedia Think Are The One Right Answer And Nice To Print. Wnt (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include - It has received plenty of coverage, though I understand the rationale to exclude. Particularly that lending even a little bit of credence to a claim that has been heavily refuted by law enforcement could potentially have consequences for living family members, etc. However, if the claim is properly contextualized and treated similarly to other hoaxes or unsubstantiated claims, there is no reason to exclude it given its prominence in reporting. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include in hoaxes section. It's well covered. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:53, 6 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)

Isn't that why some articles have those FAQ-style sections, to more efficiently deflect the bad, perennial edit requests? ValarianB (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to remove this per WP:NOTNEWS and the article wouldn't really suffer, but it has already been removed and put back several times, hence the RfC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

FBI have only said we have determined, to this point there rule has not yet been ruled out.They have not yet found the cause for the shotting.Hence feel the ISIS claim should be there.Unless FBI finally rule it out.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

No WP:RS states that the Islamic State are not involved at this point.Even this and this does not say so they only say that ISIS made 2 false claims in the past.No can deny them at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about whether the claim is fake. This is a discussion about whether the claim should be included in the story, but with the appropriate weight for a likely-false claim. FOARP (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Consistency, please, for number fo deaths: 59 "Including" the gunman v. 58 "Excluding" the gunman

Although both factually correct at this specific time, could it provide consistency throughout? The article states both. I prefer 58 "excluding" Paddock because he was not a fatality of his own shooting; his was a suicide.Television fan (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There is something to be said for doing it both ways, as long as we make it clear which we are doing. The 59 total including the gunman's own death is the "one for the record books" that is being and will be cited as the number of fatalities caused by this shooter. On the other hand, under "casualties" or "victims" or whatever we call that section, it seems proper to exclude the shooter and list 58. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• In my experience, the death of the shooter/bomber is generally included, after reaching consensus thereof. But that's anecdotal ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Included seems the norm in both WP and the media. I always thought there was too much focus on exact numbers anyhow. Who knows how many people’s lives will be shortened. Objective3000 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Fatalities had reached 60 by Oct.3, with another death due to the shooting.Parkwells (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I found only one reference online for a new death just now – a local Fox News channel. And that reference seemed to spread confusion again about whether the cited total includes the shooter or not. Let's wait for reporting from national sources. BTW if we move someone into the "dead" column do we subtract one from the "injured" column? --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically he was a victim of his own shooting – he did apparently shoot himself, after all :). And no, MelanieN, wait for reliable sources to update first. They could have found a dead body somewhere that wasn't previously accounted for, however unlikely. The injury count is always "at least" anyways, so it's probably still going to be accurate unless it was exactly that number. ansh666 17:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

They say "at least" with the number of injured but the number actually went down due to certain people being counted more than once — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlt152152 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The opening section doesnt match with the chronology below

the opening section says this:

After nearly 10 minutes of firing into the crowd and a confrontation with police, he was found dead in his hotel room with a self-inflicted gunshot wound

edit: reading it better it matches, but reading the above paragraph makes it seems like if everything happened in the ten minutes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.2.200 (talk • contribs)

That's a good point. Can you suggest a better wording? --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I agree that it doesn't seem to describe the event well. How about this, longer but more descriptive, borrowing language from the Shooting section: "After firing into the crowd for about 10 minutes, police approached Paddock's hotel room but retreated when he fired at them through the door. An hour later, police breached the hotel room with explosives, finding him dead with an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound." ansh666 19:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I like that. Except that the opening clause needs work; it sounds like the police fired into the crowd for 10 minutes. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

How about keeping it simple – I added "extended confrontation with police" and left it at that. This is the summary lead, and all the details don't need to be up here -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - Reworded to address your concern. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Good solution. Let's leave it at that. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just saw this - oops! I originally had "Paddock" as the subject of that sentence. If the police were firing into the crowd for 10 minutes that would be an entirely different story, I'm sure. ansh666 06:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

So, "extended confrontation" was replaced by "standoff", and both were challenged because they are not in the cited sources. I have restored "standoff" for now but I don't think it is particularly accurate. What can we come up with to indicate that there was more than a 11 minute lapse between when he started shooting and when he was found dead? Something brief enough for the lede, and hopefully found in our sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• How about this: "He fired into the crowd for almost 11 minutes, fired at police when they approached his hotel room, and eventually was found dead in the room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound."--MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the wild speculation about diazepam (Valium) causing aggression

There is one sentence with one citation saying the shooter was prescribed diazepam and that diazepam has been linked to aggressive behavior. I think we should remove this entirely. Diazepam is over half a century old, very well-understood, very commonly prescribed, and it provides a good balance of safety and efficacy for a huge array of diseases, from tetanus to fear of flying to epilepsy. Wikipedia really, really should not be scaring the millions of people who need diazepam and other benzodiazepines for serious illnesses. Many of these people are already scared, and they don't want to worry that diazepam will cause them to shoot a crowd of people. That is a heinously irrational fear, which is actually mentioned by one of the doctors interviewed in the news article that was cited.

Diazepam (and all GABAergic sedatives) do cause a certain type of aggression, but it is impulsive aggression, such as punching someone in the face with zero warning. This carefully planned massacre was very different, not impulsive at all. Carefully stockpiling dozens of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition over a course of weeks, renting a hotel room, and setting up video cameras – these are not in character with the aggression that is sometimes (rarely) seen when people use diazepam. If someone blamed an SSRI antidepressant for premeditated murder with this level of meticulous planning, that would be a tiny bit more plausible, but I would still call for the deletion of such wild speculation because SSRI antidepressants are also safe and effective and helpful to millions of people. But the idea that diazepam causes this type of aggression is simply a misunderstanding of pharmacology and a misinterpretation of the available literature.

Furthermore, the data came from a prescription drug monitoring database (PDMP) and not from a doctor or law enforcement. Without question, this data was obtained in an illegal way, and it was obtained in a way that strips away context that would help doctors or law enforcement to interpret the information. PDMPs are designed to limit drug diversion and prescription forgery, this data is being misused in a manner that is illegal and probably misleading.

Let's wait for law enforcement to test the shooter's blood for legal and illegal drugs (which they will surely do), interview the shooter's doctor(s) for any relevant information, and search the hotel room for bottles of pills. The available (unreliable) information shows that the shooter was receiving 50 tablets once per year, so I wouldn't be surprised if his room contained no pills and his blood contained no trace of drugs. Fluoborate (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This guy is clearly a Big Pharma shill. Keep the information on the psychotropics.Reganjon12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't question my motives or assume bad faith on my part. I would point out that diazepam has been off-patent for decades and it has no budget for advertising or lawyers or Wikipedia shills. Certain on-patent medications do have a budget for Wikipedia shills, but I assure you, I am not on that payroll and diazepam does not have any budget for those shenanigans. Fluoborate (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the sentence. If nothing else, it definitely violates WP:Verifiability because the information was obtained from the Nevada PDMP in an illegal way. It cannot be verified without breaking the law unless a law enforcement official or a doctor who actually treated the shooter wishes to release this information. The name of the person who violated privacy laws and released this information has not been released, and I do not trust an unnamed person who illegally accesses law enforcement databases. Also, everything I said before about fear-mongering and drawing conclusions from extremely limited information is still true. Fluoborate (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. It's also carried by a lot of poor sources and doesn't seem to have hit the top sources. Plus, all drugs have side effects, including aspirin. Objective3000 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The following source says Paddock was taking Diazepam, that John Hinckley was also taking it when he shot Reagan, and experts are quoted saying it may cause aggression:

• Harasim, Paul. “Drug given to Paddock calms some, provokes others, experts say”, Las Vegas Review-Journal (October 4, 2017).

This source confirms Paddock was taking Diazepam (Valium), and confirms it can cause aggression, but the cited expert says it would be an impulsive type of aggression rather than something that involved meticulous planning:

• Brennan, Christopher. “Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock was prescribed anti-anxiety meds”, New York Daily News (October 4, 2017).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with removal, too speculative at the moment. It isn't in the current version of the article and shouldn't be put back unless a clear link is found.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Re ". . .wild speculation about diazepam (Valium) causing aggression . . ." - it is only speculative to claim it as a contributing cause of THIS instance of aggression, not that it sometimes causes aggression.

Even the package insert acknowledges this. It has been linked to delusions, paranoia, psychotic experiences, rage. violence. & homicide:

Benzodiazepine use and aggressive behaviour: a systematic review Albrecht, et al in Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2014 Dec https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25183003

Pro-aggressive effect of diazepam in male mice with repeated experience of aggression Zh Vyssh Nerv Deiat Im I P Pavlova. 2013 Jul-Aug https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25508382

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/diazepam-side-effects.html

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/las-vegas-strip-shooter-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-in-june/

People characterizing the QUALITY of diazepam associated aggression as impulsive & not involving sustained planning aren't citing any science to justify the distinction. Maybe they can.

I didn't see the original offending sentence so perhaps it was problematic, but it's silly to totally ignore this issue in the main article. @TheValeyard: It is childish to remove & snidely dismiss as "Witless conspiracy-mongering" anything you haven't heard on MSNBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Standoff, confrontation or the like

There seems to be some contention around this sentence - "After firing into the crowd for almost 11 minutes and following a standoff with police, he was found dead in his hotel room with a self-inflicted gunshot wound." Some have pushed back saying there was no "standoff." This timeline of events appears to support the idea of a confrontation and/or standoff. [10] Please discuss here, thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The subject is already under active discussion above, under the heading #the opening section doesnt match with the chronology below, why not continue it there? I just proposed a substitute sentence there. I guess if we are moving to this new section, what I proposed was "He fired into the crowd for almost 11 minutes, fired at police when they approached his hotel room, and eventually was found dead in the room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound." --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit-warring. The last I read (12 or so hours ago) was the security guard was not in the company of police when he was shot in the leg through the door and shooting had stopped by the time police arrived outside the room, with Paddock presumed dead. Hence, I asked for a source, which User:Fuzheado supplied on my talk page. I've added it to the lead. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the puzzles is why, although police were at the hotel door at 10:25 PM, they didn't enter the room until 11:20 PM. An obvious possibility is that they were worried that the room was wired up with explosives. There is no evidence that there was an extensive gunfight, or police negotiators being called in. The evidence suggests that Paddock had been dead for some time before police entered the room. Maybe they were just being ultra-cautious. If he had still been firing on to the crowd at 10:25 PM, they would have had to enter the room as quickly as possible whether they liked it or not, but there were no shots on the crowd after 10:20 PM. Based on this timeline, Paddock could have been dead for over an hour before police entered the room. Like Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho and numerous other mass shooters, Paddock seems to have made a decision that he wasn't going to be taken alive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This new timeline from the LV sheriff explains a lot. [11] Seems like the police spent a long time clearing the floor and making sure there were no additional shooters or that he was hiding somewhere. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, what the police did here is standard practice for a lockdown situation. Although it's counterintuitive, they were in no hurry to enter the room as long as the shooting had stopped. Police are now saying that he planned to escape [12], but it's hard to see how someone on the 32nd floor could have done this after the hotel security guard, named as Jesus Campos [13] had correctly pinpointed his location. He left a note, not described as a suicide note, and it will be interesting to learn what it says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The timeline that User:Fuzheado provided to support the "standoff" claim (published 2:16 AM 4th October) has now been significantly contradicted by later LV sherrif statements, as described in the timeline Fuzheado linked to just above (published 8:34 PM 4th October). The last shot was fired two minutes before police arrived on the 32nd floor. I'm not sure what the right language is here, but you can't have a standoff with a dead man, so I've removed the "standoff" claim from the lead again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it's looking more and more like Paddock was dead by the time police were on the scene.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the timeline from the LV sheriff makes a lot more sense now, and I've updated the body of #Shooting with this info. The lead could contain something about the shooting at the guard instead of standoff, but it also works fine the way it is now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:American country music?

Should this article belong in Category:American country music? Seems a bit tangential to me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. It's tangential at best. If anyone disagrees, please discuss here. –dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Even Category:2017 in American music seems tangential. This is not an article about music. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sheriff: Fatalities total is 58 victims plus 1 shooter, 59 total

The fatalities total is 58 victims plus 1 shooter, so 59 total including the shooter, according to the 5 PM PDT press conference by Sheriff Lombardo. Here is the verbatim quote, which I am transcribing:

Sheriff Lombardo, 5:04 PM PDT, October 4th: "Deaths, still remain at 59. I had told you 59 before, um, plus 1, being the suspect. That changed. Today it's 58 plus 1, the suspect, 59."

Sadly, this press conference is not on Youtube right now (I am writing this 2 hours after it happened). Fluoborate (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we picked that up last night and that is what is in the article now: 58 victims plus one shooter = 59. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article was correct at the time I wrote this, but some major news outlets were still saying "59 victims", so I wanted to record the Sheriff's verbatim quote, for posterity. I was transcribing this from television (recorded and played back), so I just wanted to put it somewhere. The Sheriff himself had said "59 victims" one day earlier, which is why so many news sources had it wrong. Fluoborate (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

No mention of bullet holes in aviation fuel tanks

610 meters from the hotel room were airport fuel tanks that bullet holes have now been found in. cite: and local Diggera (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The original story was in the Las Vegas Review-Journal [14] and is worded as "a source says", which is something of a red flag for Wikipedia. Who was the source? It's possible that some bullets did hit these tanks, either deliberately or by wild firing, but there needs to be clearer sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Now done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Reworking the lead

How's something like the following for the first two paragraphs? It cuts away a bit in the restructure, but I believe captures the essential information, and provides a foundation for future edits (eg: when weapons used are confirmed):

On the evening of October 1, 2017, a mass shooting occurred on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada, during the closing act of the outdoor Route 91 Harvest country music festival. Stephen Paddock fired on the crowd for almost 11 minutes from his 32nd-floor room in the Mandalay Bay resort on the opposite side of the Strip.

Police found Paddock dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound when they breached his room an hour later. Prior to official identification, fringe sources published false news about the shooter's identity and motive, which was then promoted by automated social media search results. Paddock's motive remains unknown.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the fringe news angle has to be mentioned in the lead per WP:DUE. Nowadays it can be taken for granted that some people are going to write a bunch of cr@p on the Internet. The lead at Sandy Hook doesn't say that umpteen people believe that it was a hoax and say this all day long on the Internet. This gives them prominence that they don't deserve per WP:FRINGE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Second sentence struck.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~

I think it would help if you could explain a bit more why there is a need for a massive re-write. The most significant weapons have been identified, but even so, that level of specificity would not belong in the opening paragraph. As for details - I don't understand the rationale for pushing down the Route 91 Harvest mention in the first sentence. The fact that a crowd of 22,000 at a festival were victims is core to the incident. Also "opposite side of the strip" requires quite a bit of knowledge about the geography and is likely more confusing than anything else. In fact, there is a good argument for eliminating "strip" from the title altogether as the incident was at the Las Vegas Village grounds, and is but one property at the far end of the strip. Instead, it's probably better to use something like "across the street" or "adjacent to" the Mandalay Bay. Style-wise, these types of articles usually describe the situation and then introduce the identity later in detail. Mentioning "Paddock" casually at the start of the second sentence seems quite jarring. The third sentence also seems a bit off, as it doesn't allude to the fact that there had been an initial exchange of gunfire with authorities ahead of a larger confrontation. There are some optimizations that could be made for the first two grafs, but I'm concerned that the rewrite may take a big step backwards. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The current lead:

• does not spatially link the hotel and the festival (noting not everyone can see graphics). It also states the shooting occurred at the festival, which would normally imply that the shooter was also at the festival rather than hundreds of yards away.
• splits Paddock's location over the two paragraphs, and does not identify his hotel room as being where he was shooting from (the structure implies that he moved from his firing location to his hotel room)
• uses "the gunman" before identifying him by name, which was necessary when he was still unidentified, but not now -- it's not a mystery. Contrary to "Style-wise, these types of articles usually describe the situation and then introduce the identity later in detail. ", 2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting (date=>perp=>crime=>place), University of Texas tower shooting (date=>perp=>place=>crime), Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (date=>place=>perp=>crime) all put perp before crime.
• includes who was giving the closing performance, which is not particularly relevant to the shooting, and splits time between two sentences.

Am not suggesting exact weaponry be listed, but rather something like "with semi-automatic weapons modified to fire automatically" to explain the injury count. The 22000 crowd size could be included.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Leading sentence

Just to say, I think the leading sentence of this article is currently very unpleasant to read and overloaded. I didn't want to alter it unilaterally because it's clearly important and would involve some effort to reword – but I think that effort should be made. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I've split up the opening sentence and added a bit more detail. Media reports are saying that the shooting was in Las Vegas, and they don't seem to be bothered by the pedantic but correct fact that most of the Strip is actually situated in Paradise, Nevada.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I like the direction of the rewritten lead, even if I think it is indeed unwieldy to read and overloaded with detail (like the age of the shooter). I would plead, however, that we do not OBSESS about the Paradise, Nevaada point. For the vast majority of folks, it is the most relevant that this happened in "Las Vegas." Other articles we've had about Paris attacks and specific locations go with the most WP:COMMONNAME and what is recognizable. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas Strip with a wikilink is enough for the opening sentence. The adjacent infobox map and text gives a more detailed geography lesson for anyone who wants it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't like this rewrite of the lede at all, and I don't think such a major rewrite should have been done without obtaining consensus first. The new lede is disjointed and illogical, throwing in things like where he is from, or the fact that his motive was unknown, in the middle of the sentence about him shooting. The "after firing for 11 minutes he was found dead" formulation is misleading and is under discussion in another thread here. I do think (and most previous commenters have thought) that the distinction between Las Vegas and Paradise is important. I could propose ways to rewrite this to fix the problems, but I would rather restore the previously stable lede until the changes are discussed and agreed to. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The previous opening sentence was way too long. There is still some way to go here, but I wouldn't go back to the previous version criticized by Anonymous Dissident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it was long, but it was logical and followed a sensible timeline. This lede jumps all over the place. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking through this talk page I find at least three current discussions about how to do the lede: #Reworking the lead #Standoff, confrontation or the like #Please discuss big lead sentence changes For a few people to ignore all the ongoing discussion and unilaterally do a complete rewrite was wrong and contrary to how Wikipedia works. The previous version had been stable for a long time and it is the basis on which all those other discussions are proceeding. I'm going to revert to the preceding version. Then I will post a thread here where people can choose betwen the two versions. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't wise because editing is an ongoing process. The lead had been changed numerous times and none of the versions was perfect, particularly the one with the looooooong opening sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It was in constant flux; which is not great for a highly-viewed article. Objective3000 (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a great believer in not making the WP:LEAD too long, but the current version is actually too short and doesn't give an accurate summary of what happened. There should probably be three or four paragraphs with a logical sequence. We definitely don't need the geography lesson part about Paradise, Nevada which is in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

(edit conflict) User:ianmacm, there's a section below for discussing this like this. User:Objective3000, you thought unilaterally coming up with a whole new lede would eliminate the flux? An article like this, with hundreds of edits a day, is always going to be in flux. Suddenly replacing a longstanding version with a entire rewrite was not likely to contribute to stability. Anyhow, I have started a section below where you can make your arguments. Maybe there will be consensus for your version. Maybe a merger of the two versions will be better than either of them. That's how Wikipedia works. Not by suddenly making significant, controversial changes to the article itself. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what you mean. I have no version. Objective3000 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I haven't kept track of who-all created the new version. I was just responding to the notion that this new version would somehow be less in flux than the original. And in the rest of my comment, "your version" was addressed to everybody. Sorry for being unclear. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Complete rewrite of lede

The lede has looked like this for several days. There have been numerous tweaks, and there are multiple discussions on this page about modifying it, but this has been the general format:

On the evening of October 1, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada. During the closing performance by singer Jason Aldean, a gunman opened fire on the outdoor festival crowd from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay resort and casino.

The shooter, whose motive remains unknown, was 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada. After firing into the crowd for almost 11 minutes, he was found dead in his hotel room with a self-inflicted gunshot wound. With 59 deaths (including the perpetrator) and 489 injuries, the massacre is the deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter in U.S. history.

Sources

Recently that format was replaced by a complete rewrite, as follows:

On the evening of October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and another 489 injured when 64-year-old Stephen Paddock fired on the crowd at the Route 91 Harvest music festival. Paddock fired hundreds of shots from two windows in his suite on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay resort and casino on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, United States.

After firing into the crowd for almost 11 minutes, Paddock, of Mesquite, Nevada, whose motive remains unknown, was found dead in the suite, with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The massacre occurred during the closing performance by country music singer Jason Aldean and is the deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter in U.S. history.

Sources

I have reverted to the previous version since the rewrite was done without discussion or consensus. This thread is to allow discussion. Is the new version a better format? Should some sort of combination of the two versions become the lede? Wikipedia is collaborative and works by consensus; let's see if we can agree on a lede format. In the meantime, let's not make major changes to the lede without discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Definitely no on Paradise, Nevada. The media isn't interested in this per WP:COMMONNAME and it's in the infobox for anyone who wants it. The current version is too short and needs a lot of improvement.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)@

Paradise is exactly the kind of detail or tweaking that can be done. The existing version probably should be expanded. I'm OK with both of those suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

My analysis: New version: The new first paragraph is OK, although it doesn't really improve on the original. The new second paragraph is a disaster, interrupting the flow of the sentence with multiple interjections. The new third paragraph is illogical, harking back to talking about the festival which was in the first paragraph, and then somehow combining that with the completely unrelated death toll ranking.

Old version: the paragraphs flow logically in time sequence (the setting and shooting in the first paragraph, the outcome in the second paragraph). It doesn't lump unrelated material together a single sentence. It could be tweaked in various ways, as per the various ongoing discussions here. It could be longer, by summarizing more of the article. But in terms of a logical, smooth reading lede on which to build, it is vastly superior to the new version IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support for old version, per MelanieN. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• The old version was better. I will restore it if there is no objection. zzz (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, zzz. I think that would be a good idea. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

More on lead

Earlier today, I rewrote the lede, to take into account many of the very good points in User:Hydronium Hydroxide's bullet points, while being careful to retain all the pertinent facts. And because the former lede was shit not up to our usual high standards.

My edit was undone, with the edit summary "restoring original lede which was rewritten without consensus...". This is contrary to WP:DNRNC; having a discussion here does not put a freeze on edits.

By all means continue to improve my version of the lede (I have restored the version prior to the above reversion); but please do not try to prevent any steps to improve it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Andy, you have been here a long time. You know better than this. You're familiar with the guideline: BRD. Be bold (you were), and if someone reverts (they did), then discuss (that's what we need to do in this thread). Discuss, not edit-war it back in. I have explained in detail, above, why I thought your change was not an improvement. You have explained nothing, except that you think your version is better. This is the place to explain. Make it clear what's better about it. Respond to the criticisms of it, or modify it to fix the flaws I pointed out. Convince people. Gain consensus to reinsert it. That's the Wikipedia way. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You've been here a long time, too, so you know that your claims are bullshit. BRD doesn't apply, because I boldly edited, then others came along and made further improvements. If BRD does apply, it's in that you made a massive, and regressive, bold change, and I reverted you. As for "explaining nothing", I invite you to note that my opening sentence in this very section includes: "take into account many of the very good points in User:Hydronium Hydroxide's bullet points"; and I reiterate: "By all means continue to improve my version of the lede ; but please do not try to prevent any steps to improve it.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Those are generalities and references ("the very good points"), not explanations. Could you please specify in exactly what ways your version is an improvement? Something comparable to my analysis comparing the two versions? It really isn't at all clear why you did it the way you did - for example, why your last paragraph/sentence harks back to the concert (which was in the first paragraph) and lumps it in the same sentence with the death toll record? I'm trying to get a substantive discussion here about the content. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I see that rather than discuss, you have restored it again [15], fixing a few of the things I criticized, and falsely claiming "per talk" in your edit summary, when in fact the talk page favored the original version 3 to 1. This is getting us nowhere and is approaching edit warring. OK, since you are apparently going to insist on this, let's just take a look at the version now in the article and work with it, see how it can be improved. I see a few stylistic things to fix, and I will re-add the actual numbers of dead and wounded, (found it, it's just in a different place than it used to be) and then we will see what else needs improving. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, here's a problem: since you have put the name Stephen Paddock into the lede sentence, there is no good way to give his age and residence. I removed "64-year-old" from the lede sentence because it was TMI for the lede sentence, but now there is no good place to put it. The earlier approach - saying "gunman" in the lede sentence and identifying him a few sentences later - gave a clear and logical place to put it: "The gunman was 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada." I would prefer to go back to that structure. I would certainly oppose trying to cram any of that into the lede sentence, and I don't see any good way to include it in the remaining sentences. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. Checking similar articles here, I find that about half name the shooter in the lede sentence, and the other half later in the lede paragraph, so either is apparently acceptable practice. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I am proposing something like this:

On October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and another 489 injured when a gunman fired on the crowd attending the closing performance of the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip. The gunman was 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada. Between approximately 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT, he fired hundreds of rifle rounds from his room on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay resort in Paradise, Nevada. About an hour after firing ceased, Paddock was found dead in his hotel room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His motive remains unknown.

Sources

I also think "the U.S. state of Nevada" is awkward. It would be simpler to simply say "Paradise, Nevada" but that's another issue; for some reason a few people here are passionately averse to naming "Paradise" in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. Actually I'm just going to re-add "Paradise, Nevada". Above proposal modified accordingly. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

 Done --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

ISIS misinformation

A few hours ago, I moved the paragraph on ISIS under the (modified) "Misinformation" heading. Someone has undone that edit, but I can't find their reason for doing so in the history. It should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

No reason having been given, I've moved it back. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Since there's no indication it's a lie, I've moved it back to Reactions. That's not to say it's true. It's just unproven, either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

Hasn't this been disproved to the best of our abilities, though? While there may *technically* be some doubt, wouldn't it be wiser to err on the less inflammatory side (which happens to coincide with remarks from law enforcement agencies) and put it under the misinformation header to be moved only when we have evidence that suggests otherwise? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of shooter in death total

Is disgusting. It is also against facts as he killed himself after his attack ended. --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It’s the standard in Wikipedia, the standard in reliable sources, and the English language. Also, it’s not contrary to the facts. If you don’t think any deaths after the attack “ended” should be counted, then we couldn’t count any of the injured in critical condition that subsequently die. Objective3000 (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not the standard in the English language as I was taught. Sources i heard on the day were given as "x killed by a gunman who later shot himself", so it's not the standard in all sources, either. And any critically injured individuals who later died were shot during his attack, therefore they count. His death came from a shot fired after he had ceased attacking.--Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Too bad. You're welcome to change the standard, if you like. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 16:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The infobox already includes an appropriate clarification. It says "Deaths: 59 (including the perpetrator)", and I would support inclusion of similar clarifying language in the lead section. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That language has been used every time we cite a number. If it isn't there at the moment it's because someone removed it. But whether or not we like including the shooter in the numbers, we are stuck with it. That is the way these things are always reported. After all his death was a result of the mass shooting incident, whether he killed himself or was killed by police or however it happened. That is the way the numbers go into the (shudder) record book. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Paddock was shot and killed by Paddock during the same several minutes the rest were, with one of the same weapons, from the same place. He was the final victim, not a bonus, like those who kill themselves in jail later or die by police. Not an innocent victim or a hapless victim, of course, but every bit as dead. The only strangeness I see is saying "excluding" in one spot and "including" in another. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

A few points: 1) If sources always say "59 including the shooter" them we have the option of saying the exact same or saying "killed 58 before killing himself", 2) how would one go about changing consensus?, 3) you have a strange definition of victim of you consider him a victim. --Khajidha (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible Chicago attack

At the moment, the media is quoting this report on TMZ. Police don't know if this is correct, or if Paddock actually attended the Lollapalooza festival in August 2017.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Didn't show up, "officials" said. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

They don't even know why he started shooting at Las Vegas. Speculating on other venues seems far fetched at this point and unrelated to this topic. He stayed at a lot of hotels. --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Right.--MONGO 17:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This was also another possibility:

http://www.ebony.com/news-views/las-vegas-shooter-chance-the-rapper-concert#axzz4ugKTMgO8 Victor Grigas (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

and in Boston by Fenway https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/las-vegas-gunman-scouted-locations-boston-chicago-officials-say-n808011 Victor Grigas (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind, "scouting" and "doing online research about" hotels is just a scary way of saying he Googled them. Have you ever considered booking a hotel online? What was your motive? I get that his one major crime in 64 years happened at a hotel, but that doesn't retroactively mean the prior lifetime was about anything more than not sleeping outside with the riff-raff. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

Though yeah, August wasn't long ago. Might be worth a mention, presuming he was already mad. But don't call it possible or potential; it 100% can't happen now, even through time travel. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

List of performers at the Chicago concert

I removed the list of the scheduled performers at Lollapalooza - a concert where nothing happened, and in fact he was a no-show for the hotel room her had reserved. User:Paintspot restored the list saying "I think that would actually be helpful to list the scheduled performers." I don't understand that. We don't even list the other performers at the Route 91 Harvest festival, where the shooting occurred. Why in the world should we list the performers at a concert where nothing happened? --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

For no reason, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

You might compromise by linking List of Lollapalooza lineups by year#2017 to "in Chicago". I'm not sure how to link to the exact sub-section, because it's just called Lollapalooza. But it's probably doable. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

The Life is Beautiful acts seem as pointless for the same reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017

Please insert the following under "4 Perpetrator"

---

According to a 3 October 2017 article[16] in the Las Vegas Review-Journal "Records from the Nevada Prescription Monitoring Program obtained Tuesday [3 October 2017] show Paddock was prescribed 50 10-milligram diazepam tablets by Henderson physician Dr. Steven Winkler on June 21 [2017]... Diazepam is a sedative-hypnotic drug in the class of drugs known as benzodiazepines, which studies have shown can trigger aggressive behavior. Chronic use or abuse of sedatives such as diazepam can also trigger psychotic experiences[17][18]..."

---

Simoz999 (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

See the related discussion above: #Please remove the wild speculation about diazepam (Valium) causing aggression. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"It was evening when the shooting occurred"

Re this edit: I don't know why someone is desperate to have it, because there are different time zones in the USA and saying that "it was the evening" is pretty meaningless as the evening stretches from 6 PM to midnight anyway. Other articles about mass shootings don't do this, and it is way too vague and confusing in the opening sentence. Sandy Hook doesn't say that Adam Lanza did it "in the morning", it correctly says that he entered the building at around 9:30 AM local time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it here to discuss. Yes, there are different time zones. It wasn't evening everywhere. It wasn't October 1 everywhere, either. Does that mean we can't give the local date? Identifying it as evening at the location (i.e., dark) helps people to picture the scene and understand the context. In what way is it confusing? (BTW I have already gotten one "thank" notice for restoring it.) --MelanieN (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I see you have taken removed it again, and inserted the time "at about 10:05 p.m. PDT" instead. I'll be interested to see which way of doing it people prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and just in case anyone gets the wrong impression: the article did not say "It was evening when the shooting occurred" or "It was the evening", although you put them in quotes. The lede sentence actually said "On the evening of October 1, 2017..." which you changed to "On October 1, 2017..." --MelanieN (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it will be interesting. There are obvious problems with WP:RELTIME here. If an incident lasted only a few minutes, it doesn't make sense to use words associated with extended periods of time such as morning, afternoon or evening. It's hard to point to any article about a mass shooting that falls into this trap. If it was 10:05 PM local time, the reader can do the math and work out that it was going to be dark.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep the evening mention. This is puzzling to me - "the reader can do the math." Why would we leave them to do that? We should keep the "evening" lead that has been there for days and the vast majority of editors have seen fit to keep there. It sets the scene and it is indeed significant that this event happened in the evening/night in terms of the chaos and aftermath of the event. If you're talking about when the iPhone went on sale, then it's true time of day is not relevant. But this as an event that occurred in a physical locale, and the environment in which it happened – when it was dark – is most certainly a level of detail that is interesting and merits inclusion. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It's completely non standard for mass shooting articles. It is vague and woolly, and giving the exact time is much better. Do we have to explain that morning = light and evening = dark as well?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The exact time is definitely better. I've always known "evening" to be from 5 to 9. I know at least two (crazy) people who think "night" starts at 8. Everybody agrees 10:05 is 10:05. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

Australia and Nigeria: unusual reactions and notable

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull offered condolences and said "we are very, very proud of our strict gun control regime in Australia. We maintain it, and we are not complacent about it at all" Nigerian Foreign minister Geoffrey Onyeama said "Truly, it was an act of evil. Nigeria commends the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and others for their swift intervention by curtailing the incident, which would have claimed more lives. ...the Federal Government commiserates with the families of the victims and prays that Almighty God grants them the fortitude to bear the irreparable loss. The Nigerian government also prays for quick recovery of the wounded. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

References

• How exactly are these unusual? ansh666 06:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, fairly routine condolences. It's interesting that Malcolm Turnbull twisted the knife by pointing out that laws introduced after the Port Arthur massacre would have prevented an Australian citizen from owning guns like this, but it is more on topic at Reactions to the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how Turnball's twisting a knife. Clearly the majority Americans are unaware that gun control would reduce such incidents, as it has done in similar nations, especially Australia. A good friend will help, by pointing out information that could help their friend - even if it is something the friend wouldn't want to hear. Nfitz (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, maybe it wasn't quite knife twisting. Theresa May made a similar point about laws introduced in the UK after the Hungerford massacre which would have had the same result.[19] The USA is now the only country in the developed world that allows this type of gun ownership. Remarkably, even the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party are looking at some sort of change in the law on bump fire weapons, and this should be mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand refused to join Australia in banning semi-auto and pump-action long guns after the Port Arthur massacre and like Australia, New Zealand has not had a similar massacre since then. Here in Tennessee this week a man arrested driving on revoked license (he missed a court appearance) had his car packed with survival gear including two handguns and two home-built full-auto AR-style rifles, a .223 and a .308. He built the lower full-auto receivers himself (the barrels, stocks, other parts were probably bought as commercial spare or replacement parts). Similarly Sweden, Israel, India, Australia and other countries have to deal with underground manufacture of full-auto weapons. Not to mention theft from military and police. A ban on bumpfire stocks sounds like the usual non-answer from smug authorities. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand has very strong gun control laws for anything that is not a hunting rifle. Pistols are either for target competition, or not allowed to be used with ammunition. Semi's are very strictly permitted, and very few licences have been issued. But how User:Naaman Brown is this relevant to the article? It's a known fact that gun control is very effective at reducing shootings, as documented in gun control. And New Zealnd has strong gun control. Is there a particular edit you are suggesting? Nfitz (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Jason Aldean in the lead

I'm not sure if it's necessary or fair to mention Jason Aldean in the WP:LEAD. It doesn't add significantly to an understanding of the shooting. Also, saying "The massacre occurred shortly after 10 p.m. local time, during the closing performance by country music singer Jason Aldean, and is the deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter in U.S. history" is conflation, because the two are not obviously linked. We've been through this before, the sentences need to flow logically and this one doesn't. It links Aldean and the shooting when there is no relationship. Jason Aldean is not a major player in all of this, beyond the obvious fact that he was on stage at the time. It's not as if we have any evidence that Paddock hated Aldean and this was the motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't fit nicely, is undue weight, and also hinders the time from being incorporated into one of the earlier sentences. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I liked it there in the old lead, but I don't like a few things about the new lead. Still think it's worth noting there, somehow, just like we mention Ariana Grande in Manchester, Great White on Rhode Island or Eagles of Death Metal in Paris. The headlining act is kind of like a setting. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:34, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

I just moved the 3rd para above the second, but I reckon that the massacre sentence could go higher. In that case, Aldean might fit better... "On October 1, 2017... => The massacre occurred... => Over a period of about ten minutes... => The incident is the" ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Mandalay Bay Massacre, Las Vegas

Also known as the "Las Vegas Shooting" or "Las Vegas Strip Shooting" occurred on October 1, 2017, at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival located at the south end of the Las Vegas strip. 64-year-old Stephen Paddock, of Mesquite, Nevada, fired on the crowd at the music festival at 10:05 p.m PST, during the closing performances. Over a period of about ten minutes, Paddock fired hundreds of rounds from two suite windows, located on the 32nd floor, at the nearby Mandalay Bay Resort in South Las Vegas, Nevada. 58 people were killed and another 527 injured, making this incident the deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter in U.S. history.[2][3]

About an hour after firing ceased, Paddock, whose motive remains unknown, was found dead in his suite, 32-135 with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. VincentRO (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)VincentRO

Article title change

I strongly suggest changing the title of this article from "2017 Las Vegas Strip Shooting" to "2017 Las Vegas Strip Massacre". This event was literally, by definition, a massacre ("an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people" or " a deliberate and violent killing of a large number of people", etc.). Using the word "shooting" is a very inaccurate represenation of the magnitude of this event. It's like calling a hurricane a rainstorm. Further, the majority of mainstream media outlets have been describing it as a massacre, not a mere shooting. TV news coverage has overwhelmingly used the word "massacre" in their program titles. So, if there is an experienced editor who agrees with me and is familiar with the process of proposing an article title change, please do so. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. Although Wikipedia is not a source, you might read massacre for some background. Massacres are generally carried out by political actors and not lone individuals. Objective3000 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I am fully aware of reliable sources, thus my reference to "mainstream media outlets". And I am not talking about a content change; I'm talking about changing the article title. Here's just a sampling (there are hundreds) of mainstream media outlets calling it a masscre, including the primary Las Vegas newspaper: Las Vegas Review-Journal, ABC News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Newsweek, NPR, Reuters, CNN, and AOL. So, contrary to your implication that massacres are not carried out by lone individuals, I beg to differ with your opinion. And so do hundreds of top-tier newspapers and TV networks. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Those call it the Las Vegas massacre, not the Las Vegas Strip massacre or the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:42, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

In any case, we should let the dust settle before considering any article moves (renames). Objective3000 (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It's been four days. Traditionally, the dust settles about now. I like "shooting" for precision, but "Las Vegas massacre" is catchy and true in a general sense, so I'm Neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

Typically perhaps. But, we don't yet have a motive. Objective3000 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Objective, a motive is absolutely unnecessary to know this was a massacre. A person shooting indiscriminately from 32 stories up at a crowd of over 20,000 unsuspecting and defenseless people, wounding or killing over 500 of them, is miles beyond a typical shooting. And Hulk, the issue at hand with regard to the title change is simply word choice: shooting vs. massacre. Far more credible, mainsteam media outlets are using massacre than shooting. In any case, I appreciate the input from both of you. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Could be waiting a while on that. We still don't know why Barbara Spencer didn't like Mondays, and she's been alive for almost 40 years since. During this time, many (if not most) mass killers have taken their secrets to the grave. Is there a reason to wait for a motive before choosing another name? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:14, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

Hulk, I know this is off topic but thanks for giving me a good laugh! I needed that. You're a funny guy. Also, I had meant to ask the same thing (about why in heaven's name a motive would be needed to make a title change), but forgot in my previous comment. I also had intended to point out that Paddock's motive may never be known. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It always takes a while to agree on the title for an incident like this. That's why the article is currently move-protected. I don't think the "dust has settled" quite yet, with new revelations every day, and hundreds of edits to this article every day. But within a few days, maybe on Sunday so that it has been a week, I plan to start a conversation to narrow down the potential titles, and then use that to launch an RfC about the title. For now I will continue to collect this kind of suggestion so that I can include it in the list of "possibles" for the preliminary conversation. I think we need to do this in an orderly way, to prevent chaos, and so that what we come up with can be considered definitive. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Melanie! That's all I was seeking. A productive debate with (hopefully) lots of input. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think there would be more support for 2017 Las Vegas shooting which would fit our style and precedent a lot more. I would not be averse to 2017 Las Vegas massacre but we would need to see this nomenlature in more sources to justify it. As for the removal of "Strip" in the name - the entire "Strip" has very little to do with this shooting - the tragedy happened to be at the very end of the Las Vegas Strip. I know the obsession with the name was about the fact that it happened in "Paradise" vs "Las Vegas" but we really should move on from that. For example, the November 2015 Paris attacks happened in the suburb of Saint-Denis as well as Paris, but we use the most recognizable name. The D.C. sniper attacks of 2002 happened almost entirely outside DC in the suburban areas of Maryland and Virginia, yet we all know it and refer to it as the "D.C." attacks. Title of this does not have to be pedantic about geography and jurisdiction and must yield to WP:COMMONNAME policy. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The official name has been announced as "1 October" - the digit 1, not the word 1. I have accordingly submitted an official move request for this. CycloneGU (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting (Bump Stock added to lede)

On October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and another 527 injured when 64-year-old Stephen Paddock fired on the crowd attending the closing performance of the Route 91 Harvest music festival. Between approximately 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT, he fired thousands of rounds from two windows in his 32nd-floor suite at the nearby Mandalay Bay resort and casino on the Las Vegas Strip in the U.S. state of Nevada. About an hour after firing ceased, Paddock, whose motive remains unknown, was found dead in the suite, with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The incident is the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.[2][3] It reignited the debate about gun laws in the U.S., and accessibility of bump stocks, a modification which allows a semi-automatic weapon to fire at a rate similar to that of an automatic weapon.[4] VincentRO (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)VincentRO

I take it your purpose here is to suggest adding a sentence about the bump stock issue to the lede? --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this change as it was implemented. This is likely to be a lasting debate and certainly deserves mention. I modified the section header a bit so anyone else who may want to discuss can find it without ctrl+F. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Shooter" v. "Gunman" -- Consistency desired?

Both are intertwined in the article. Replace one with the other?Television fan (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2017

2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting → 1 October Shooting – Official name revealed at press conference CycloneGU (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I also want to be perfectly clear that the official name will be just "1 October", so treat this as you wish. "1 October" redirects to "October 1", hnce why I keep "shooting" in the request. CycloneGU (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any move at this time as a waste of time as there is still dust in the air and we will likely see another move request later. Objective3000 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The name is the official name given at the press conference. I would think, given that this will be the official name of the incident, we ought to match the official name given by the Clark County Commissioner himself. CycloneGU (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Why 1 October? We don't use DMY format in the United States, so that'll never be a common name. Master of Time (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

In reply to this, as it's a fair question: the official name of the incident has been announce to be "1 October". We can name the article as anything including this (such as "1 October (2017 Las Vegas shooting)"), but the important detail is that "1 October" is the official name and should be part of it. CycloneGU (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, CycloneGU. As you can see at the above section #Article title change, we will be having an RfC in a few days to decide on the title for this article. I will add "1 October" and "1 October shooting" to the list of names that have been suggested (this makes ten). I would like to ask you to withdraw this RM proposal as premature. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not think it premature, but if you think that's still the case I will have to accept your judgment on that. CycloneGU (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)