Jump to content

Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Double, double, double sections

[edit]
Resolved

Omg, people are actually deleting, editing and doing other stuff, violating the WP policies. Stop it, just stop it. And now we have what!? Double and three double sections with the same content!? I'm talking about the talk section--Albin Schmitt (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, someone has corrected it. Thank you <3 --Albin Schmitt (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect's Motivation Found

[edit]
Fake news; not helpful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can this be added to the article:

"The Las Vegas shooter didn’t commit suicide as the mainstream media is reporting, but was killed by a FBI hostage rescue team who also found Antifa literature in his hotel room, according to a source linked to the team. The FBI team took the suspect out after he opened fired on them, according to the source, and afterwards the team found photos taken in the Middle East of a woman linked to the suspect, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock."

To reflect the suspect as a radical communist/antifa/anti-Trumper

https://www.infowars.com/fbi-source-vegas-shooter-found-with-antifa-literature-photos-taken-in-middle-east/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.212.151 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Infowars? Fake news website. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More credible than MSM. You can't just call any news source you disagree with as Fake News. 207.161.212.151 (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Riiight. I'll go ahead and archive this section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're an administrator, you have no right to destroy other people's talk sections. 207.161.212.151 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but fine, I'll just let this section archive itself w/i 2 days, or let someone else deal. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was a very intelligent comment you made, "You don't know what you're talking about".. Mature, and definitely defeats all opposition. Goodbye. 207.161.212.151 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bye. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at his picture, he is clearly in the midst of a Islamic fugue state. 24.228.225.97 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Not a reliable source. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fake news website. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I disregarded the source after I took a look and saw an article about how the government is mutating humans. (no joke) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2017

[edit]

I want to provide more deatail about the gunmans life. E.g- a former auditor, has a pilots license. 199.188.45.21 (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_Strip_shooting#Article_on_the_.28suspected.29_perpetrator. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2017

[edit]

In the lead, change "festival in Paradise, Nevada" to Festival in the Las Vegas Strip, Paradise, Nevada.

Practically no-one has heard of Paradise, Nevada or cares that it's not technically part of LV. Also since "Strip" is part of the title it should be echoed in the lead ASAP. ItWeren'tMe (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's an encyclopedia. They'll learn something. Objective3000 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The Mandalay Bay resort is in Paradise, Nevada, if you can reference the concert grounds to be located elsewhere ? - FlightTime (open channel) 15:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done - Modified somewhat - made Las Vegas Strip the primary reference, with Paradise in the second sentence for specificity. The important point, in service to the reader, is to place this in the most common and accessible way. The role of the lead is not to give a pedantic geography lesson on the administrative details of Nevada unincorporated areas. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good compromise. Objective3000 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archive?

[edit]
Resolved

Since this article was moved, should Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting/Archive 1 be moved, too? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly, asap. --85.179.83.215 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, to follow title. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll mark this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are now two "User:MiszaBot/config" templates at the top of this page. Not sure if this should be addressed, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible image

[edit]

thumb This image shows the Mandalay from the south with the Luxor pyramid to the north of it, and I believe the parking lot is to the upper right. Obviously cropping is necessary.

Btw, the exact location of the festival seems to be 3901 South Las Vegas Blvd [1] ItWeren'tMe (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I have a feeling more media will be uploaded in the near future, so we'll have more options to choose from. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|better image (suggested by Andy Mabbett)

Here's a better image. Can someone add a caption describing where the concert was held? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a crop of this image over the first one mentioned above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let someone who knows the area do the crop. If BBC news is to be believed, the concert was held behind the hotel (as seen in this view) to the right of the larger black pyramid. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tagesschau points the concert location there: [2]. --85.179.83.215 (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Based on that, and the coordinates in the article, I've cropped the image, amended the caption, and added a second image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now wondering if there are too many images. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Image needed" banner?

[edit]
Resolved

This article currently has 3 images and a map. Do we still need the banner on this talk page requesting additional photos? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I'll mark this subsection as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Motive - His 2 year lawsuit against Las Vegas Casino was Dismissed with Prejudice...

[edit]
wild speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Possible motive is in retaliation for his Lawsuit against a Las Vegas Casino being dismissed with Prejudice...

The Casino he sued (The Cosmopolitan) was 1 mile from the site where he did the shooting from (Mandalay Bay). It could be that he is banned from the Cosmopolitan after the suit against them.

He may also have had large gambling debts and blamed Las Vegas for "ruining him" (note: debts not confirmed yet).

Maybe he was trying to hurt Las Vegas's economy as a whole or this was the closest venue to the Cosmopolitan with lots of people to target.

Sources:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11928892

Casino sued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitan_of_Las_Vegas

Shooting Location: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandalay_Bay

Distance Calculation: here

Nodozen (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodozen (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's too early to say what the motive was, although this is interesting. If he didn't leave behind any documents or videos explaining why he did it, we may never know exactly why. This was also a problem with the University of Texas tower shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting at least as part of his biography. It at least ties into his gambling, and might hint at money problems. Not sure if it's a motive though. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it isn't definitive proof or anything but only 1 mile away is really close and a 2 year lawsuit can be very costly. I would at least update the article to denote that he had a 2 year lawsuit (that was Dismissed with Prejudice) with the Cosmopolitan Casino which is only 1 mile away... Nodozen (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandalay resort liablity for not cutting off a gambling addict not issue of gun control

[edit]
NOTFORUM. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Mandalay resort liablity for not cutting off a gambling addict not issue of gun control. I see all over that politicals are making gun control the topic on this. If I go into a bar and drink to a stupor - then get behind the wheel and kill a family of four - the bar is liable for not cutting me off - isn't there a similar law in Vegas for obvious gamblers who have lost to excess and are not cut off?--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:F4A0:C59D:9AC4:A409 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much irrelevant until we know more. No doubt this will reignite the debate over gun control, but as for the gambling angle we just don't know if this was a factor. Likewise, the claim that it was linked to the lawsuit dropped in 2014 is also speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the 24 hour( military clock) being used instead of the 12 hour clock?

[edit]

Why is the 24 hour( military clock) being used instead of the 12 hour clock like it is in other mass shooting articles?MitchellLunger (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's been fixed. Let us know if you spot any more instances. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article was linked from List of terrorist incidents in October 2017 but I've removed its entry there until the motive is known (it should possibly appear instead in List of rampage killers, etc) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Removing the edit that says that "Islam" is the motive. Barring the fact that wahhabi jihadism isn't indicative of "all Islam" generally, the motive of the shooter(s) is currently unknown, if a single motive exists at all. 70.31.82.231 (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was added by an anonymous user and has since been removed. Master of Time (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Last thing anyone needs right now is certain elements trying to spin the story before the facts are actually in. 70.31.82.231 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be locked in order to prevent further vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.6.10.154 (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Head to WP:RPP if needed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these details are false. Shishkabobbie (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include the name of the suspect until at the very end. It has not been confirmed who the culprit was - there is only some rumours.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting - How

[edit]

The article is missing some information right now, which is ok, since it is "current news" and not so much is known. But ... 20 dead? 100 injured? A single person? Well, visitors will ask HOW this happened. How could this happen, what weapon(s) were used? 2A02:8388:1603:CB00:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't know any of that. Police, if they know, haven't released the information yet. ansh666 10:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have information, include them. But afaik we don't know it yet.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About the only thing we know with confidence right now is that the shooter used a very large number of rounds. Some sources say "hundreds of rounds" (e.g. [3]). As far as I can tell "hundreds" is currently based on eyewitness accounts and people listening to the various cell phone recordings, rather than anything the police have specifically confirmed. Dragons flight (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was the Route 91 Harvest Country Music Festival, locations and dates match (source: [4]). No one I found seems to be reporting that. (Drakonian Imperium (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Lots of people reporting that. It's in our article, even. ansh666 10:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't when I first loaded the page. Appeared, while I was typing it. (Drakonian Imperium (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

MSNBC livestream reporting all details FYI

[edit]

I'm still unable to edit, but if people are actively updating, here's a good MSNBC livestream reporting all the confirmed updated facts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_HTCLhEJGo also thanks to Lugnuts for finally updating the info about the shooter's name as confirmed by the sheriff. Cheesy poof (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the shooter's name. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my bad - thanks Somedifferentstuff for finally adding that - was strange people kept deleting it. Cheesy poof (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the edit history, you will see that it was I who added the shooter's name and attached citation.
...I thought.–Vami_IV✠ 11:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that person just made the edit in the content that stayed, many people added it and it kept getting deleted Cheesy poof (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MSNBC and "good" don't belong in the same sentence. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Known to police, or not?

[edit]

Right now wikipedia article says about the identified suspect:

was known to local police for previous run-ins with law enforcement

Media seem to disagree on this - perhaps because info from authorities develop; e.g.:

“All of the checks that we have been able to do other than a routine traffic violation here in Nevada and nationwide working with our local FBI partners have been able to find no derogatory history on that individual,” undersheriff Kevin McMahill said. [5]

--Nø (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the original media line was that he had been previously known to one or more of the local PDs. But currently all big media outlets are not reporting this. Important to note that this sort of information could be under gag-order so there may simply be "no comment" or no info on this moving forward until the investigation is complete. Cheesy poof (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, if you give police your ID during a traffic stop, they know who you are. But "known to police" has a different connotation, best applied to career criminals. It's almost like lying. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two major news sources indicating he was previously known to local PD (but note that other sources say he was not) A) Fox News [6] and B) NBC News [7] Cheesy poof (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Known to local authorities" is almost like "known to local police", but there are several authorities in even a small town. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political Context

[edit]

The political context section seems to provide no politcal context of the attacker but just talks about Nevada gun law. It seems that the only purpose of bringing it up is to claim that the lack of tighter gun laws allowed this attack to happen. No evidence is made to support that, and what details are present (multiple guns, lone attacker, secluded area) would imply that the large capacity magazines and open carry laws did not play a role in the number of fatalities. I think that this section should be either removed or edited to actually provide some politcal context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke411 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed it to "Gun laws". Legal issues, like any issues, can be politicized, but they are what they are at their core. The relevance to this event should still be clearer (if relevance exists). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait before creating

[edit]

Could we not wait before creating an article untill there is more certainty? Now the death rate has to be constantly adjusted. Wikinews is more suitable for breaking news. --Livenws (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that no-one reads Wikinews! They don't even have a story yet. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews has never been an alternative to NOT editing the article on Wikipedia, and I wish people would stop recommending it as for that. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone nominates this article for deletion, they should be blocked from Wikipedia until they can assure this community they won't make such disruptive and unhelpful edits in the future. Juneau Mike (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about no? This is Wikipedia. We are working with reliable sources. And yes, information can be outdated quickly. But there are many editors on such a subject - and as you observed correctly, the death toll and other information is updated as fast as reliable sources are squirting them out. So I don't see any reason to wait. It's an online encyclopedia which grows as the information grows.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Rightly or wrongly, we don't wait x days/weeks/months before creating something like this, we build it up from a one-line stub, to an article people want to read about right now. If you (the OP) think there are errors, then please correct them with reliable sourcing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump straw vote concerning articles like this

[edit]

A straw poll is underway at the Village Pump concerning articles like this, and whether the policy relating to "breaking news" articles should be changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Straw_poll_on_the_current_view_of_WP:NOT.23NEWS Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

[edit]

Do we know yet what governmental, civic, and religious leaders (aside from the Governor and President Trump) from the U.S. and other continents, nations, and supra-national bodies have said or are saying regarding this incident, which I understand to be the largest-ever (mass) shooting and a very significant event, at least in terms of fatalities and injuries, ever in the United States, with at least 50 dead and perhaps about 200-400 wounded to some extent? 98.215.153.31 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete other peoples discussion topics

[edit]

It's against Wikipedia policy to edit or delete comments on the Wikipedia discussion page. If you disagree with the topic (like including the name of the perpetrator), deleting the comment or the comment section is NOT OKAY. You can leave your argument below the comment instead.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy, e.g. WP:BLP, requires that unsourced or poorly sourced material that is potentially libelous towards an identified living (or recently deceased) person should be removed regardless of where it occurs. Saying someone is a mass murderer without clear sourcing from law enforcement falls in that category. Dragons flight (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is confirmed to be the suspect by police officials. Secondly, the article you are referring to is ONLY talking about the article (where I could understand a remove) but NOT the discussion page. HERE is the site where we discuss article issues - and if or if not we should include the name of the culprit. And 3rd: calling an Israeli mass media and The Guardian bad news sources is more than questionable.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now he has been confirmed, but that was not the case when his name was first being added. Also, read the policy more carefully. Removal of problematic content applies "anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Dragons flight (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dragons flight: This deletion [8] appears altogether wrong. Schmitt didn't even have the name in the thread! (Though to be clear, I would still defend his position in regard to BLP policy if he had) The posted discussion topic merely introduced a source about an article. If we can't do that then we should all just Go Home Shut Up And Let The MASSA Tell Us What Is Right. Wnt (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I didn't actually do any of the deletions myself. In replying to Albin I probably conflated his edits with the unsourced edits naming the shooter (prior to any official police announcement) that were also removed around the same time. Dragons flight (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Witness report: "You are all going to die tonight"

[edit]

Interesting witness report on NBC 3 Live, witness indicated a lady pushed her way to the front and started getting into a scuffle with another lady, and the pushy lady started yelling "you are all going to die tonight" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0nby7zJSTw (clip of NBC 3 Live report) Cheesy poof (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC) ***Also if someone can download this clip and/or post it to liveleaks or something as the interview has not been re-aired by the other news agencies and it may be pulled from youtube. This was possibly the companion woman Cheesy poof (talk)[reply]

 Not done - While possibly interesting, we would need to see more confirmation from a secondary source than this before adding it to the article. In breaking news events, a lot of anecdotal eyewitness accounts come out that never amount to anything. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Mail reported it too. But DM is no longer RS on Wikipedia. Sokuya (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - just wanted to call attention to this, because it is very interesting and I would think NBC is credible. Also if you watch the clip it is quite clear the woman speaking is deeply shaken by even recalling this eerie threat / forewarning. Also, wanted to add, here is a second part of the interview in which the witness describes the lady in question as "Latino" but IMO this could have been confused for a Philipino as I believe the companion Marilou Danley is here is the video: https://twitter.com/RyanMcKinnell/status/914756402144460800 Cheesy poof (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there was a warning about 45 minutes before the shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.100.176 (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sources are above in this section ^^^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesy poof (talk • contribs) 12:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might be unconnected, even if true. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed interesting, but we should be careful to make sure that enough reliable sources connect it that we're not hanging out in the breeze with the Daily Mail. There are multiple possible interpretations -- certainly precognition seems like a possibility to me -- but we'll have to see what we can back up. But if it was precognition she couldn't have stopped it; she wouldn't have remembered it if it weren't going to happen. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be more sources, but saying there isn't a likely connection is a bit ...... I mean the woman matches the description of the known companion (short, "latino" could be mistaking a Philipina person for Latino) and the person literally was telling people at the concert they were all going to die that night 45 minutes prior to a mass shooting, hmmm unconnected, or hmmm more likely to be a precog?. Also it is an interview on NBC if that counts for anything. I actually think there may be a gag order on replaying that video on major news sites due to ongoing investigation and that companion woman (Marilou Danley) has been located and is part of the investigation. If you notice the major news sites are very quick to post other interviews and smartphone shot video documents from the night. Cheesy poof (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing - banning a news station from playing video it found on social media - sounds extremely un-American and un-constitutional to me. I am going to hope that this is and remains impossible. Wnt (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to deal in conspiracy theories. Lots of immediate "man on the street" interviews are captured in breaking news events like this and not all of them merit re-airing or being treated as credible. A live interview on NBC does not mean that NBC has put its weight behind the accuracy or truthfulness of the interviewee, so it doesn't really pass the test of NBC acting as a secondary source - they are simply the signal carrier of the primary source. To incorporate this, you'd need the actual editorial operation to repeat it, qualify it or put it into copy. If that happens, then we can revisit. -- Fuzheado | Talk 9:57 am, Today (UTC−4)
KSNV is not owned or operated by NBC. It’s a local station affiliate of NBC. Objective3000 (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what little is known, that could have been a personal threat by someone not connected to the shooter. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions section

[edit]

Should we make the "Reactions" section yet? Donald Trump had written his condolence on Twitter. -- Heydari (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is anything like other articles about mass shootings, there will soon be a ballooning list of "X said Y" accompanied by flags that look like a Christmas tree. Let's try to avoid that this time. A small but notable list of reactions is OK, but not by every country in the United Nations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK understood. Wait until there are fair number of (non-US or US) official governments' commentaries/statements? -- Heydari (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting was spun off into a separate article because it is way too long and has WP:TOPIC issues. Some reactions to the Las Vegas shooting, such as Donald Trump's and other Nevada officials, are obviously notable, but long lists of condolences are not necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
President, governor, mayor and sheriff are relevant. If we find he worked for a group, that group's leader should get a word in. Everyone else is pointless, so long as they're just talking about this, no matter how many news outlets repeat their words. Piggybacking on Trump's notability by reacting to his reactions also doesn't count. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the reaction from British Columbia Premier John Horgan has been added, because one of his countrymen was killed. Is this worthy enough to keep? GoingBatty (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande is mentioned in the current Reactions section. Worth keeping? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This content has been removed .---Another Believer (Talk) 21:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there doubt over which Stephen Paddock, residency, or something else?

[edit]

I put in a reference where PBS said that a statement that Steve Paddock was a local resident was being "walked back" [9]. I have no idea what that means. From internet forums I was led to a Whitepages listing [10] that puts a Steven Paddock and a Marilou Danley at an address 80 miles from Las Vegas in Mesquite, Nevada, the town our text currently gives. Is there simply argument over whether that is "local", or is Paddock not truly a resident there, or ... well, I have no idea but keep an eye on this. Wnt (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe his residency of Mesquite is confirmed. There seems to be a debate about his past criminal record and whether or not he was already known to local, state or federal officials (initially there were reports that he was known to one or more of the local PDs but now it seems they are saying he was not. I believe it's also important to note that there are likely gag-orders and such for the media for some of this. Cheesy poof (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: It's Stephen, not Steven: Draft:Stephen Paddock, Stephen Craig Paddock. (Fixed the heading to avoid trouble. --85.179.83.215 (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That draft is a worthy effort - in particular, the description of Paddock as a multimillionaire, pending verification, needs to go here. Anyone who has watched Sons of Guns should appreciate that no gun control restrictions apply to the genuinely wealthy, who can simply arrange a permit for ... anything, up to and including tanks and cannons. So this changes the political dynamic overall going forward. Keep up the good work! Wnt (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should not draw conclusions based on speculations

[edit]

Someone added the ISIS claim again. Till this day no ISIS Perpetrator have committed suicide after carrying a mass shooting, like last year's Orlando attack when law enforcers had to kill the ISIS guy to stop him. But this guy is more similar to the typical mentally ill mass shooters like the Sandy Hook's School shooter in 2012. Regardless I am not trying to say that this was not an ISIS attack, but there is no valid confirmation yet and all the sources provided so far have been based on the Amaq claim, the person who added it posted the same news from different website based on that claim as his/her sources and he/she should be invited to the talk page to discuss the matter before adding this. A lot of web sites also claimed he was mentally ill or it was based on his political views, but we can't add these either because there is no valid confirmation about that either. Recently most Amaq claims have been false and they are just trying to use these claims to keep ISIS relevant. If ISIS involvement is definitely proven, it should indeed be included. There is no evidence other than Amaq claim that the perpetrator had accepted Islam either. But till now it is yet to be confirmed. I think we should wait for more information about the perpetrator before coming to such conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengoman2017 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think that the ISIS claim should be in the article per WP:NOTNEWS, as it is yet more BS designed to drum up publicity. It should be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. It has been removed multiple times already because it is controversial and disputed but it keeps being inserted in the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, just like gun stocks that keeps getting re-added. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really the same thing. It is disputed by law enforcement that this had anything to do with international terrorism. I don't know of one source that disputes that gun stocks have risen shortly after this tragedy, in fact more and more mainstream sources corroborate this.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we'd stick to what is actually said by whom, there'd be little controversy. But we keep deleting the plain fact that Amaq said what it always does and readding the oversimple hook of ISIS itself claiming unqualified "responsibility". That's not cool. ISIS has magazines, radio and a Telegram channel of its own if it wants to say things. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS's reaction needs to be in the article all International media have carried this claim BBC and along them considered it worthy to be there in there articles.Please note we have added that they have offered no evidence along with the reaction.We are not making a claim that they carried out this attack only putting there reaction Restore as per WP:NOTCENSORED .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with inclusion. We are not saying ISIS did it, but that they claimed they did it. Reporting about an opinion is still a fact. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're not saying they claimed they did it. We're saying (or were saying) Amaq says the guy decided to do it himself after hearing Adnani's call from three years ago. That's the boring truth, and it's fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion in one section. See ISIS above. Objective3000 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest

[edit]

I object to this edit. If we say what this crime was deadlier than, why not also say what it was less deadly than? Like this:

This crime was not as deadly as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 (168 fatalities), the November 2015 Paris attacks (130 fatalities), and the 2011 Norway attacks (77 fatalities).[1]

References

  1. ^ Hinnant, Lori; Juozapavicius, Justin (October 2, 2017). "Terrorism, race, religion: Defining the Las Vegas shooting". ABC News. Associated Press.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can say it was the second most deadly on American soil after OKC, but foreign events are irrelevant Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source says foreign events are relevant, and this is a global encyclopedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should we include every event of the Syrian Civil War, Iraqi conflict, Afghan conflict, Somali conflict that claimed more lives? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, then we’d have to include all the slaughters during the American Civil War, plus Pearl Harbor, etc. And where is your reliable source comparing Vegas to Somalia? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison was about whether we call an incident "terrorism" depending on the race of the perpetrator, using as case studies a white man in Vegas, a white man in OKC, a white man in Oslo and non-white people in Paris. Nothing more than that Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[11] as a SHOOTING in peacetime, it is the second most after Utoya. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The shooting is the deadliest in the united states[1]. Oklahoma city bombing was not a shooting, Paris attacks and 2011 Norway attacks were larger but were foreign attacks

Specifically, it was a mass shooting by a single person in the USA with modern weapons. People sometimes say "What about the Wounded Knee Massacre?" but this isn't comparing like with like either.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - If you look at other articles of this type, you will note this is not the norm or custom. Usually one will compare like with like. A shooting vs bombing or inside the US vs outside the US is typically not done unless there is a significant reason. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to break from this practice so far. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The user demonstrates good faith, but the ABC source he links is commentary about the definition of terror in regards to race of perpetrator, rather than a whole list of more deadly attacks Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2017; fire alarm

[edit]

Police were "helped" finding the room due to a fire alarm activated by the guns' smoke. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/02/a-fire-alarm-from-gun-smoke-led-police-to-the-las-vegas-shooters-room-retired-officer-says/ (Better wording appreciated) --85.179.83.215 (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That's just speculation - police (even unnamed law enforcement sources) couldn't or wouldn't confirm it. Will gladly add it in if it's officially announced. ansh666 19:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, please read the linked WaPo article, citing police and the sheriff’s office. It's not just speculations. Additional sources:

Shooter background

[edit]

The following links may be useful for a background section on the perpetrator...

"Thoughts and prayers"

[edit]

This comment is tangentially related to this event, but I went ahead and created a Wikipedia stub for the phrase "thoughts and prayers". There are sources mentioning this phrase in the context of the Las Vegas shooting. I invite page watchers to help expand, if interested. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, but linking it from a quote here is frowned upon. The guy who said it probably didn't mean to convey all the ideas in your article. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I wasn't planning to link "thoughts and prayers" anywhere in this article, or really any others. I was just inviting folks to contribute given the slight connection to this event. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, it was the other guy. Close timing is all. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cite the Daily Mail

[edit]

The Daily Mail is of an exploitative nature, and has been deemed by consensus to be an unreliable source. SeeWikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220 Llacb47 (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAILYMAIL -- GreenC 20:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include reactions of minor politicians or personal details of victims?

[edit]

This edit, while well intentioned, seems like it crosses outside of the scope of an encyclopedia. Also, generally speaking, should such details be included in articles? I would think not, though I'm not sure which specific policy would guide the decision. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has come about because the Canadian victims were among the first to be formally identified. It isn't going to be practical to name all of the victims and nationalities, and although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there are articles where the consensus was against naming all of the victims.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fake news on shootings

[edit]

It is being reported in mainstream news sources (i.e., Bloomberg, The Washington Post) that shortly following the shooting fake news surfaced in right-wing media and Facebook pages which identified the wrong person as the suspect and branded him a leftist and registered Democrat. Given Wikipedia's strong stance against fake news, I deemed it relevant to include in this article, but it was deleted by another editor with the claim that "I'm sure there were responses claiming it to be a white nationalist as well"; the editor offered no evidence to support this allegation. Should this information be included given the issue of fake news surrounding events like this?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it isn't relevant to the article, and is just an attempt to push a POV. The fact that the wrong person was blamed for the shooting seems particularly irrelevant to the actual shooting itself. We can't add every internet reaction to pages on significant events. Reaction sections aren't meant to be all encompassing. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can if the impact has a fallout, for now though lets hold back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is being reported by mainstream news sources, like Bloomberg, not left-wing blogs. Your accusation seems to fall flat.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is part of the story and could be included in an immediate reactions section, if done in the context of mood of the country at the time of incident, but will have to wait a few months or years. Until then, the best thing is document on the talk page for future editorial work. -- GreenC 21:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat similar images

[edit]

Do we need all 3 of these?

  • 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 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.
    The concert area, bottom right, lies opposite the Luxor Hotel "pyramid". The Mandalay Bay is partially visible, to the left.
  • 2011 annotated photograph looking east showing proximity of Mandalay Bay to concert site
    2011 annotated photograph looking east showing proximity of Mandalay Bay to concert site

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would stick to the first one. However, at some stage it would help if someone could photograph the scene as it is now, rather than dragging up file photos from Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also think three is too many, but the second one gives the clearest perspective and the third is clearly annotated, so I have no strong opinion about which should stay. Dekimasuよ! 21:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, the photo of Trump speaking doesn't seem to add much informational value to the article. Dekimasuよ! 21:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could see the Trump video being kept in an expanded "Reactions" section, but right now I'm mostly concerned about the 3 similar aforementioned photographs. Seems there is some agreement we don't need to keep all 3. Should we maybe create a subsection here with a poll asking which of the 3 images editors prefer to keep? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Always good to have clear consensus, but I had already boldly removed one of the three. Dekimasuよ! 21:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Alright, we're down to just the 1st image at this point. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video of President Trump's remarks

[edit]

Should we include File:President Trump Gives Remarks.webm in the "Aftermath" section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have a transcript in the footnote. Quicker to read the words than hear them. Visually, it's Donald Trump, nothing new. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video

[edit]
President Trump and The First Lady Lead a Moment of Silence

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Victorgrigas: I was waiting for you to share this, thanks! What about Trump's statement? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's there in the article. Victor Grigas (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Yes, sorry. Somehow this snuck in under my radar. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this file will end up being displayed in the article, but I made sure it's been categorized at Commons appropriately for easy future reference. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

[edit]

Wondering if we should create the following subcategories:

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many such articles are there? Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this is listed under "serial killer related articles, which is inappropriate. To our knowledge this guy has only murdered once with many fatalities in the same incident, which is a mass murder. A serial killer kills multiple times with a cooling off period between murders, and usually for a sexual or power motive. This guy doesn't fit the definition of a serial killer. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://thehill.com/homenews/353387-las-vegas-is-the-deadliest-mass-shooting-in-us-history-surpassing-death-toll-of
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_shooting/Archive_1&oldid=1084061767"