Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Victims list[edit]

A reminder that the accepted formulation is Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, not Wikipedia:Bold, revert, bold, discuss. Likewise Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus states that "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The status quo: there was not support for adding a victims list to the page per Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 12#Victims list, an RfC which ended less than two months ago. Edit warring is not helping here; please contribute to discussion here if needed, and remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith so that we can avoid page protection. Dekimasuよ! 21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear: there is support for including a list of the dead, but not yet consensus support. I note that articles on mass shootings at Texas tower, Luby's, San Ysidro, Columbine High, Aurora theater, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, San Bernardino, Umpqua College, Washington Navy Yard, Orlando night club, Newtown school and now, in Parkland, all include lists of the dead. Inexplicably (in my view), Sutherland Springs does not. There is no good reason not to include such an encyclopedic list with this article (and Sutherland). It will be longer than any of those other lists, but certainly not impractically so or even unwieldy. People often use the Other Stuff Exists argument in a debate like the one here, but I believe there is a case to be made for taking a consistent approach across Wikipedia on an issue like this. I recommend that watchers and editors of this article consider or reconsider their position, with an eye to supporting inclusion of the list of the dead. DonFB (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
My 2 cents: no victims list. It isn't adding anything of significant encyclopedic value and can be left to one of the citations. It has problems with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and also has WP:BLP issues for the victims' relatives.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
In November there was a sitewide RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 138 that found “consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis." Dekimasuよ! 07:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that some articles do have a list of victims, such as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, because some users insisted on having one despite the same objections being raised.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
In the case of each of the articles I named in my comment above, the various policies you cite were no impediment to inclusion of the list, a result I agree with, based on the meaning of the policies themselves, and as seen in the extreme minority status of such articles without the list (two out of 20 in Mass shootings in the United States). DonFB (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's be clear: there is support for not including a list of the dead. I think that before any "new" editors come into this discussion they have a good read through the previous debate on a victims list, as many of the comments that are bound to be brought up here were addressed there, and are still valid: Archived Victims list discussion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Current events bring to mind an important point. One of the main arguments in previous discussions is the BLP-related idea that loved ones and relatives of the dead may suffer additional distress if names of the dead are shown in Wikipedia. I think it is very hard to defend that argument in view of public observances--seen most recenty in Parkland, Fla.--in which names of the dead are read aloud, and later, permanently inscribed in some type of memorial. This was the case for the Las Vegas shooting, and, I believe, for other mass shootings that happened in public places in the U.S. Inclusion of basic identifying information in Wikipedia (names and ages, typically) is not a "memorial", however; it is simply encyclopedic coverage of an essential part of the story. As Wikipedia increasingly becomes the de facto source of record for human knowledge, it should seek to include such information, not run away from the responsibility for doing so. DonFB (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Why is the age of a victim "an essential part of the story"? What relevance does that have? Indeed why is the name of a victim "an essential part of the story"? How does that improve the article? Once again, I resort to WP:OTHERSTUFF, and point out that often the argument for including victim lists hinges on the fact that other articles do - and the only defence for the other articles containing the list seems to be that other articles contain the list. This is a circular argument - "We should do 'a' because 'b' does it. 'b' does it because 'c' does it. 'c' does it because 'a' does it. Therefore 'd' should also do it. No - it doesn't work like that, you have to give valid arguments as to why inclusion is warranted. This was all covered in the previous discussion - that I linked to above, and requested editors read through before commenting with the same arguments again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I also linked it, FWIW, in the first post of the section. Here's hoping we can avoid too much circular discussion. Dekimasuよ! 02:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
There needs to be a clear reason why all of the the names are included. Is significant context gained by doing this? No. There is a good article on CBS News here with details about all of the victims, but it is beyond the scope of the article and would make a useful citation or external link.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Who, what, when, where, why (and how)? These are the basic questions to be answered in journalistic writing, with which Wikipedia shares much in common, even though it is Not A Newspaper. In an event like this one, questions that help generate an encyclopedic--i.e.: comprehensive--article include: who was the perpetrator and who were the victims? DonFB (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Except that the victims weren't actually this list of particular individuals, they were random people at a concert. If the shooter had tracked down particular people and killed them, or even had randomly selected people from a large group and then separated them from the group to kill them, the names of the individuals would be relevant. Just being the person who was unlucky enough to be in the path of a randomly fired bullet does not make the names of these people relevant. --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
They are no less relevant than anywhere else they appear. Inclusion here is encyclopedic. I would support use of a box at the end of the Casualties section. The site is currently included in External Links, but should be made more prominent:
DonFB (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree to inclusion, the victim names are encyclopedic and WP:MEMORIAL only applies to article subjects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Then causality toll was later revised, as the majority of the nearly 500 injuries were largely minor. "Police also said 317 of the 489 people injured in the Las Vegas shooting had been discharged from hospitals. The number of people injured in the massacre has been revised down from an earlier count of more than 500." This reduces the severely injured down to about 172 people. I think it's worth mentioning that the majority of injuries were relativley minor, an not nearly 800 as mentioned in the current article.
Situation is not that clear. On Oct 5, a few days after the shooting, this source ("ABC" -- Australian Broadcasting Corporation) reported the injury count was revised to below 500 and that 317 of 489 injured were released from hospitals. Months later, on Jan 19, another source (lasvegassun.com) reported that Sheriff Lombardo had just revised the injury count upward, to 851. In any case, Wikipedia would need a reliable source to back up a statement that "the majority of injuries were relatively minor," as you suggested. We, as editors, should not make and publish that conclusion without explicit sourcing for it. We would violate policy against synthesis if we made such a statement based only on our own arithmetic. DonFB (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/las-vegas-shooting-1.4354036 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shoooting-planning/las-vegas-shooter-spent-decades-acquiring-weapons-lived-secret-life-police-idUSKBN1CA00X https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2017-10-04/las-vegas-shooter-spent-decades-acquiring-weapons-lived-secret-life-police Johnsmithsz82 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Internet vs. internet. To capitalize or not to capitalize.[edit]

There is considerable debate and difference of opinion concerning when and when not to capitalize use of the word "Internet." As far as I know, the global INTERNET is a proper noun that is ALWAYS capitalized. The word "Internet" is erroneously misspelled with a small "i" hundreds of thousands of times. If the word is spelled "internet" in a printed article or Internet story, it is probably spelled incorrectly.

In this particular article, the following phrase appears: "His internet search terms from mid-September.........." The article uses a small "i" in the spelling, which is wrong. Any reference to the global Internet has to be capitalized. A reference to a LOCAL internet network is not capitalized. Anthony22 (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There is an entire Wikipedia article Capitalization of "Internet" and an Oxford Dictionary article here. The purists seem to prefer a capital I, but lower case i is also acceptable for many people. As a result, neither is outright incorrect.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Language changes, whether one likes it or not. Since ianacm's oxforddictionaries.com article was released, the Chicago Manual of Style has also changed to using the lowercase form([2][3]). Another example where linguistic prescription doesn't reflect real-world usage is this. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Vegas Shooting Map[edit]

Greetings,

I, with a small team of researchers, am creating a Google map with key videos and information from the 2017 Las Vegas Mass Shooting. The map can be accessed by visiting www.vegasshootingmap.com. I wonder if this map might be appropriate to add to this wikipedia page? I'm relatively new to editing wikipedia and don't want to just edit the page without asking for assistance first. Any help is much appreciated.

If the map is added, I'm happy to link it back to this wikipedia page for others to reference.

Thanks,

Weg Oag Nostradanymous (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid that detailed a map would be considered original research/synthesis which we don't allow. It would need to be published in a reliable source. See WP:OR. O3000 (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
If it contains material from Google Maps, it would be copyrighted and unsuitable for Wikipedia per WP:NFCC; the maps say "Map data ©2018 Google". I'm also concerned about the WP:OR element, as it is best to stick to what reliable news sources have said.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Bodycam video[edit]

LVMPD has released bodycam video of the police operation inside the hotel.[4] It doesn't add much new in terms of explaining what happened, but might be worth adding to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

High Incident Project[edit]

This should be included:

No. The "prediction" was very vague, got the date wrong, predicted only that "something" was going to happen in the Las Vegas area on 9/11. More importantly for our purposes, no mainstream sources are reporting this, and without independent reliable sourcing we don't put things into our articles. . --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, as the Snopes article points out, it is a regular sport on 4chan to make vague predictions and then claim afterwards that they were a prediction of an actual event.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2018[edit]

DO NOT MOVE:
Closing my own proposal as there is strong consensus against it. Funplussmart (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2017 Las Vegas shooting1 October shooting – "1 October" seems to be the more popular name for the subject, especially for those in the Las Vegas area. The official investigation is named "1 October" as well. I tried to move the page myself, but someone reverted it, and asked me to discuss it first. Funplussmart (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed and snow closed. Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_shooting/Archive_5#Requested_move_6_October_2017. Please remove this request. O3000 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Should we at least state in the opening paragraph that the incident is also known as the 1 October shooting? Funplussmart (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the text under "Investigation". --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Better discussion: Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_shooting/Archive_9#Article_title:_Preliminary_survey. IIRC, this "official" name is not really official. It was an attempt by the Chamber of Commerce to get Las Vegas out of the name to avoid an impact on tourism. O3000 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This name has virtually no usage outside of Las Vegas. We can leave the discussion open for a bit since consensus can change, but the suggestion has found no support in the past and seems to violate our policy of using the "common name" rather than the "official name" for article titles. BTW 1 October shooting already exists as a redirect; that is all it deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
That redirect is actually left over from when my move was reverted. Funplussmart (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The fact that it didn't exist until yesterday is strong indication that few people have been looking for this page under that title. Otherwise, someone would have created the redirect by now. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we can close this again under WP:SNOW. I don't like the article's current name, but it seems to be the most appropriate title that we can think of. We should keep 1 October shooting as a redirect though. Funplussmart (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Funplussmart: I made it into a disambiguation page as there are at least 3 other shootings that occurred on October 1st that have articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - So you are saying that this is the only shooting to ever happen on October 1st? What about the Umpqua Community College shooting that also occurred on October 1st? This title is way too vague and should not be an article title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Folks I know in LV don’t even call it that; and it’s pretty much meaningless elsewhere. And, I hate to say this, but I’m not optimistic that there won’t be additional mass shootings on that day. O3000 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

58 vs. 59 killed[edit]

Once again, the number killed has been changed. There was a discussion about the infobox content here. Consensus has been 59 for some time. The cite points to a list of 59 names. 59 were killed. O3000 (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Then the wording of the lede needs to be changed; 59 people weren't killed when the perpetrator opened fire on the crowd, as the previous version said - when a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, leaving 59 people dead and 851 injured. 58 people were killed when he opened fire on the crowd, and then he killed himself, which brought the total death toll to 59. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
It's our old friend "59 including the perpetrator". I'm happy with this wording and thought that it had a consensus. See also Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_shooting/Archive_11#Including/_excluding_the_perpetrator_again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
We're not talking about the infobox wording, which I have no problem with. The wording of the lede doesn't properly distinguish that 58 people were killed when the perpetrator opened fire on the crowd. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The lead is slightly different. I agree that Paddock killed 58 people in the arena and then himself.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
No, he did not kill 58 and then himself as your edit summary states. He died before many if not most of the victims. The simple fact is that 59 were killed, which is why the consensus is 59. O3000 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

We really should aim for consistency, within the article and with related articles that mention the same incident like Mass shootings in the United States. Change the text to match the infobox text if you wish. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

We're getting a bit technical here. Paddock shot and killed 58 people in the arena. It's possible that some of them died in hospital later, but they were all shot before Paddock killed himself.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, 28 died at hospitals. 429 of the injured were not shot. I don’t think all were shot In the arena itself. I think it looks sloppy to use different numbers in different places. Change the text to be consistent, not the numbers to be inconsistent. ~!O3000 (talk)
For the purposes of the WP:LEAD, saying that Paddock shot and killed 58 people is enough. Going into greater detail about the deaths and injuries is for later on in the article. It is somewhat misleading to say that 851 people were injured by Paddock when not all of these were gunshot wounds.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The only problem is that it's wrong. "Leaving 58 people dead" is simply wrong. 59 people were dead. Some will say that Paddock was a victim of his own demons or he was a demon or any number of other rationals for his actions. Not up to us to say. All we do is say what RS say. They say 59 people died. We report what RS say. We do not say that he was a bad person so "fuck him" (as was stated in the edit summary), we will subtract him from the death toll. Just the facts ma'am. O3000 (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I tried to address this objection with this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. But, it’s still incorrect. People don’t die the instant they are shot. And, it’s confusing, contradictory, and inconsistent with other text and other articles on the same subject. The fought over consensus text was correct. Why change it? We aren’t here to WP:RGW. We dispassionately report facts as per RS. O3000 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
"The consensus text" you demand said 58. The prior stable revision was this one, which said The 2017 Las Vegas shooting was a mass shooting on the night of October 1, 2017, when a gunman opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, leaving 58 people dead and 851 injured. Then a change was made, without discussion, to 59, which is what I initially reverted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, let's fix it. The coroner disagrees according to RS. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The primary source (the coroner) says 59. The secondary sources say 59. The edit summary changing it to 58 said “fuck him”. We do not evaluate lives. Otherwise, we would have to evaluate each of the 59 lives to determine which are worthy enough for consideration. Thankfully, our job is much simpler. We don’t make our own evaluations. We don’t color language to apply our own concepts of right and wrong to individuals. We don’t say “fuck you”. We just use RS. If we can do this (and we do) in the article about Hitler, we can do it here. Can we come to a consensus here, as I hate starting RfCs. O3000 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is a summary. The TL;DR is that Paddock killed 58 people in a mass shooting. Exactly when all of the victims died, eg in hospital later, is too much detail for the lead section. Although this was a murder–suicide as with many mass shootings, it is misleading to say that Paddock killed 59 people or left 59 people dead, and this wording is likely to give a casual reader the wrong impression.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • For a comparison, I had a look at Virginia Tech shooting. This uses wording in the WP:LEAD broadly similar to the current wording here. Cho died in the incident (no doubt the coroner agreed on this) but it doesn't make the death toll in the shooting 33.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


Las Vegas Review-Journal Videos[edit]

Zeryphex (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Zeryphex (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Zeryphex (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

These are bodycam coverage of the immediate aftermath of the shooting taken by the emergency services. They don't add all that much that is new.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Instead of leaving a comment on the aftermath, you could just add links of bodycam coverage during the shooting. I already added three links. How about the other 324 million of you Americans contribute something productive/constructive? Zeryphex (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how these improve the article. And watch the snarky comments. O3000 (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not American:) WP:EL says that "Some external links are welcome (see § What can normally be linked), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." After looking at these videos, I couldn't see anything that added greatly to a reader's understanding.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I added a fourth video which includes in-progress shooting (instead of the aftermath you are criticizing me about). Are you 500+ million worldwide English-speakers going to contribute something productive/constructive? or continue attacking me Zeryphex (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The only one attacking anyone in this thread is you. Please comment on content, not editors. We simply do not see how such videos add to the article. It is up to you to gain consensus for inclusion. And, that process is not aided by snarky comments. O3000 (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)